diff --git "a/CASEDATA-2.json" "b/CASEDATA-2.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/CASEDATA-2.json" @@ -0,0 +1,61349 @@ +[ + { + "Case No.": "1", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 212 = 1992 SLD 212 = 1992 PTD 1473 = (1990) 185 ITR 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "General Principles and Assessment Revisions\nConclusions:\n(a) General Principles:\nAn order passed under a statutory provision remains valid and enforceable until it is set aside by a competent authority. Such orders are binding on all parties unless overturned by the appropriate forum established under the same Act.\n(b) Assessment and Revision:\n•\nThe assessee filed an initial return in November 1974, declaring an income of Rs. 6,860, leading to an assessment order in December 1975.\n•\nA revised return filed in December 1975 showed enhanced income. The Income Tax Officer, without issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, passed a second assessment order in March 1976, assessing income at Rs. 17,097.\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax revised the second order under Section 263, which was challenged by the assessee and subsequently ruled non est (null and void) by the Tribunal.\n•\nUpon review, the court held:\n1.\nThe second assessment order was not null and void in an absolute sense and bound the parties unless set aside.\n2.\nThe second assessment order was prejudicial to revenue administration, making the Commissioner's revision valid.\nCitations/References:\n•\nAnisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147 (HL)\n•\nAntulay (A.R.) v. R.S. Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531\n•\nKiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.148 of 1980 (Reference No.116 of 1980), decision dated: 10-06-1991", + "Judge Name": "RATNAM AND ABDUL HADI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. A.K. Ramgopal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nA. SAMARAPURI CHETTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 213 = 1992 SLD 213 = 1992 PTD 1485 = (1992) 195 ITR 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business and Adventure in Trade\nConclusions:\nThe issue revolved around whether land sales by the assessee constituted a business adventure or investment. Using tests such as the intent of purchase, associated development, and method of disposal, the court ruled:\n•\nThe assessee, a manufacturer of RCC pipes, purchased land as an investment using surplus funds.\n•\nNo developments, such as plotting or improvements to increase marketability, were carried out.\n•\nSales occurred over years in small quantities, unlike regular trade practices.\nThus, the profits from sales were deemed capital gains, not assessable as business income.\nCitations/References:\n•\nG. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 447 of 1977 and 295 of 1978, decision dated: 25-04-1991", + "Judge Name": "T.D. SUGLA ARID B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.J. Mehta and I.M. Munim for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J.P. Devdhar, P.S. Jetley and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 214 = 1992 SLD 214 = 1992 PTD 1491 = (1992) 195 ITR 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure\nConclusions:\nThe assessee distributed tea samples and complimentary tea to shareholders, directors, and friends to promote goodwill and popularize its product.\n•\nThe distribution was held as a legitimate business expense and not taxable.\n•\nSince no sale or profit was involved, the Income-tax Officer’s addition to income was unjustified.\nCitations/References:\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 430 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 22 of 1990, decision dated: 22-04-1991", + "Judge Name": "AJIT K SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sunil Mitra with Sunil Mukherjee for the Commissioner. N.K. Poddar with S.N. Dey and D. Mitra for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTIRRIHANNAH CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 215 = 1992 SLD 215 = 1992 PTD 1507 = (1990) 185 ITR 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment\nConclusions:\nReassessment under Section 147(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, requires evidence of both income escaping assessment and failure of the assessee to disclose material facts.\n•\nThe reassessment was invalid as the officer’s oversight in depreciation calculations could not be attributed to the assessee's non-disclosure.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)\n•\nIndo-Aden Salt Mfg. and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 624 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.467 of 1977, decision dated: 25th April,1991", + "Judge Name": "T. D. SUGLA AND B. N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. v. Balasubramanian with P.S. Jetley, J.P. Devdhar and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. K.B. Bhujle with V.H. Patil for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMADHAVNAGAR COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 216 = 1992 SLD 216 = 1992 PTD 1529 = (1992) 195 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scientific Research and Gratuity\nConclusions:\n(a) Scientific Research:\nThe Tribunal’s refusal to allow deductions under Section 37(1) without determining applicability under Section 35(1) was improper. A clear finding on whether the expense was covered under Sections 30-36 is required.\n(b) Gratuity:\nThe Tribunal rightly rejected gratuity claims under Section 40-A(7), following Supreme Court precedent.\nCitations/References:\n•\nShree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1985) 156 ITR 585", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.495 of 1976, decision dated: 26-04-1991", + "Judge Name": "T.D. SUGLA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dinesh Vyas with P.C. Tripathi instructed by Messrs Mulla and Mulla and C.B.C. for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with P.S. Jetley and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TATA CHEMICALS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 217 = 1992 SLD 217 = 1992 PTD 1533 = (1992) 195 ITR 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income\nConclusions:\nInterest income on fixed deposits assigned to shareholders post-liquidation was not taxable in the hands of the company.\n•\nThe assignment was effective upon transfer of fixed deposit receipts and notification to the bank.\n•\nInterest belonged to shareholders, not the company acting as trustee.\nCitations/References:\n•\nBrahmayya and Co. v. K. P. Thangavelu Nadar AIR 1956 Mad. 570", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.301 of 1987, decision dated: 11-01-1991", + "Judge Name": "AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.N. Bajoria for the Assesee", + "Party Name:": "CHANDIPORE FISHERIES PVT. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 218 = 1992 SLD 218 = 1992 PTD 1550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusions:\nThe cancellation of penalty was valid as the Tribunal found no fraud or wilful neglect in the assessee’s failure to return correct income.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.200 of 1979, decision dated: 4-04-1991", + "Judge Name": "B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.R. SINGH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDr. ANWAR AHMAD SHAMSHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 219 = 1992 SLD 219 = 1992 PTD 1572 = (1992) 195 ITR 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income (Sugar Sale Price Dispute)\nConclusions:\nExtra amounts collected under a High Court interim order permitting higher sugar prices were deemed contingent income.\n•\nThe right to such amounts remained inchoate until final court resolution.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 537 of 1977, decision dated: 29-04-1991", + "Judge Name": "T.D. SUGLA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate (P.S. Jetley and K.C. Sidhwa, with him) for the Commissioner. Y.P. Trivedi with Miss Vasanti Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSEKSARIA BISWAN SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "9", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 220 = 1992 SLD 220 = 1992 PTD 1581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Appeals\nConclusions:\nAppeals filed beyond the prescribed time without reasons or condonation applications are time-barred and dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3),(4) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.2382/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 3rd May, 1989, hearing DATE : 19-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmad Zia, A.C., D.R.. Manzoor Hussain Mir, CA.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "10", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 221 = 1992 SLD 221 = 1992 PTD 1582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Accounting Methods\nConclusions:\nRejection of accounts solely on defects in methodology or missing stock registers is unwarranted. The Income Tax Officer failed to justify rejection with valid material.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,32(3) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.111/LB of 1987-88 decided on 27-08-1989, hearing DATE - 16-08-1989", + "Judge Name": "FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir Ahmad Shaikh, D.R.. Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "11", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 222 = 1992 SLD 222 = 1992 PTD 1587 = (1992) 66 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Legal Principles\nConclusions:\n(a) Delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned on compassionate grounds.\n(b) Legal pleas can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.\n(c) Nullity orders can be appealed even if time-barred.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1986 PTD 698", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,135 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As: Nos.1363/HQ of 1990-91 and 7270/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 8-08-1992, dates of hearing.: 25th July and 5-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Asrar Rauf and Noor Muhammad, D.Rs.. Amin-ud-Din Ansari", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "12", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 223 = 1992 SLD 223 = 1992 PTD 1598 = (1992) 66 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes and Tax Exemptions\nConclusions:\n(a) The legislature is presumed knowledgeable of existing laws and cannot enact redundant provisions.\n(b) Income from fish catching was exempt under Clause 99 of the Second Schedule, as the partnership firm fell within the definition of “assessee” and “person.”\nCitations/References:\n•\nM/s. Julian Hoshing Dinshaw Trust v. ITO 1992 PTD 1", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151,14(1) & 2(6)(32),SecondSched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched. ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 3rd August, 1992I.T-A.s No. 3299/KB of 1986-87, 3300/KB of 1986-87 and 487/KB of 1987-88 and 488/KB of 1987-88 and 52/HO of 1988-89 and M.A. No.21/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 5-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "D.D. Sethna. Noor Muhammad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "13", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 224 = 1992 SLD 224 = 1992 PTD 1608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery of Tax\nConclusions:\n•\nThe assessee sought relief against the recovery of Rs. 1,24,228 added under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nA prima facie case was established, highlighting potential violations of mandatory provisions.\n•\nThe court emphasized the balance of inconvenience over convenience in deciding interlocutory injunctions. Non-payment of the impugned demand could cause irreparable harm to the assessee, especially as a warrant of arrest had already been issued.\n•\nRecovery was stayed until the final adjudication of the appeal or three months from the order date, whichever occurred earlier.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34(6),13(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Misc. A. (Stay) No. 88/LB-1 of 1988-89, decision dated: 21st May, 1989, hearing DATE : 21st May, 1989", + "Judge Name": "FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh for Petitioner.Nazir Ahmad Zia, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "14", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 225 = 1992 SLD 225 = 1992 PTCL 26 = 1992 PTD 1610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Erroneous and Prejudicial Orders\nConclusions:\n(a) The Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) ignored objections raised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.), rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\n(b) Where the I.A.C. approved an assessment order, reopening it under Section 66-A constituted a change of opinion, which was impermissible.\n(c) An erroneous original assessment order, not a reassessment order, could be reviewed under Section 66-A.\n(d) The I.A.C. could not declare an assessment order erroneous without substantiating findings.\nCitations/References:\n•\nITA No. 1563/LB of 1984-85", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66-A ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 954/LB to 959/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 1st February, 1992", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Shuja Khan and Sh. Aamir Abbas Dilawary, ITP. Qaiser Yahya, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "15", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 226 = 1992 SLD 226 = 1992 PTD 1617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Levy and Deductibility of Contributions\nConclusions:\n(a) The term levy was defined as an imposition of charges or penalties.\n(b) Contributions to the National Exchequer, if made for business purposes, qualified for deduction under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The court upheld the business house's discretion in determining necessary expenditures for commercial expediency, provided they served the broader interest of the business.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Zoroastrian Building Society Ltd. (1955) 27 ITR 218", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Applications No. 271 of 1991 (Dhaka) and 5 of 1989 (Chittagong), decided, on 23rd June, 1992", + "Judge Name": "A.M. MAHMUDUR RAHMAN AND SYED, J.R. MUDASSIR HUSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Moksudur Rahman for Applicant. No ones", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "16", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 227 = 1992 SLD 227 = 1992 PTD 1624 = (1992) 66 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Property and Equal Protection\nConclusions:\n(a) The Assessing Officer has the right to estimate property value if declared figures appear understated under Section 13(1)(d).\n(b) Differing valuations by officers for co-sharers of the same property do not constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.\n(c) Assessing officers were advised to consolidate cases involving co-sharers to avoid contradictory outcomes.\n(d) The authority to treat individuals differently in similar circumstances is justified when exercised within legal boundaries by different officers.\nCitations/References:\n•\nJaswant Rai v. CWT, Patiala (1978) 38-Tax-106", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1034/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 15-02-1992, hearing DATE : 12-02-1992", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Qaiser Yahyah, D.R.. Amin Butt and Shamim A. Syed, CA.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "17", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 228 = 1992 SLD 228 = 1992 PTD 1632 = (1992) 66 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Super-Tax and Entity Distinction\nConclusions:\n(a) Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the High Court was correct in denying a refund of super-tax paid by a firm.\n(b) For computation purposes, income must be assessed without referencing Section 16(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\n(c) A firm is treated as a distinct entity for tax purposes, irrespective of its legal status as a partnership.\n(d) Liability for super-tax remains unaffected by individual partners’ financial losses outside the firm.\nCitations/References:\n•\nWatson & Everitt v. Blunden 18 TC 402", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(14),7(1),8,14(2),15,15A,15B,15C,15D,15E,15F,16(1),ThirdSched.,PartI,cl.(ii),48,66(1),23(5B),55 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 137-K to 188-K of 1986, decision dated: 22-12-1991, hearing DATE : 17-11-1991", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Yousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Records. Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "SOLI M. COWASJEE and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "18", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 229 = 1992 SLD 229 = 1992 PTD 1653 = (1992) 66 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Circular Implementation\nConclusions:\n(a) The term suspected in the self-assessment scheme empowers tax authorities to act on reasonable grounds of suspicion.\n(b) Circulars and instructions by the Central Board of Revenue are effective from their issue date.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1988 PTD 328", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 983/LB/DB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd April, 1992, hearing DATE : 6-02-1992", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saghir Tirmizi. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "19", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 230 = 1992 SLD 230 = 1992 PTD 1656 = (1992) 66 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions Under Second Schedule\nConclusions:\nClause 125 of the Second Schedule is independent of Section 48(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. If conditions under Clause 125 are met, the income is exempt without needing additional conditions under Section 48(2).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Second Schedule,Clausesclauses(119),(120),(121),(122),125,48(2),40(2), ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.101/HO of 1988-89, 447/KB of 1991-92 and 7157/KB of 1992-93 decided on 10-08-1992, hearing DATE : 10-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Agha Faqir Muhammad (in ITA No. 101/HQ of 198889).Syed Humayun Zaidi, D.R. (in ITA No. 101/HQ of 1988-89). Syed Humayun Zaidi, D.R. (in ITA No. 447/KB of 1991-92 and ITA No. 7157/KB of 1992-93).Agha Faqir Muhammad, Advocate (in ITA No. 447/KB of 1991-92 and ITA No. 7157/KB of 1992-93).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "20", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 231 = 1992 SLD 231 = 1992 PTD 1662 = (1992) 66 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Reinstatement Salary\nConclusions:\nLump-sum payments for withheld salaries post-reinstatement are taxable as income for the years they pertain to, not the year of receipt.\nCitations/References:\n•\nDracup v. Radcliffe (1946) 27 TC 188", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, decision dated: 17-04-1986", + "Judge Name": "LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD 0LIVER OF AYLMERTON, LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY AND SIR, JOHN STEPHENSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Tax Payer. Cur. adv. vult.", + "Party Name:": "BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE\nvs\nWINSTON HERBERT EDWARD SUITE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "21", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 232 = 1992 SLD 232 = 1992 PTD 1671 = (1992) 66 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Appeals\nConclusions:\n(a) The Income Tax Officer, not the I.A.C., has the authority to seek permission for reopening assessments under Section 65. Orders made on I.A.C. directions are void.\n(b) Constitutional remedies should only be invoked in cases of jurisdictional overreach or mala fide actions. Otherwise, statutory remedies must be exhausted.\n(c) Section 7 allows guidance for complex cases but does not permit abdication of the I.T.O.'s duties.\n(d) Notices issued under Section 65 based on the I.A.C.'s directions are valid only if the I.T.O. applies independent judgment.\nCitations/References:\n•\nH.M. Abdullah v. I.T.O. 1991 PTD 217", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.79-K of 1991, decision dated: 23rd July, 1992, hearing DATE : 27-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Nasruallah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "AL AHRAMBUILDERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "22", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 233 = 1992 SLD 233 = 1992 PTD 1681 = (1992) 66 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Clause 172, Second Schedule; Finality of Assessments\nConclusions:\n(a) Object and Scope of Clause 172 and Circular No. 9 of 1985:\nClause 172 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provides for set-off benefits for income not assessed by 29-07-1985. The clause incentivizes declaring previously undisclosed income. Circular No. 9 of 1985 classifies cases into five categories regarding eligibility for set-off. Assessments finalized and pending appeals are not eligible.\n(b) Definition of Assessment and Finality:\nAssessment orders do not attain finality unless all appellate forums are exhausted. An assessment remains open until the final appellate forum delivers a conclusive decision. The appellate proceedings are an extension of the assessment process, ensuring a unified legal pursuit.\n(c) Application of Clause 172 in Specific Cases:\nReassessment orders passed before the cut-off date were not considered final, allowing set-off benefits for investments made in Special National Fund Bonds.\nCitations/References:\n•\nGarikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 448\n•\nChatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar (1947) 15 ITR 302", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.172 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.263-K of 1991, decision dated: 18-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHALL AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate-on-Records. Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others\nvs\nCHANDA MOTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "23", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 234 = 1992 SLD 234 = 1992 PTD 1693 = (1992) 66 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cost of Bonus Shares for Capital Gains\nConclusions:\n(a) Capital Gain Computation:\nLeave to appeal was granted to assess whether bonus shares' cost should be their face value or the average cost of all shares, including bonus shares.\n(b) Method of Computation:\nThe most rational method for calculating the cost of bonus shares is to spread the cost of original shares proportionately across all shares, including bonus shares, to derive an average cost. This ensures accurate computation of capital gains.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) 10 Taxation 75", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12(g)(2)(ii) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26,27 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.127-K of 1991, decision dated: 26-04-1992, hearing DATE : 9-03-1992", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naseem Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for the Appellant.Nasrullah Awan, Advocate. Supreme Court with S.M. Abbasi, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "EBRAHIM BROTHERS LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "24", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 1 = 1989 SLD 1 = 1989 PTD 1 = (1989) 59 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": " His Own Residence under Section 9(2), Proviso\nConclusions:\n(a) Connotation of His Own Residence :\nThe term encompasses not just the assessee but also family members like parents, spouse, and dependents residing in the property. The interpretation aligns with social, legal, and religious obligations, particularly in cultures emphasizing familial support.\n(b) Legal Interpretation:\nA property occupied by family members on behalf of the owner qualifies as his own residence under Section 9(2). This interpretation is inclusive and reflective of societal norms.\nCitations/References:\n•\nMuhammad Nawaz v. Altaf Rasool PLD 1985 Kar. 353", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1979, decision dated: 22-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALIM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant Dr. Naseem Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMUSHTAQ AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "25", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 487 = 2000 SLD 487 = 2000 PTD 1979 = (1999) 235 ITR 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation – Actual Cost Adjustment for Exchange Rate Fluctuations\nConclusions:\n•\nDepreciation must be calculated on the revised cost of assets after accounting for foreign exchange fluctuations.\n•\nAdditional depreciation for the relevant assessment year is permissible, but prior years’ assessments cannot be reopened for recalculations.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 255 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.443 of 1984 (Reference No.392. of 1984), decision dated: 4-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "ABDUL HADI AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Kumar for the Assessee S.V. Subramanian for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TRICHY DISTILLERIES AND CHEMICALS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "26", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 2 = 1989 SLD 2 = 1989 PTD 31 = (1989) 59 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax and Deductions under Section 20\nConclusions:\n(a) Exemptions and Deductions:\nIncome tax is charged on total income after applying exemptions under the Second Schedule. Wealth tax paid post the income year cannot be deducted as liability discharge occurred after the relevant period.\n(b) Scope of Tax and Government :\nThe term tax does not inherently include wealth tax, as it pertains specifically to taxes levied under the Income Tax Ordinance. The term Government refers to the authority empowered to levy the tax, primarily the Provincial Government for property-related levies.\n(c) Legislative Intent:\nWealth tax, categorized as a tax on capital value under Entry No. 50 of the Federal Legislative List, does not fall under deductions allowed by Section 20.\nCitations/References:\n•\nEntry No. 50, Federal Legislative List, Constitution of Pakistan\n•\nWealth Tax Act Provisions", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,14,Sched.II,57,20,2(43),14(2),17(1)(a),20 & 133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2259/KB and 2260/KB of 1985-86, decision dated: 20-09-1988, hearing DATE : 14-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yusuf Sharih, D.R.. Muktada Karim", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "27", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 3 = 1989 SLD 3 = 1989 PTD 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Expenses and Receipts\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessing officer or appellate authority cannot arbitrarily reject the accounts by employing generic phrases such as expenses personal and unverifiable unless specific items of such expenses and receipts are identified and substantiated. A mere stock phrase devoid of detailed reasoning or evidence is insufficient to justify the rejection. It is imperative that the details available in the record are thoroughly examined, and each disallowance or receipt considered unverifiable is explicitly highlighted with valid reasoning. This ensures transparency and fairness in the assessment process.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1966 PTD (Trib.) 40\n•\n1976 PTD (Trib.) 77\n•\n1982 PTD 78", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,62,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1504/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 12-05-1984", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Z.H. Jafri. Amin-e-Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "28", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 4 = 1989 SLD 4 = 1989 PTD 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains – Cost of Bonus Shares\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-evaluate the High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Umar Saigol (PLD 1973 Lah. 834), which held that the cost of bonus shares for capital gains computation should be their face value. The question arose whether this interpretation aligns with rational financial principles and accurate valuation methods. The appeal is set to determine if an alternative method, such as averaging the cost of the original shares across all shares (including bonus shares), better reflects the true economic value.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta v. G.M. Investment Company AIR 1969 SC 1183", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12B ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 696 to 724 of 1982, decision dated: 8-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 696 to 724 of 1982, decided on 8th June, 1988\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE , LAHORE\nvs\nUMREEN SAIGOL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "29", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 5 = 1989 SLD 5 = 1989 PTD 52 = (1989) 59 TAX 59 = (1993) 67 TAX 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference of Legal Questions to the High Court\nDetailed Conclusion:\nUnder Section 136(2) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, when the Tribunal refuses to state a case on the grounds that no question of law arises, the aggrieved party (either the department or the assessee) can approach the High Court to frame and decide the question. The High Court may intervene if it finds the Tribunal’s decision unjustified and proceed to frame and resolve the legal question. Conversely, if the High Court deems the Tribunal's stance valid, the application is rejected. This provision ensures judicial oversight and prevents arbitrariness in legal interpretations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 52 of 1985, decision dated: 19-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. Nemo (absent)", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs M. HUSSAIN AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "30", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 6 = 1989 SLD 6 = 1989 PTD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Irregular Assessment Orders and Commissioner's Powers\nDetailed Conclusion:\nIn a case where the Income Tax Officer of one circle passed assessment orders despite the assessee having filed returns with another circle, the Commissioner exercised powers under Section 138 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, to set aside the irregular assessments. The assessee’s constitutional challenge to the Commissioner’s action was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld that the Commissioner acted within the scope of his authority. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural regularity and jurisdiction in the assessment process.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1400, 1401 and 14112 of 1983, decision dated: 5-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK TRADE AFFILIATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax ZONE A and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "31", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 7 = 1989 SLD 7 = 1989 PTD 69 = (1989) 59 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Resident Company – Losses in a Foreign Country\nDetailed Conclusions:\n(a) Losses incurred by the assessee's branch in Bangladesh after its separation in 1971 could not be claimed in Pakistan. With Bangladesh’s creation, the branch fell outside Pakistan’s territorial limits, making such losses ineligible for set-off in the Karachi branch's accounts. Income or losses generated outside Pakistan after the territorial change could not be taxed or claimed under Pakistan’s jurisdiction.\n(b) A trading loss is deductible only if it is directly and inseparably linked to the business conducted within Pakistan. Losses unrelated to Pakistan’s territorial operations or arising from non-business contingencies are excluded from consideration.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Karachi v. Messrs Shabbir & Company PLD 1966 SC 540", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 34 of 1979, decision dated: 6-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Naseem Ahmed Khan for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "32", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 8 = 1989 SLD 8 = 1989 PTD 73 = (1989) 59 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "House Property Income – Repairs Deduction\nDetailed Conclusion:\nFor properties let out on rent, the annual value is calculated based on rent received, which includes 1/10th of the deposit or advance deemed as rent under Section 12(13) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. This deemed rent is incorporated into the annual value for calculating the 1/5th repair allowance under Section 20(1)(a). The integration of Sections 12(13) and 19(2)(b) clarifies the statutory intent to include deemed rent in the annual value, ensuring comprehensive computation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=20(1)(a),19(2)(b),12(13) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 686/Kg of 1984-85, decision dated: 6-10-1988, hearing DATE : 1st October, 1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ALVI ABDUL RAHIM AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousuf Sharih, D.R.. Sattar Adam, CA.", + "Party Name:": "I.T.O. CO. CIRCLE C-9, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs UNIQUE LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "33", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 9 = 1989 SLD 9 = 1989 PTD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Powers in References\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe High Court's powers under Section 66(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are restricted to the legal questions arising out of the Tribunal's order. It cannot direct the Tribunal to investigate new facts or revisit unconsidered evidence. Any supplementary statement requested must relate strictly to the original case record or admitted facts. The judgment underscores that legal questions must stem directly from the Tribunal's findings to maintain procedural integrity.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Bhurangya Coal Co. (1958) 34 ITR 802", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),(2),(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1957, decision dated: 12-05-1959", + "Judge Name": "S.R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Kolah and I.N. Shroff for Appellpnt. H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India (K.N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta with him)", + "Party Name:": "NEW JEHANGIR VAKIL MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY NORTH KUTCH AND SAURASHTRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "34", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 10 = 1989 SLD 10 = 1989 PTD 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference – Raising Legal Questions\nDetailed Conclusion:\nOnly legal questions explicitly raised before the Tribunal and reflected in its order can be referred to the High Court under Section 66. Questions arising from new legal pleas not raised during Tribunal proceedings are inadmissible for reference. This principle ensures procedural consistency and prevents parties from introducing new contentions at advanced stages of litigation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=68(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 75 of 1979, decision dated: 22-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPIONEER INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "35", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 11 = 1989 SLD 11 = 1989 PTD 128 = (1989) 59 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Companies – Reserves and Expenditures\nDetailed Conclusion:\nInsurance companies must disclose profits under Section 15(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Income-tax officers are obligated to accept such disclosures but can exclude expenditures not permissible under Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Amounts set aside as reserves for unexpired risks are not considered expenditures and thus do not qualify for deduction. This distinction ensures accurate financial reporting and compliance with tax laws.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. PLD 1982 Kar. 684", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 69 of 1979; decided on 21st September, 1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "36", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 12 = 1989 SLD 12 = 1989 PTD 130 = (1989) 59 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Cases – Legal Questions\nDetailed Conclusion:\nLegal questions allowed under Section 66(2) must arise directly from the Tribunal’s order. Any issues not explicitly discussed in the Tribunal's findings or absent from its record cannot be raised as part of the reference process.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 21 and 22 of 1979, decision dated: 5-11-1988, hearing DATE : 18-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Naimur Rehman", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMUSTAFA GOKAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "37", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 13 = 1989 SLD 13 = 1989 PTD 131 = (1989) 59 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Notices Under Section 34\nDetailed Conclusion:\nIncome-tax officers are not required to state reasons in notices issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. However, sufficient material must exist on record to justify reopening the assessment. Courts have the authority to request such material to verify the legitimacy of the proceedings, ensuring that notices are not issued arbitrarily or without due cause.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-722 and D-723 of 1978, heard on 19-09-1988, hearing DATE : 29-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND AGHA ABDUL RASOOL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "AA. Fazeel for Petitioner Shaikh Hyder", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BLISS INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE B-3, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "38", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 14 = 1989 SLD 14 = 1989 PTD 142 = (1989) 59 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation for Insurance Companies\nDetailed Conclusion:\n(a) Provisions for taxation reserves qualify as expenditures under Section 10.\n(b) Income-tax officers must use balances disclosed in annual accounts prepared under the Insurance Act for tax computation but can exclude inadmissible expenditures under Section 10. The application of Section 10 is thus limited and specific.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. PLD 1981 SC 293", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A) & Sched ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 43 of 1982, heard on 12-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs MERCANTILE FIRE AND CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "39", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 15 = 1989 SLD 15 = 1989 PTD 164 = (1988) 57 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward and Set-Off of Losses\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe benefits of carrying forward and setting off losses conferred under Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, continue to apply under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. This continuity remains valid despite the differing wording in the corresponding provisions of the Ordinance. It reflects the legislative intent to ensure seamless application of beneficial tax provisions, preventing disruption to tax computations and compliance practices.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1961, S. 256(1)\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, S. 34 & S. 34-A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1975, decision dated: 22-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KANPUR\nvs\nMessrs BEHARI LAL RAM CHARAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "40", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 16 = 1989 SLD 16 = 1989 PTD 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Reserves and Provisions \nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe distinction between a ‘reserve’ and a ‘provision’ is critical in tax law. A provision is a charge against profits, set aside to cover anticipated losses or liabilities, whereas a reserve is an appropriation of profits retained as part of the business’s capital. The mere labeling of an entry in a balance sheet is not determinative.\nIn this case, the assessee categorized an amount as ‘current liabilities and provisions’ for additional cane prices, but there was no liability requiring such a set-aside. No payment was made, and the entries were reversed in subsequent years, indicating the sum was a reserve, not a provision. This classification has tax implications, as reserves are not deductible while provisions may be.\nCitations/References:\n•\n132 ITR 559\n•\n73 ITR 53", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1613 (NT) of 1974, decision dated: 16-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. R.S. Pathak and Saby Asachi Mukharji, JJ", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, U.P\nvs\nN.L. LAXMI SUGAR AND OIL MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "41", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 17 = 1988 SLD 17 = 1989 PTD 171 = (1988) 57 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Assessable Profits\nDetailed Conclusion:\n(a) Depreciation claims must be made by the legal owner of the asset, and fractional claims are inadmissible.\n(b) Any amounts received through compromise or amicable settlements in the course of business are taxable as profits, emphasizing their nature as income derived for business interests.\n(c) Depreciation must be calculated on the entire asset value as a unified entity. Separate depreciation values for parts of the same asset or based on varying ownership shares are not permissible.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.850 of 1973 and 1001 of 1975, 233 of 1976 and 941 of 197, decision dated: 29-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "RANGANATH MISRA AND G. L. OZA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Ram Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Rani Chhabra, Advocates. B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocatess", + "Party Name:": "Seth BANARSI DAS GUPTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "42", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 18 = 1989 SLD 18 = 1989 PTD 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Management Expenses of Insurance Companies\nDetailed Conclusion:\nUnder Section 40(c) of the Insurance Act, 1938, and Rule 40 of the Insurance Rules, 1940, management expenses beyond permissible limits are still admissible as deductions for profit computation under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. This approach aligns with judicial precedent recognizing legitimate business expenditures incurred in the ordinary course of business.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Alpha Insurance Company Limited PLD 1981 SC 293", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1)(xvii),Sched.IV,R.26(a),Sched.1,R.6 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 34 of 1979, decision dated: 6-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Sirajul Haq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs WESTERN ASSURANCE Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "43", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 19 = 1989 SLD 19 = 1989 PTD 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Income-tax Officers under Section 23(3)\nDetailed Conclusion:\nIncome-tax Officers possess vast powers under Section 23(3) to assess income, but such powers must not be exercised arbitrarily. All estimates or adjustments must be supported by facts and circumstances reflected in the records. The use of discretion should not be guided by personal judgment or whims but must adhere to principles of fairness and transparency.\nCitations/References:\n•\nGurmukh Singh v. C.I.T. 1944 ITR 393", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 101 of 1979, decision dated: 26-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "44", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 20 = 1989 SLD 20 = 1989 PTD 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Resident Companies and Bangladesh Recognition\nDetailed Conclusion:\n(a) Non-resident companies operating in Pakistan can only be taxed on incomes accruing within Pakistan’s territorial limits. Following Bangladesh's creation, its recognition by Pakistan retrospectively applies from the date of separation. Income earned up to December 15, 1971, within the territorial bounds of then-East Pakistan remains taxable under Pakistan's jurisdiction.\n(b) The computation of taxable income depends on the regular accounting method, but this does not override the legislative intent to tax income based on its actual receipt or accrual. Accounting methods cannot be a means to evade tax liability.\n(c) Section 25 provides an exception to the rule of taxing the previous year’s income, allowing assessments for income earned up to the date of business discontinuation.\n(d) In international law, recognition of a state relates back to its inception, reinforcing the taxability of income accrued during the pre-recognition period.\nCitations/References:\n•\nKanga and Palkivalla’s Law and Practice of Income-tax\n•\nUnited Liner Ltd. Agency v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1988 PTD 277", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=78,79 Income Tax Act, 1922=25 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 103 of 1982, decision dated: 26-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haque. Shaikh Harder", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ESSO EASTERN INC\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "45", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 21 = 1989 SLD 21 = 1989 PTD 181 = (1989) 59 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-Opening Assessments under the Self-Assessment Scheme\nDetailed Conclusion:\nImmunity provided under the Self-Assessment Scheme does not equate to a license for tax evasion. While Section 65(4) allows for certain assessments to bypass detailed scrutiny, it does not prevent the Income-tax Officer from re-opening finalized assessments under Sections 65(1) and 65(2) if statutory conditions are met. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) may specify cases for re-opening without satisfying these conditions, but such provisions operate independently of the Income-tax Officer’s own authority.\nThe interpretation of statutory terms such as approval and specifying is essential. Approval involves ratification by a superior, whereas specifying denotes the discretionary identification of cases by the CBR. Courts must avoid inserting additional words into statutory language during interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,65(4) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 507/HQB to 510/HQB of 1987-88, decision dated: 28-08-1988, hearing DATE : 15-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "M. MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jamal, D.R.. Sirajul Haq Memon", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "46", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 22 = 1989 SLD 22 = 1989 PTD 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Requirement of Notice under Section 13(1) for Property Valuation\nDetailed Conclusion:\nFailure to issue a notice under Section 13(1) before finalizing an assessment or making additions based on property valuation renders the addition invalid. The issuance of notice is a mandatory procedural safeguard to ensure that taxpayers have a fair opportunity to present their case. Without adherence to this procedural requirement, any addition to the assessment is subject to deletion.\nCitations/References:\n•\nI.T.A. No. 2526/LR of 1986-87", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.2698/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 23rd November; 1988, hearing DATE : 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Fayyaz Ahmad Chaudhary. Aftab Iqbal Loon.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "47", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 23 = 1989 SLD 23 = 1989 PTD 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Business - Taxation and Allowable Deductions\nDetailed Conclusions: (a) Computation of Profits for Life Insurance Business:\nProfits are determined by the greater of:\n•\nGross external incomings less management expenses, or\n•\nAdjusted annual average actuarial surplus.\nActuarial valuation, performed per the Insurance Act, 1938, remains the reliable method for life insurance profit computation.\n(b) Provision for Gratuity:\nAllowable only if ascertainable.\n(c) Compensation Payable:\nClaims must be ascertainable from corporate records for allowance.\n(d) Losses in Bangladesh:\nLosses written off due to asset forfeiture in Bangladesh are deductible.\n(e) Levy of Surcharge:\nTax liability payable in the relevant year is included in retained incomes for surcharge computation.\n(f) Tax Deducted at Source:\nAmounts deducted from interest, securities, and dividend income are treated as part of the surplus.\n(g) Excess Perquisites:\nUnder Section 24(2), excess perquisites are allowable up to 50% of the salary.\n(h) Actuarial Valuations:\nThese include adjustments or add-backs as required.\n(i) Allowable Expenses:\nExpenses under Section 23 are permissible in profit computation.\n(j) Trading Liabilities:\nUnpaid liabilities within three years are inadmissible under Section 23.\n(k) Overlap of Section 25(c) with Fourth Schedule:\nProvisions under Section 25(c) are not negated by the Fourth Schedule.\n(l) Tax Provisions and Reserves:\nProvisions for tax and reserves for taxation are disallowed.\n(m) Mandatory Provisions for Depreciation Reserves:\nTwo reserves may be created for depreciation or loss on investment realization.\n(n) Surplus or Deficit in Life Insurance:\nNot allowable as deductible expenditure.\n(o) Distinction Between Provisions and Reserves:\nExamined and highlighted.\n(p) Taxation Reserve:\nAllowable as an expenditure.\n(q) Income-tax as Expenditure:\nTax deducted at source cannot be claimed as expenditure.\n(r) Provision for Doubtful Debts:\nNot deductible under the rules for insurance business.\n(s) Depreciation on Investment:\nAllowable under specific provisions.\n(t) Rectification of Errors:\nTribunal declines interference where rectification follows due process.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.A. No. 273/KB of 1978-79\n•\nC.I.T. v. Pakistan Investment (1988 PTD 532)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,FirstSched:Rr.1,2,35 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(2),23,FourthSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 73/KB, 78/KB to 81 /KB of 1982-83, 2900/KB to 2905-KB of 1986-87 and 182/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 5-02-1988, hearing DATE : 25-11-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQUE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dawood Khan, D.R. and Muhammad Farid, D.R.. M. Karim, Advocate and Irfan Sadat Khan, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "48", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 24 = 1989 SLD 24 = 1989 PTD 211 = (1989) 59 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Interest for Share Acquisition\nDetailed Conclusion:\nInterest on loans for share acquisition is deductible if there is a direct nexus between the loan and share purchase. In cases where funds are borrowed to settle personal debts, the interest is not deductible. The assessee’s failure to demonstrate the connection between loan proceeds and share acquisition invalidates their claim.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. Nos. 5 to 8 of 1979, decision dated: 13-12-1988, hearing DATE : 30-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD BASHIR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "49", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 25 = 1989 SLD 25 = 1989 PTD 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Section 43-B\nDetailed Conclusion:\nSection 43-B, as amended by the Finance Act, 1973, is not retrospective. Legislative intent, based on the Finance Act’s preamble, applies amendments prospectively from the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1973. Legal definitions of “previous year” align with statutory interpretations.\nCitations:\n•\nMaxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43B ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 763 of 1979, decision dated: 28-11-1988. dates of hearing: 24th and 26-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MERCANTILE FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "50", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 26 = 1989 SLD 26 = 1989 PTD 226 = (1989) 59 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "References to High Court - Questions of Fact and Law\nDetailed Conclusion:\nOnly questions of law arising from the Tribunal’s order can be referred. Purely factual issues are outside the High Court’s purview unless they involve errors like reliance on irrelevant evidence. Mixed questions of law and fact, particularly those involving statutory interpretation, can be referred.\nCitations:\n•\nDhirajlal Girdharilal v. C.I.T. (1954) 26 I.T.R. 736", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),66,7,12,39(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference, No. 4 of 1980,1 decided on 1st December, 1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI\nvs\nARSHAD JAVED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "51", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 27 = 1989 SLD 27 = 1989 PTD 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off Between Priority Industries\nDetailed Conclusion:\nLosses in one priority industry cannot offset profits in another. The statutory framework restricts inter-industry set-offs to ensure each industry’s tax treatment remains isolated.\nCitations:\n•\n155 I.T.R. 120", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1685 and 1686 (NT) of 1974, decision dated: 15-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. R.S. Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), MADRAS\nvs\nMessrs CANARA WORKSHOPS (P) Ltd., BANGALORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "52", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 28 = 1989 SLD 28 = 1989 PTD 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction Sales and Deduction for Cess Liability\nDetailed Conclusion:\n(a) Auction sales for cess recovery are deemed valid sales under Section 10(2)(vii). The assessee’s participation in statutory activities implies consent to statutory mechanisms, including auction sales for cess recovery.\n(b) Deduction Principles:\nLosses and deductions must arise directly from business operations and statutory compliance.\nCitations:\n•\nA.I.R. 1968 SC 478", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1348 (NT) of 1974, decision dated: 16-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. R.S. Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAGDISH SUGAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nTHE C.I.T., LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "53", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 29 = 1989 SLD 29 = 1989 PTD 238 = (1988) 57 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Gift through Book Entries\nConclusion:\nA valid gift requires:\n1.\nExisting Property: The gifted property must exist at the time of the gift.\n2.\nBook Entries: For non-banking companies or firms without overdraft facilities, the amounts must be available in the donor’s account.\no\nGifts through book entries may be valid for banking companies or firms with overdraft facilities, even if amounts are unavailable at the time.\no\nEach case is fact-specific. Validity depends on the donor’s ability to substantiate the availability of funds.\nCitations:\n•\nAbba Dada & Co. v. C.I.T. (1938) 6 ITR 470 (Rang.)\n•\nC.E.D. v. Kamlavati (1979) 120 ITR 456 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1713 of 1973 decided on 3rd February, 1987", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Natarajan, JJ\nS.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with Miss A Subhashini, Advocate Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KANPUR\nvs\nDr. R.S. GUPTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "54", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 30 = 1989 SLD 30 = 1989 PTD 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Bank Deposits in the Income of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)\nConclusion:\nBank deposits in the names of a minor child and wife of the Karta of a HUF, when both lack independent income sources, are presumed to be the Karta’s income unless evidence suggests otherwise. Inclusion of such deposits in the Karta’s income is valid under these circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference, decision dated: 7-09-1978", + "Judge Name": "SATISH CHANDRA, C.J. AND M. B. FAROOQI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "LALLU MAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "55", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 31 = 1989 SLD 31 = 1989 PTD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Property and Non-Resident Assessment Procedures\nConclusion:\n(a) Assessment of Property Income:\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) must requisition a return from the actual owner (A) before proceeding with an assessment. Failure to follow this invalidates the assessment.\n(b) Non-Resident Assessees:\n•\nThe appointment of an agent under Section 78 must occur annually. A separate notice is required for each year.\nCitations:\n•\n(1969) 71 I.T.R. 457", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,78,78(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.72-IB of 1987-88 decided on 5-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Mohammad Baig. Mohammad Aslam", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "56", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 32 = 1989 SLD 32 = 1989 PTD 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Expenses for Income from Other Sources\nConclusion:\nExpenses incurred exclusively for earning income from other sources, such as interest income, are deductible under Section 31.\nCitations:\n•\n(1975) 101 ITR 1531", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=31 ", + "Case #": "I.TA, No.2779/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 5-01-1989, hearing DATE : 26-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Yusuf Sharih, D.R.. M. Ramzan Dossa, CA.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "57", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 33 = 1989 SLD 33 = 1989 PTD 256 = (1988) 57 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Expenditures and Industrial Concessions\nConclusions:\n(a) Exchange Rate Fluctuations:\n•\nAdditional payments due to currency fluctuations are treated as revenue expenditures.\n(b) Perquisites:\n•\nHousing allowance and medical reimbursements are not perquisites.\n(c) Industrial Undertakings:\n•\nSpecific divisions, like Deep-Sea Fishing, qualify as industrial undertakings.\n(d) Capital Work-in-Progress:\n•\nCapital employed in industrial undertakings includes work-in-progress for tax relief computation.\n(e) Partial-Year Operations:\n•\nConcessions apply only to full-year operations.\n(f) Weighted Deduction:\n•\nExpenses like expert agency inspection fees qualify for weighted deductions.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Bharat General & Textile Industries Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 158", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.52 of 1984, decision dated: 14th July,1986", + "Judge Name": "DIPAK KUMAR SEN AND MRS. MONJULA BOSE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. Pal and Miss M. Seal for the Assessee. B.K. Bagchi and B.K. Naha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "58", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 34 = 1989 SLD 34 = 1989 PTD 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Report as Information for Reassessment\nConclusion:\nAudit reports indicating discrepancies (e.g., income allocation between business and dividend sources) qualify as information for initiating reassessment proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.216 of 1972 (Reference No.29 of 1972), decision dated: 2-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srionivasan and K.C. Rajappa for the Assessee. J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MUSASONS PRIVATE LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "59", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 35 = 1989 SLD 35 = 1989 PTD 266 = (1988) 57 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\nWhen the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal finds no mens rea and records that the concealment was unintentional, imposing a penalty is unjustified.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1144 of 1977, decision dated: 15th October 1986", + "Judge Name": "N.D. OJHA AND R.R. MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bharatji Agarwal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHARI RAM SRI RAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "60", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 36 = 1989 SLD 36 = 1989 PTD 271 = (1989) 59 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Notice under Section 34\nConclusions:\n(a) Unexplained Credit Entries:\n•\nUnexplained entries justify reassessment.\n(b) Challenging Notices:\n•\nAssessees must challenge notices before filing returns; otherwise, they forfeit the right.\n(c) Unexplained Income:\n•\nAll unexplained credit entries are treated as income.\nCitations:\n•\nMrs. Samina Shaukat Ayub Khan v. C.I.T. PLD 1981 SC 85", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,63(3),4(2A) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.33 of 1979, decision dated: 9-01-1989, hearing DATE : 4-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din. Sohail hameed for Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "J.L.WEI & CO. and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "61", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 37 = 1989 SLD 37 = 1989 PTD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reliability of Evidence and Affidavits in Tax Assessments\nConclusions:\n(a) Affidavits by Third Parties:\n•\nTribunals can reject affidavits lacking cogent evidence without cross-examining the deponent.\n(b) Unexplained Receipts:\n•\nReceipts with insufficient explanation are treated as income.\n(c) Tribunal Findings:\n•\nTribunal decisions based on evidence scrutiny are binding unless arbitrary or perverse.\nCitations:\n•\nDilip Kumar Roy v. C.I.T. Poona (1974) 94 ITR 1", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,4(2A),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.41 of 1982 decided on 8-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood Iqbal. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZAFAR AND ASSOCIATES, KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "62", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 38 = 1989 SLD 38 = 1989 PTD 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions to Income and Their Implications\nConclusion:\nAdditions made during assessments are treated as real income. The department is bound to consider such additions as income unless contradicted with evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nLagadapati Subba Ramaiah v. C.I.T. (1956) 30 ITR 593", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.43 of 1961, decision dated: 10-12-1962", + "Judge Name": ", JAGADISAN AND SRINIVASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Swaminathan. S. Ranganathan", + "Party Name:": "S.KUPPLISWAMI MUDALIAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "63", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 39 = 1989 SLD 39 = 1989 PTD 285 = (1985) 51 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Revenue vs. Capital Nature\nConclusions:\n(a) Expenditure for Business Relations:\n•\nExpenses to maintain relations with foreign collaborators qualify as business expenditures.\n(b) Expert Opinions:\n•\nExpenditures for expert opinions are capital if aimed at acquiring long-term assets.\n(c) Collaboration Agreements:\n•\nExpenditures for acquiring technical know-how are capital expenses.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 243", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 125 and 181 of 1974, decision dated: 13-02-1976", + "Judge Name": "B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND P.D. DESAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K.H. Kaji with R.P. Bhatt for the Commissioner. J.P. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJARAT-I\nvs\nS.L.M. MANEKLAL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "64", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 40 = 1989 SLD 40 = 1989 PTD 308 = (1989) 59 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Lease and Additions without Opportunity\nConclusions:\n(a) Income from Lease:\n•\nIf lessees testify to paying higher rent than declared by the assessee, the assessee cannot claim a lower rent.\n(b) Additions without Explanation:\n•\nIf the Income-tax Officer (ITO) determines an addition without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of investment, such addition under Section 13(2) is void ab initio.\nCitations:\n•\n1987 P.T.D. (Trib.) 36\n•\n1971 S.C.M.R. 681", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A.No.3108/LB of 1984-85 and I.T.A. No.3684/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 1st September, 1988", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for the Assessee. Mr. Qudrat Ullah for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "65", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 41 = 1989 SLD 41 = 1989 PTD 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Real Estate Transactions and Cost of Construction\nConclusions:\n(a) Inconsistent Treatment by Department:\n•\nThe department cannot reject the sale deed in one instance and accept it in another for determining income.\n(b) Cost of Construction:\n•\nAssessing Officers must rely on credible evidence or expert opinions rather than parallel cases. Differences in construction quality, fixtures, and other factors make comparisons unreliable.\n•\nFailure to consider credible reports (e.g., Inspector’s findings) invalidates the assessment.\n(c) Capital Gains Tax Relevance:\n•\nAssessments of cost of construction should consider prior capital gains tax evaluations.\n(d) Investment Taxation Year:\n•\nInvestments must be taxed in the income year of occurrence. Total costs cannot be attributed to a single year.\n(e) No Concealment in Cost Disputes:\n•\nDisagreement over cost estimates does not constitute concealment.\n(f) Burden of Proof on Assessing Officer:\n•\nThe officer must prove concealment; penalties require evidence of intent.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,148,108 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1003/LB of 1987-88 and I.T.A No.1004/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 17-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A. A. ZUBARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas. Shaukat Ali Babar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "66", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 42 = 1989 SLD 42 = 1989 PTD 315 = (1987) 55 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Compensation for Land Acquisition\nConclusion:\nInterest on compensation paid for land acquisition:\n•\nAccrues from the date of dispossession until payment, not from the court decree.\n•\nMust be assessed annually as it accrues. The ITO cannot allocate accrued interest to an earlier or subsequent year.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Cases Nos.158 and 159 of 1978, 11 and 12 of 1979 and 18 of 1982, decision dated: 8-06-1984", + "Judge Name": "KJAGANNATHA SHETTY AND S.R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Sarangan and H. Raghavendra Raos. S.G. Shivram and P.A. Bhats", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nA.B.V. GOWDA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "67", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 43 = 1989 SLD 43 = 1989 PTD 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Oral Salary Agreements and Dividend Income\nConclusions:\n(a) Oral Agreements on Salary:\n•\nOral agreements to discontinue salaries, coupled with appropriate accounting methods, prevent such amounts from being added to taxable income.\n(b) Dividend Taxability:\n•\nDividend income is taxable if proceedings under Section 23-A are pending for the company. However, if no liability under Section 23-A exists, dividends are not taxable.\nCitations:\n•\nUniversal Bank of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 65 I.T.R. 536", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,23A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.78 of 1975, decision dated: 24-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "RANGANATH MISRA AND G. L. OZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BIHAR AND ORISSA\nvs\nS.P. JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "68", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 44 = 1989 SLD 44 = 1989 PTD 326 = (1987) 56 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Benami Property and Tax Recovery\nConclusion:\nThe burden of proving benami ownership lies with the department. Without evidence showing that a property owned by the assessee's wife is held benami, it cannot be attached to recover the assessee's tax liability.\nCitations:\n•\nKapur Chand Shrimal v. T.R.O. (1969) 72 I.T.R. 623", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1671 of 1973, decision dated: 28-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "SUNANDA BHANDARE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S.K. Dhoiakia with R.C.Bhatia for Petitioner. K.K. Wadhera R.C.Pandeys Nos.3 and 4", + "Party Name:": "BANK OF INDIA\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "69", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 45 = 1989 SLD 45 = 1989 PTD 328 = (1987) 56 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Arrears of Sales Tax as Deduction\nConclusion:\nInterest paid on arrears of sales tax is a deductible expense as it is a revenue expenditure, not a penalty for legal infringement.\nCitations:\n•\nRajasthan Central Stores (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1985) 156 I.T.R. 90", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No.28 of 1978, decision dated: 24-09-1986", + "Judge Name": "N. M. KASLIWAL AND FAROOQ HASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.N. Surolia for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nWESTERN INDIA STATE MOTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "70", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 46 = 1989 SLD 46 = 1989 PTD 330 = (1987) 56 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Six Months in Limitation\nConclusion:\nThe term six months refers to six calendar months.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (1974) 27 I.T.R. 285", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.4 of 1987 connected with I .T As. Nos.12 to 19 of 1987, decision dated: 31st March, 1987", + "Judge Name": "A. N. VARMA AND V. K. KANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bharatji Agrawal for the Commissioner. B.N. Bhatnagar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMUNNALAL SHRIKISHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "71", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 47 = 1989 SLD 47 = 1989 PTD 331 = (1988) 57 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure for Legal Charges\nConclusion:\nLegal expenses incurred over compensation disputes during the acquisition of a capital asset are capital expenditures.\nCitations:\n•\nLife Insurance Corporation of India v. C.I.T. (1979) 119 I.T.R. 900", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.397 of 1975, decision dated: 13-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA AND T. D. SUGLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. J. Mehta instructed by A. B. Dinshaw & Co. for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley with Mrs. Manjula Singh and C.K. Krishnan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "72", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 48 = 1989 SLD 48 = 1989 PTD 332 = (1988) 57 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Sales Tax Treatment\nConclusion:\nRejection of accounts is justified when:\n•\nSales tax collected is included in sales without being debited as an expense.\n•\nNo stock register or detailed sales/purchase records are maintained.\nCitations:\n•\nSinclair Murray & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1974) 97 I.T.R. 615", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 1978, decision dated: 20-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "UDAY SINHA AND ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.A.Rajgarhia and S.K.Sharan for the Commissioner. K. N. Jain and M. Nath for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPARECK BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "73", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 49 = 1989 SLD 49 = 1989 PTD 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from General Tax for Charitable Purposes\nConclusion:\nRace Course Club’s property use is not considered charitable. Exemption claims are invalid even if some income is used for charity.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.395 and 1346(N) of 1973, decision dated: 11-11-1986", + "Judge Name": "M.P. THAKKAR AND B. C. RAY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD\nvs\nHYDERABAD RACE CLUB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "74", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 50 = 1989 SLD 50 = 1989 PTD 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Liability and High Court Order\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to allow gratuity liability as a deduction was upheld by the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nA.I.R. 1986 S.C. 484", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.173 of 1978, decision dated: 8-01-1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYA SACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. R. S. Pathak and Sabya Sachi Mukharji, JJ", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY\nvs\nMessrs CANNING MITRA PHOENIX Pvt. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "75", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 51 = 1989 SLD 51 = 1989 PTD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Challenge to Notice under Section 65\nConclusion:\nPending constitutional challenges do not bar the department from issuing an assessment order if the High Court permits the process. Implementation of the order must await resolution of the constitutional petition.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Saddiqi Trust v. Income-tax Officer (1978 C.L.C. 366)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.483 of 1987, decision dated: 25-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND AGHA ABDUL RASUL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ADAM FOUNDATION\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "76", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 52 = 1989 SLD 52 = 1989 PTD 345 = (1988) 57 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contractor Income – Material Supplied by Government\nConclusion:\nWhen an assessee, acting as a works contractor, executes government contracts, the cost of materials supplied by the government for such contracts:\n•\nShould not be included in the assessee's total receipts when calculating profits for taxation purposes.\n•\nIncluding such costs artificially inflates the taxable receipts and distorts the actual income generated by the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. S.P. Jain (1973) 87 I.T.R. 370 (S.C.)\n•\nKalpnath Rai v. C.I.T. (1985) 151 I.T.R. 281 (Pat.)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.171 of 1978, decision dated: 24-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "UDAY SINGHA AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.P.Rajgarhia and S.K.Sharan, for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS.P. VIZ CONSTRUCTION CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "77", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 53 = 1989 SLD 53 = 1989 PTD 347 = (1988) 57 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Tribunal – Power to Review\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:\n•\nDoes not possess the jurisdiction to review its own orders.\n•\nCan only rectify errors apparent on the face of the record under limited provisions but cannot engage in a substantive reconsideration of its prior decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Cases Nos.142 and 143 of 1976, decision dated: 28-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "UDAY SINGHA AND A1LTWINI KUMAR SINHA, .JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. P. Rajgarhia and S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K.N. Jain, G. C. Bharuka and M. Nath for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDR. (MRS.) KRISHNA RANA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "78", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 54 = 1989 SLD 54 = 1989 PTD 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Wife’s Income Not Disclosed in Old Return\nConclusion:\nReassessment cannot be initiated merely because the assessee failed to disclose income received by his wife in returns filed under a form prescribed prior to legal amendments.\n•\nThe absence of explicit legal obligations in earlier return forms precludes retrospective penalization.\nCitations:\n•\nA.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2114\n•\nA.I.R. 1970 S.C. 10\n•\nA.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1982", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1187 of 1974, decision dated: 21st April, 1987", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S.C. Manchanda and A. Seebhashini,s. B.P. Maheshwari, S.P. Mittal and R.S. Rana", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, CALCUTTA and other\nvs\nRADHESHYAM LADIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "79", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 55 = 1989 SLD 55 = 1989 PTD 357 = (1989) 60 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 59(1) & 65--C.B.R. Letter Circular No. 1(3)IT-IV/80, dated 6-4-1981--Self¬assessment-Re-opening--Sufficient reasons--No action under S. 65 can be taken without sufficient material justifying the re-opening of the case--When approval of I.A:C. as prescribed by law had duly been obtained, objection about lack of definite evidence and the suspicion of \"\"change of opinion\"\" was repelled.\n. \n(b) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n \n---Ss. 74(3), 72 & 71--Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S. 42--Discontinued business--Legal heirs/representatives of the deceased partner to be deemed to be an \"\"assessee\"\"--Duty of legal representatives/heirs to give notice to the assessing officer about the discontinuance of business and to file a return under S. 72(1)-¬Procedure for assessment of \"\"discontinued business\"\" stated.\n \nThe provisions of section 74(3) of Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 clearly stipulate \"\"legal heirs, representatives of the deceased shall for the purpose of this Ordinance be deemed to be an assessee.\"\" This provision creates an obligation on the legal representative (acting as an Assessee), to give a notice to the assessing Officer about the discontinuance of the business, if it had so happened, as is required by subsection (1) of section 72 and also to file a return of income under subsection (2) thereof. It was only then the assessing Officer could proceed to frame the assessment under S. 72 for a discontinued business, for the period commencing from the end of the latest income year to the date of discontinuance, which period was to be deemed to be an \"\"income year\"\" for the purposes of section 72. Once an assessee failed to give a notice about discontinuance of business and the assessment year (in which the date of discontinuance fell) expired, the provisions of section 72 stood ousted. There is, however no bar to complete an assessment of such short period commencing from the end of the latest income year to the said date of discontinuance even after the expiry of the assessment year- in which discontinuance took place, but, in that case, the assessment would be under section 71(1).\n \nIf assessment of a discontinued business is made during the assessment year in which discontinuance took place, it would be under section 72 by deeming the incomplete income year as the 'income year'. Once that is not done, and the running assessment year expires, the assessment would be in a normal manner as authorised by subsection (1) of section 71 as if no discontinuance has taken place. Reference to sections 71 and 72 is clearly misplaced because these relate to discontinuance of business or dissolution of a firm, while in the present case, clause of the partnership deed read with section 42 of the Partnership Act kept the firm alive.\n \nIn the present case the return wits filed by the firm, the notices were issued to the firm the assessment was framed on the firm which under clause of the partnership deed continued to exist, and the demand was against this very firm.\n \n(c) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n \n---S. 65--Assessing Officer, while adopting rate in the accounts, did not act in haphazard manner but duly confronted the assessee with his intention to apply rate and also quoted cases on which he placed reliance for adopting the rate-¬Commissioner of Income-tax, on the other hand, reduced the rate with the observation \"\"sympathetic view is taken\"\" perhaps in view of the fact, that a partner had died and soon after the business of assessee was closed--Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, keeping in view previous cases on similar issue decided by Tribunal ordered adoption of rate accordingly.\n \n(d) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n \n---Ss. 9, 12, 71 & 72 & Sched. I--What is to be charged to tax under S. 9 is the \"\"total income of the income year\"\"--Not necessary that income must be earned during the entire period of 12 months of the year but may be earned in a day, in a month, in a week or in full 12 months of 52 weeks of the year-What is to be seen is that the amount earned during the income year exceeds the maximum limit prescribed in the First Schedule for exemption for tax--Provisions of Ss. 71 & 72, when come into operation.\n \nWhat is to be charged to tax under section 9 of the Ordinance is the \"\"total income of the income year\"\". It is nowhere laid down that income must be earned during the entire period of 12 months of the year. It may be earned in a day, in a month, in a week or in full 12 months of 52 weeks of the year. What is to be seen is that the amount earned during the income year exceeds the maximum limit prescribed in the First Schedule for exemption for tax. The provisions of sections 71 and 72 could come into operation only when the business was discontinued and the Assessing Officer informed about this fact during the course of the financial /assessment year to enable him to proceed to make assessment during that very assessment year. Once the financial/assessment year expired on 30th of June, the assessment could be made only in the assessment year relevant to the financial year or the income year.\n \n(e) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n \n---S. 62--Death of a partner--Assessment based on \"\"service by affixture\"\" and by registered post on the last known address of assessee--Contention that notice under S. 62 should have been served on each and every legal heir of the deceased assessee was repelled.\n \nContention that notice issued under section 62 should have been served on each and every legal heir is of no avail because the impugned assessment was based on service \"\"by affixture\"\" and by \"\"registered post\"\" on the last known address of the assessee. The default of which cognizance was taken to proceed ex parte under section 64, was assailed by referring to cases reported as P L D 1980 Lah. 449 and (1970) 111 I.T.R. 507. It was submitted, for this defect the assessment should have been cancelled and the Commissioner erred in setting it aside. The argument is devoid of force for two reasons: First as per subsection (2) of section 154, a notice could be \"\"addressed in the case of a firm to any member of the firm.\"\" In the present case return was filed in the name of the firm and, therefore, the notices were rightly issued to the firm and these were despatched by the registered post besides service by affixture, as prescribed by law.\n \nThe plea of the assessee before the Commissioner was that the service on the premises of a closed business was improper and illegal, hence ex parte proceedings based on such illegal service were null and void in the eye of law. He, therefore, set aside the assessment to be made de novo. There was no error in this decision.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),65,.74(3),72,71,9,12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos. 2551/LB and 2552/LB of 1987-88; decided on 27-09-1988, hearing DATE : 20-09-1988", + "Judge Name": "A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Qudratullah D.R.. A li Bin Qadir", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "80", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 56 = 1989 SLD 56 = 1989 PTD 367 = (1989) 59 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Validity and Probe of Foreign Remittances\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 13(1)(e), 30, 11, 12, 14, and 2(40) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979; C.B.R. Circular C.No.l(28)/I.T.I./82, dated 18-9-1982.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe C.B.R. circular prohibits probing into foreign exchange earnings remitted through banking channels for non-repatriable industrial investments, subject to conditions:\no\nRemittances must represent earnings. \no\nTransfers must occur via proper banking channels.\no\nThe purpose should be industrial investments.\n2.\nIn cases where funds are received as gifts, the remittances do not qualify for protection under the circular unless evidence proves the donor’s financial capacity and source of funds.\n3.\nMinority View (A.A. Zuberi):\no\nThe I.T.O. has the authority to probe the nature and source of foreign remittances.\no\nMerely submitting declarations of gifts or bank statements is insufficient without corroborating evidence of the donor’s financial standing.\no\nInadequate documentation and unexplained remittance origins justified the additions under section 13.\n4.\nMajority View (Mian Abdul Khaliq and Abrar Hussain Naqvi):\no\nRemittances through proper banking channels should not be probed as per the circular.\no\nThe burden to prove the donor’s financial capacity does not lie on the donee.\no\nThe circular’s intent was to encourage foreign exchange inflows and prohibit unnecessary harassment of recipients.\n________________________________________\n(b) Powers of the Income-tax Tribunal\nRelevant Provision: Section 135(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe Tribunal can direct inquiries or call for further particulars but only when explicitly authorized during proceedings.\n2.\nAny additional evidence obtained by the department without Tribunal authorization is deemed irrelevant.\n________________________________________\n(c) Retrospective Application of Amendments\nRelevant Provision: Section 91(4-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Points:\n1.\nPenal provisions, introduced on 1-7-1987, cannot be applied retroactively.\n2.\nPenalties imposed prior to the amendment are invalid and must be deleted.\n________________________________________\n(d) Interpretation of Section 13\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 13, 111(2), and 119 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Points:\n1.\nSection 13, which governs unexplained income or investments, must be strictly interpreted.\n2.\nWhere two interpretations are possible, the one favoring the taxpayer must be adopted, especially when penalties or prosecution are involved.\n________________________________________\n(e) Taxability of Non-residents\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Points:\n1.\nNon-resident individuals are taxed only on income received or deemed to accrue/arise in Pakistan.\n2.\nForeign income of non-residents, not received in Pakistan, is exempt from Pakistani tax laws.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe circular supports non-repatriable remittances and prohibits unnecessary probes if conditions are met.\n2.\nMajority opinion upheld that remittances through banking channels, even if claimed as gifts, were immune from scrutiny.\n3.\nProcedural lapses and lack of conclusive evidence justified deleting additions made under section 13.\n4.\nStrict interpretation of tax laws ensures equitable treatment and prevents excessive departmental intrusions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(e),30,11,12,14,2(40) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 7000/LB to 7005/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI MIAN, CHAIRMAN, A-A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIALMEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "81", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 57 = 1989 SLD 57 = 1989 PTD 437 = (1989) 59 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 5081\n(a) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--Ss. 50, 53 & 54--Retained income --Tax deducted at source or the tax aid in advance or amount remitted by non-resident companies to the Head Office are not to be treated as retained income --Only that portion of tax liability is to be treated as retained income for which provision has been made by the assessee.\nOnly that portion of the tax liability is to be treated as retained income for which provision has been made by the assessee. Thus the tax deducted at source or the tax paid in advance is not to be treated as retained income, because such amount already goes out of the coffers of the assessee and remains lying in Government treasury for appropriation towards the tax liability. Likewise in the case of non-resident companies the amount remitted to the Head Office is not to be treated as retained income. In the present case this aspect of the case was not examined at all by the Income-tax Officer. The finding of the Income-tax Officer relating to the surcharge was therefore, set aside with the direction to examine the issue afresh. While working out the surcharge it should be kept in mind that remittances to the Head Office, tax paid under section 53 and tax paid under section 50 are not to be treated as retained income. The tax paid under section 54 alongwith the return and the tax paid after the completion of assessment are to be treated as retained income .\n(b) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n---S.23--Administrative expenses--Expenses incurred on legal fee are included in general administrative expenses--Principles--Head Officer's expenses-¬Admissibility--Conditions.\nThe expenses incurred on legal .fee are included in general administrative expenses, however, it is to be ascertained whether the professional charges claimed were incurred on account of legal fee or pot. Likewise the other expenses claimed are also to be examined from the point of view if they relate to the business of assessee in Pakistan or not. It the present case, the findings of the officers below regarding the Head Office expenses were set aside with the direction that this issue may be re-examined and while working out the expenses they should be allowed on pro rata basis exclusively with reference to general administrative expenses of the Head Office relating to the assessee's business in Pakistan, after adjusting the same by excluding such expenses if any as are not admissible under the Pakistan law and that such expenses do not include any expenses which have already been separately charged to the Pakistan account. Nature of professional fee should be examined and if it has been incurred on legal fee and the other conditions enumerated above are satisfied the same may be allowed and likewise the other expenses may also be examined and in doing so the Income-tax Officer may examine the detail already filed by the assessee and in case it is found that some more details or explanations are necessary and could be reasonably filed by the assessee then the same may also be called for.\n(c) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n---Third Sched., R.5--C.B.R. Circular No.22 of 1957 dated 2nd October, 1957-¬ Install --Meaning--Additions made to existing building--Claim for depreciation-¬Admissibility--Conditions.\nAccording to C. B.R. Circular No.22 of 1957 the Board was of the view that initial and additional depreciation allowances are admissible not only to new units of industry but also to new installations or erections in an existing unit of industry-Petty replacement and renewal which fall under repairs cannot be eligible either for normal depreciation allowances or for the initial and additional depreciation allowances.\nSince the C.B.R. has accepted the principle that the subsequent installation shall be covered by the initial installation, therefore, on the same analogy, the subsequent erection of part of building shall be deemed to be newly erected building for the purpose of initial depreciation.\nThus, there was no reason for disallowing the initial depreciation on the newly erected portion or part of building or new additions to a building when initial depreciation is admissible on newly erected building. It is not correct to subscribe to a view that the intention of legislature was to allow the initial depreciation on a completed building only and not to any part of it or any addition to it. Normally where the whole is mentioned the part would be included in it and, therefore, the word 'building' used in Rule 5 of the Third Schedule includes part of the building or addition to the building subject to the condition that it should not be in nature of repair or decoration or of fashion.\nC.I.T. v. London Hotel 1968 I T R 68 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,53,54,23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1287/KB and 746/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 15-10-1988, hearing DATE : 12-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "E.U. Khawaja. Yousuf Sharih, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "82", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 58 = 1989 SLD 58 = 1989 PTD 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---Ss. 2 (4) & 66-Income--Adventure in the nature of trade--Investment in land is adventure in the nature of trade and a mixed question of law and fact--Burden of proof that profit earned in such transaction is revenue receipt is on the Department--Suit for specific performance of agreement for purchase of land-¬Partnership for financing the litigation in land plotted out and sold--Profits, not in the nature of trade--But Capital gain.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4),66 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.300 of 1971, decision dated: 2-12-1974", + "Judge Name": "M.N. SHUKLA AND K.C. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shanti Bhushan and R.K. Gulati for the Assessee. Dr. R.R. Misra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DEEP CHANDRA CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "83", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 59 = 1989 SLD 59 = 1989 PTD 460 = (1989) 60 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 2 (ii) & 62--Venture in the nature of trade--Taxability of declared gain on sale of land--Whether transaction of sale made by the assessee through sale agreement amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade and profits earned therefrom were taxable as revenue receipts--Test--Whether a solitary such transaction undertaken by an assessee in the case of single sale or isolated transaction could be termed to be dealings in the nature of trade--Onus of proof.\nThe solitary issue requiring determination was whether the transaction of sale made by the assessee through sale agreement amounted to an adventure C in the, nature of trade and profits earned therefrom were taxable as revenue receipts. For resolving this issue the real test is the dominant intention and conduct of the concerned party. It has to be seen that at the time of purchase/sale of land, what was the intention of the assessee.\nIf a person buys land with no intention of selling it and ultimately finds it convenient to sell the same, even though by parceling it out into different plots and also by laying out roads and providing other amenities with a view to get more price, it cannot be said that the activity which he carried on has any element of trade, commerce or business and it cannot, therefore, be said that it is an activity in the nature of a trade.\nThe admitted position is that this, was the sole purchase and sale of land and that the assessee, never before or after, has indulged in real estate business. Therefore, in order to bring the case within the extended definition of business by way of adventure in the nature of trade the presence of the two dominant intentions at the time of acquisition and at the time of its disposal is a necessary element. These two dominant intentions at the time of acquisition and at the time of its disposal are necessary elements. Since these two elements are absent here, the gains that the assessee has made would either be casual gains or capital gains and nothing else. The actions of the Income-tax Officer in treating the surpluses as revenue gains cannot be sustained.\nThe second test for decision of this issue is the subject-matter of transaction. The land purchased by the assessee was admittedly an agricultural land. It had been in cultivation throughout as is evident from the copies of Khasra Girdawari. The fact that the land was continuously used by the assessee for agricultural purposes for a period of 25 years is in itself sufficient to hold that the same was not a commercial commodity. It can safely be held that transaction made by the assessee in sale of land after 25 years' cultivation could not be a transaction of commercial character.\nAnother aspect of the matter is whether a solitary transaction undertaken by an assessee in the case of single sale or isolated transaction can be termed to be dealings in the nature of trade.\nDepartmental officers erred in holding that solitary transaction of sale of agricultural land undertaken by the assessee was venture in the nature of trade and profits earned therefrom were taxable as revenue receipts. The departmental officers fell in error in holding that agreement of sale made by the assessee did not tantamount to sale. Findings of the departmental officers on this issue were self-contradictory as on the one hand sale made by the assessee on the basis of that transaction has been held to be an adventure in the nature of trade whereas on the other hand, no authenticity has been attached to that agreement. The departmental officers failed to establish the assessee's intention of purchase of land after so many years in the hope of earning of any profits. The other considerations mentioned by the departmental officers in the form of location and use of the land were totally extraneous considerations as the assessee being owner was the best judge to hold or sell its property according to her best wisdom. The departmental officers having accepted the sale of land, the mode of sale was totally immaterial.\n1975 P T D (Trib.) 6; (1978) 37 Tax 236 ; (1959) 35 I T R 594; Leeming v. Jones (1930; 15 TC 333; Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Rinhold (1953) 34 TC 389; Janki Ram Bahadar Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC); 1984 P T D (Trib.) 127; Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ligingston and others 11 Tax Cas. 538; 14 Tax Cas. 468; (1959) 35 I T R 594 SC and (1959) 35 I T R 59 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(ii),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3874/LB of 1984-85,decided on 10-01-1989, hearing DATE : 14-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, AND FAKHAR-UD-DIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Nouman Sh.. Munir Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "84", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 60 = 1989 SLD 60 = 1989 PTD 470 = (1989) 59 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax----Trust--Assessee, creator and Mutawalli of Trust, had reserved 1/4th income of the Trust for himself or his family--Income determined by the assessing officer being the real income of the Trust the assesses was liable to be assessed on 1/4th of the income so determined.\nThe assessee is the creator of the Trust. He is the Mutawalli and he has reserved 1/4th income of the Trust for himself or his family. Therefore, the income of the assessee would be 1/4th of the income which has accrued to the Trust. It has not been provided in the Trust that the income of the applicant will be only that income which is audited and declared before the Income-tax Officer. If the account books of the Trust are rejected then the income of the assessee on record is bound to be affected. In the present case the accounts have not been accepted and 'the income of the Trust has been enhanced on well-recognised principles. Therefore, applying- the provision of clause 41 of the Trust Deed which provides for apportionment of the income of the Trust, the assessee would be entitled to 1/4th of the income and in the present case the income determined by the Income-tax Officer is the real income of the Trust. Income of the Trust cannot be bifurcated in two parts i.e. one for the purpose of income tax and the other for determining the income of the assessee. What the assessee will get is 1/4th of what the Trust has earned. Thus the assessee is liable to be assessed on 1/4th of the income determined.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R./R.A. No.25 of 1981, decision dated: 16-01-1959", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND LMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Wadood for Applicant. Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Hakeem MUHAMMAD SAEED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "85", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 61 = 1989 SLD 61 = 1989 PTD 472 = (1989) 59 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S.4--Assessee, a builder, constructing apartments for sale--Advance amount received from purchasers of apartment--Not a security . but paid towards the sale price where balance was to be paid later--Nature of receipt to be ascertained not with reference to the subsequent, changes but is to be gathered as at the inception of the receipt .\nK.M.S. Lakshmanier and Sons v. C.I.T.1953 I T R 202 (S ,C);' Punjab Diesel Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Simla (1953) 24 I T R 59; and Hasmukh Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Bombay North (1959) 371 T R 359 ref.\nMorley (Inspector Taxes) v. Tettersall (1938) 3 All E R 296 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.5 of 1980, decision dated: 9-01-1989, hearing DATE : 30-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARACHI SIND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax WEST ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "86", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 62 = 1989 SLD 62 = 1989 PTD 478 = (1989) 59 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S.65--Re-assessment--When justified-Principles--Change of opinion by Assessing Officer--Effect--Where assessment has been finalized by the Income¬tax Officer in accordance with the law, it cannot be reopened on the ground that the Income-tax Officer on a second thought has changed his opinion on the factual or legal aspect of the case or that a successor officer takes a different view of the material considered by his predecessor. Action can be taken by the Income-tax Officer who passed the assessment order or by his predecessor for re¬opening of the decided cases under section 65 of the Ordinance of 1979 if he is satisfied on the basis of definite information that the assessee had failed to disclose true and correct facts, or on the facts disclosed by the assessee the income is found to have been under assessed or there is case of escapement of income from assessment.\nIf the notice is given on the same material and the case is not covered by subsection 1 (c) of section 65 of the decided for fresh adjudication, it cannot be re-opened on a mere change of opinion or that the Officer has second thought for the, matter. In those cases where, there are two possible factual or legal views of the matter, even then the case cannot be reopened because it would also mean mere change of opinion on a part of fact or law. But if the assessee has failed to disclose all primary facts then the reassessment is justified. The principle underlying section 65 is that the income must not be escaped. It may be due to the bona fide belief of the assesses or an I.T.O. that certain income is not liable to tax. The I.T.O. may have interpreted a law intentionally or otherwise which is erroneous on the face of it. If the error is apparent on record and there cannot be second view of the matter then resort to the provisions of section 65 of the Ordinance is justified.\nIn the present case, assessment for the disputed assessment year, by the Income-tax Officer, His successor in Office proposed to reopen the case taking the view that the valuation accepted by his predecessor was not fair similarly, the wealth statements of the three partners of assesses mentioned in the impugned notice were finalized by the Income-tax Officer after taking into consideration the documents submitted before him but his successor was of the view that the documents did not establish fully the source of the wealth. It is therefore, quite clear that the issuance of notice under section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance was based on a mere change of opinion by the successor Income-tax Officer which could not justify the action in law.\nCalcutta Discount Co Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies Distt. 1, Calcutta and another (1961) 41 I T R 191; Commissioner of Income-tax v. U Lu Nyo A I R 1933 Rang. 350; Gemini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer, B7 Ward, Agra and others (1975) 100 I T R 1 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ambika Mills Ltd. (1976) 101 1 T R 669 ref.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n---Art. 199--Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 65--Constitutional jurisdiction-¬Existence of other remedy under relevant law--Effect--Interference even at the star of issuance of notice can be made by the High Court where the proposed action lacks jurisdiction on the part of Authority initiating the action or on the basis of admitted facts the action proposed by the Authority is shown to be unsustainable in law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No D-608 of 1987, decision dated: 13-10-1988, hearing DATE : 19th November. 1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUE AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "SA. Wadood for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CAR TUNES\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE V, HYDERABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "87", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 63 = 1989 SLD 63 = 1989 PTD 485 = (1989) 60 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Alternate Remedies\nRelevant Provisions: Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973; Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nRelief under Article 199 is not available if alternate adequate remedies exist.\n•\nTaxpayers can seek redress through complaints to the Federal Ombudsman, which provides quasi-judicial remedies without procedural constraints.\n•\nThe High Court emphasized the availability of alternate remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.788 of 1984, decision dated: 7-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ARIF DAR\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "88", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 64 = 1989 SLD 64 = 1989 PTD 500 = (1989) 60 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Unpaid Price as Business Expenditure\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nInterest paid by a purchaser of an industrial concern on the unpaid balance was held to be revenue expenditure, satisfying conditions under Section 10(2)(xvi).\n•\nThe expenditure was integral to the profit-earning process and not for acquiring a capital asset.\n•\nPrecedent Cases: Bombay Steam Navigation Co. and State of Madras v. G.J. Coelho supported the treatment of such interest as revenue expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.77-K to 80-K of 1979, decision dated: 25-08-1988. dates of hearing: 22nd and 25-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J. ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH AND SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S.Ghoury, Advocate-on-Record in (C.As. 77-K to 80-K of 1979). Nemos. Nasim Ahmad. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghoury, Advocate- on-Records in (C.As.42-K to 44-K of 1986). Shaikh Hyder, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate- on-Records.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST ZONE, KARACHI and another\nvs\nMessrs KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. and others\nPAKISTAN PROGRESSIVE CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED (Now National Cement industries Ltd.)\nvs \nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "89", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 65 = 1989 SLD 65 = 1989 PTD 513 = (1989) 60 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Following Final Tribunal Orders\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 65, 59, 136, and 135 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nOrders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, once final under Section 135(9), cannot be reopened by the Income-tax Officer.\n•\nReassessment based on conflicting decisions in unrelated cases is impermissible.\n•\nJudicial consistency and adherence to procedural finality were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,136,135(9) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-576 of 1987, decision dated: 16-02-1989. dates of hearing: 14th and 15-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Shaikh Haidars", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NISHAT TALKIES, KARACHI\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE A-4 CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "90", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 66 = 1989 SLD 66 = 1989 PTD 519 = (1989) 60 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Losses\nRelevant Provisions: Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nThe question of whether a loss is holding or speculative is a matter of fact.\n•\nFindings by the Tribunal on factual issues cannot be interfered with during reference proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.89 of 1979, decision dated: 19-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, CJ AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Khalid Anwar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs HUSSAIN INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "91", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 67 = 1989 SLD 67 = 1989 PTD 525 = (1989) 60 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Incompetent Reference Filing\nKey Issue:\n•\nA reference was dismissed due to the absence of certified copies of the Tribunal’s order, which were mandatory for proper institution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.13 of 1971, decision dated: 7th February,1989, hearing DATE : 17-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "MAHBOOB AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Butt and A.H. Najfi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs MIAN JAVED A. SHEIKH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "92", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 68 = 1989 SLD 68 = 1989 PTD 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease Income During Business Suspension\nKey Principle:\n•\nA company temporarily suspending business operations and earning lease income was held taxable under the head of profits and gains of business. \n•\nTemporary suspension aimed at overcoming a crisis does not change the nature of income.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.689-692 (NT) of 1975 with S.L.P.(C) No. 5324 and 5325 of 1978 decided on, 15-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S.RANGANATHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. Sabyasachi Mukharji and S.Ranganathan, JJ", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LUCKNOW\nvs\nVIKRAM COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "93", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 69 = 1989 SLD 69 = 1989 PTD 544 = (1989) 60 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Speedy Remedies\nRelevant Provisions: Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973; Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nSpeedy departmental remedies should be pursued before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nAllegations of mala fide conduct by departmental authorities may justify immediate High Court intervention.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.215 of 1985, -decided on 19-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 215 of 1985, decided on 19th March, 1989\nMuhammad Amin Butt, Advocate instructed by Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "SHAGUFTA BEGUM\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE XI, ZONE B, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "94", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 70 = 1989 SLD 70 = 1989 PTD 547 = (1989) 59 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Notice Under Section 65\nKey Finding:\n•\nAbsence of clear disclosure of expenditure items in the return justified the issuance of a notice under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,59(1),62,65 Income Tax Act, 1922=147(a) ", + "Case #": "Cons. P. No. D-1597 of 1987, decision dated: 09-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE\nAHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: S.A. Wadood and Rehan Hassan Naqvi\nRespondent(s) by: Waheed Farooqis", + "Party Name:": "ZAFAR USMAN\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICERS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "95", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 71 = 1989 SLD 71 = 1989 PTD 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Confidentiality and Disclosure in Tax Law\nRelevant Provisions: Section 150 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979; Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nConfidentiality under Section 150 applies to taxpayer information against third parties but allows certified copies for the taxpayer’s use.\n•\nLegal precedents reinforced the confidentiality and privilege of income-tax returns.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=150 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=7 Income Tax Act, 1922=54 ", + "Case #": "Suit No.122 of 1971, decision dated: 20-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muzaffarul Haq for Plaintiff. Afzal Nabi for Defendants", + "Party Name:": "YUSUF HAJI ISMAIL\nvs\nHUSSAIN MUNTAZ and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "96", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 72 = 1989 SLD 72 = 1989 PTD 556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contempt Proceedings and Acquittal\nKey Points:\n•\nAlleged contemners, accused of refusing service and misbehaving with a bailiff, were acquitted due to conflicting evidence and the benefit of doubt.\n•\nContempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal, require proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-659 of 1988, heard on 24-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND QAISER AHMAD HAMIDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Faridul Haq alongwith Munawar Ali Bhatti for Petitioner. AA.Mohammadally, Addl. A.G.s.Sharaf Faridi for the Contemner", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER CIRCLE XV, EAST ZONE, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "97", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 73 = 1989 SLD 73 = 1989 PTD 567 = (1989) 60 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 13 & 13-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Finding: Accounts maintained consistently and without defects cannot be rejected simply for the absence of certain records (e.g., stage-wise production).\n•\nPrecedents: The Assessing Officer must identify specific defects to justify rejection. Non-maintenance of impractical records for the business line is insufficient.\n•\nCase References: Karachi Textile Dyeing & Printing Works and others.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,13A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.24 of 1979, decision dated: 28-02-1989, hearing DATE : 11-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Rashida Patel", + "Party Name:": "INDUS TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIOENR OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "98", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 74 = 1989 SLD 74 = 1989 PTD 570 = (1989) 60 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Director’s Salary Deduction\nRelevant Provisions: Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Finding: Salary paid to a director can be claimed as a business expense only if the assessee provides evidence of business purpose. Mere company resolutions are insufficient.\n•\nBurden of Proof: Lies on the assessee to establish commercial expediency or direct business benefit.\n•\nPrecedents: Courts have emphasized a direct nexus between expenditure and business.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12(2)(xvi),10(2)(xvi),66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.10 of 1981, heard on 16-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muktada Karim. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HASHMI CAN COMPANY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "99", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 75 = 1989 SLD 75 = 1989 PTD 573 = (1989) 60 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax as Deposit\nRelevant Provisions: Section 18-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nNature of Advance Tax: Treated as a deposit for adjusting future liabilities and not an immediate liability. Excess amounts earn interest, reflecting its character as a deposit rather than a tax paid.\n•\nRefundable Bonds: Advance tax converted into bonds retains its character as a current asset.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A,18(1),18(2),18(3),18(5),23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.68 of 1979, decision dated: 28-02-1989. dates of hearing: 10th, 16th and 23rd January, 1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE (A), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs RAZAK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 76 = 1989 SLD 76 = 1989 PTD 576 = (1989) 60 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange and Capital Gains\nKey Principle:\n•\nOnly income taxable in Pakistan is exempt from foreign exchange repatriation regulations. Capital remittances, not being revenue income, are not taxable under these regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax reference No.73 of 1979, decision dated: 5-11-1988, hearing DATE : 12-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMst. MARIAM BAI AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 77 = 1989 SLD 77 = 1989 PTD 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity as Trading Liability\nRelevant Provision: Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nFinding: Provision for gratuity under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, is allowable as a trading liability incurred for commercial expediency.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1980, decision dated: 12-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.J.G. FAZAL ELAHI LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 78 = 1989 SLD 78 = 1989 PTD 581 = (1989) 60 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference and Tribunal Directives\nKey Issues:\n•\nQuestions of law referred to courts must include all facts from Tribunal orders.\n•\nCirculars from CBR (Central Board of Revenue) provide mandatory guidelines for tax treatment, particularly regarding loss of current assets in East Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.24 of 1979. decided on 5-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs AMIN MOHIUDDIN FOUNDATION Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 79 = 1989 SLD 79 = 1989 PTD 582 = (1989) 60 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "International Contracts and Trading Loss\nRelevant Provisions: Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nForeign Payment Liability: Payments in USD by an agent to a parent company were considered business expenses.\n•\nLoss from Devaluation: Treated as a trading loss and deductible if incurred for business purposes.\n•\nPrecedents: Losses incurred due to foreign exchange volatility are often treated as trading losses if directly related to business operations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No.25 of 1979, decision dated: 30-01-1989. dates of hearing: 17th and 19-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER CO. OF PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 80 = 1989 SLD 80 = 1989 PTD 591 = (1989) 60 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Entertainment Duty and Income Classification\nRelevant Provisions: Section 9 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nFinding: Entertainment Duty collected but not paid to the government, and subsequently distributed among partners, retains its liability nature. It is not classified as income.\n•\nKey Principle: The nature of a receipt is determined at the time of its collection", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=188,201 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.131 of 1987, decision dated: 16-02-1989. dates of hearing: 14th and 15-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NISHAT TALKIES, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 81 = 1989 SLD 81 = 1989 PTD 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Meltage Allowance and Theft Loss\nKey Findings:\n•\nMeltage Allowance: Treated as an operational allowance in the ice factory business, permissible for deduction.\n•\nTheft Loss: Allowed as a deductible expense where its occurrence is undisputed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 13-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MOHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir Qureshi. Siddique Akhtar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ABBOT LABORATORIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 82 = 1989 SLD 82 = 1989 PTD 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Honorarium Exemption\nRelevant Provision: Schedule II, Part I, Clause (41-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Finding: Honorarium received by an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is exempt under specific conditions", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SchedII,PartI,Cl.(41A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5405 LB 86-87 (Assessment year 1985-86), dated 29-9-1988, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1988", + "Judge Name": "MIRZA MOHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir Qureshi. Allah Ditta", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 83 = 1989 SLD 83 = 1989 PTD 602 = (1989) 60 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loan and Business Utilization\nRelevant Provisions: Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nLoan for Business Use: Borrowed amounts utilized for purchasing raw materials and production are deductible as business expenses.\n•\nDevaluation Loss: Additional liability due to currency devaluation is classified as a trading loss and is deductible", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "LT.R. No. 36 of 1979, decision dated: 22-03-1989, hearing DATE : 31st January, 1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Messrs Athar and Wadood for Applicants. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 84 = 1989 SLD 84 = 1989 PTD 607 = (1989) 60 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Promotion Allowance\nRelevant Provision: Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nVoluntary Payments: Promotion allowance received voluntarily, without request, contract, or legal obligation, is not taxable as income.\no\nCriteria for Exclusion: Payments must be casual, non-recurring, and devoid of business or professional linkage.\no\nTribunal’s Decision: Excluded the promotion allowance from the assessee’s taxable income as it was a voluntary gift without any expectation or legal obligation.\n•\nPrecedents: Cases like Gaja Pathi Naider v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. Dr. K. George Thomas were analyzed to establish principles.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1981, heard on 25-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SANDOZ (PAK.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 85 = 1989 SLD 85 = 1989 PTD 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Manipulated Profits in Resident-Nonresident Business\nRelevant Provision: Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSection 42(1): Income arising from business connections in Pakistan for a non-resident is taxable under the resident agent’s name.\no\nSection 42(2): Designed to address manipulated transactions between residents and non-residents that reduce taxable profits for the resident.\no\nConditions for Applicability:\n\nResident and non-resident must have a close business connection.\n\nTransactions must result in reduced profits for the resident due to manipulation.\no\nObjective: Ensure profits that would have normally accrued are taxed.\n•\nKey Principles: Income reduced or eliminated through manipulation is treated as the resident’s taxable income by legal fiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Nos.1 and 5 of 1981, decision dated: 21st March, 1989. dates of hearing: 13th and 14-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPFIZER LABORATORIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 86 = 1989 SLD 86 = 1989 PTD 617 = (1989) 60 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of Returns and Exempt Income\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 55, 56, and 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFiling Obligations:\n\nTaxpayers who were taxed in any of the preceding four years must file returns, regardless of current-year liability.\n\nExempt income returns do not constitute valid returns unless there is taxable income involved.\no\nJurisdiction of Income-tax Officer (ITO):\n\nITOs can invoke Section 56 or 65 to assess undeclared taxable income.\n\nVoluntary returns of non-taxable income without disclosed taxable elements are invalid.\no\nTax on Deemed Interest:\n\nTaxable income may be identified during scrutiny, even in cases where only exempt income was declared.\no\nImportant Rulings:\n\nReturns declaring exempt income alone cannot trigger ITO proceedings under Sections 61 or 62 without valid grounds for scrutiny.\n•\nCase References: C.I.T. v. Ranchodas Karsondas provided insight into voluntary returns and their limitations", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,59,65,61,62,12(7) & Sched,49(d),14(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1719 to 1721/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 20-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Akber G Merchant. Javed Aziz", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 87 = 1989 SLD 87 = 1989 PTD 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Change of Opinion\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 62 and 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nChange of Opinion:\n\nReassessment cannot be based merely on a change of opinion by a subsequent Income-tax Officer (ITO).\n\nReassessment requires new material or evidence indicating under-assessment or concealment.\no\nOriginal Assessment:\n\nIf the initial assessment comprehensively examined accounts and transactions, reassessment without new material is invalid.\no\nSpecific Defects Required:\n\nGeneral observations or unverifiable complaints about purchases and sales are insufficient for reassessment.\n\nSolid evidence must justify rejection of accounts or trading results.\no\nAffidavits and Director Payments:\n\nPayments made by directors from personal resources should be assessed in their hands, not the company’s.\n•\nTribunal’s Directions: Remitted the case to ITO for re-examination of affidavits and bank statements to ensure correct tax liability allocation.\n•\nPrecedents: Arafat Woollen Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. reaffirmed that reassessment requires substantial evidence or new information.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 6098 LB,. 6184/LB and 6185/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 16-01-1989, hearing DATE : 8-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "F.R. Hashmi. C.A. Sikandar Kaleem Fazal A C", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 88 = 1989 SLD 88 = 1989 PTD 652 = (1989) 60 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition and Scope of Taxable Income and Person \n•\n(a) Definition of Person :\nThe term person in Section 2(32) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, includes a company. Therefore, companies are entitled to the benefits under Part III of the Second Schedule.\n•\n(b) Application of Clause (a):\nClause (a) of Part III covers individuals liable for income tax and super tax. Companies paying both taxes qualify for this benefit.\n•\n(c) & (d) Taxable vs. Total Income:\no\nTotal income includes all income received or deemed received in Pakistan.\no\nTaxable income is the residual after allowable exemptions or deductions.\n•\n(e) Obligations of ITO:\nSection 49 mandates that exempt income or permissible deductions be excluded from total income before calculating tax.\n•\n(f) & (g) Exemptions:\nZakat and wealth tax are included in total income but excluded when calculating taxable income.\nPrecedents: 1988 P.T.D. 345 and 1988 P.T.D. 350 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.II,Part111,2(3),14,2(44),49,14(1),49,2(44) & Sched.II,Part1, ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.2038/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 12-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ather Saeed , D.R.. Mehtab Khan I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 89 = 1989 SLD 89 = 1989 PTD 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Capital Assets\n•\nRelevant Provision: Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Findings: Interest paid on capital assets used for business purposes is deductible.\nCase Reference: Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Khairpur Textile Mills Limited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)XVI ", + "Case #": "IT. No.765 of 1972, decision dated: 3rd April, 1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Khalid Anwars", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nERUCH MANECKJI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 90 = 1989 SLD 90 = 1989 PTD 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cold Storage Business Assessment\n•\nRelevant Provision: Section 32 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nEvidence presented by the assessee, including affidavits and storage charges, supported declared income.\no\nThe ITO failed to produce material evidence contradicting the assessee’s claims.\no\nRejection of trading results was deemed unjustified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4629/1-8 and 5271/1-13 of 1986-87, decision dated: 19-01-1989, hearing DATE : 29-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MUHAMMAD WASIM ACCOUNTED MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir Qureshi, A.C./D.R.. F.R. Hashmi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 91 = 1989 SLD 91 = 1989 PTD 670 = (1989) 60 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Property Income\n•\nRelevant Provisions: Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nOwnership remains with the seller until the sale deed is registered.\no\nThe seller is liable for property income tax during the relevant period.\nCase References: R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.18 of 1980, decision dated: 11-04-1989, hearing DATE : 22-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ather and Wadood. Rashida Patel", + "Party Name:": "B.D. AVARI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 92 = 1989 SLD 92 = 1989 PTD 673 = (1989) 60 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rebate on Declared Income\n•\nRelevant Regulations: M.L.R. 32 and Section 9(5) of the Finance Act, 1968.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nConsolidated declarations should be assessed on average annual income.\no\nRebate under the Finance Act for export-related income is valid even under M.L.R. 32.\no\nRules cannot override the provisions of M.L.R. 32", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.31 of 1981, decision dated: 5-04-1989. dates of hearing: 22nd and 27-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAN ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "Messrs G.M. FISHERIES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL A), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 93 = 1989 SLD 93 = 1989 PTD 676 = (1989) 60 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance on Shares\n•\nRelevant Provision: Section 41(1)(d) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInvestment allowance is not available if the shares were acquired through allotment letters before registration.\no\nThe ITO must verify whether shares were registered in the assessee's or previous allottee's name.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=41(1)(d) Companies Ordinance, 1984=72,81 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos.1053 and 4054/KB of 1986-1987 decided on 15-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Memon DR. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 94 = 1989 SLD 94 = 1989 PTD 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Management Expenses in Insurance\n•\nRelevant Provision: Section 10(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nExpenses exceeding prescribed limits are deductible if incurred wholly for business purposes.\nCase References: Alpha Insurance Co. and New Jubilee Insurance Co.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.62 of 1979, decision dated: 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Nome", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B\nvs\nSTANDARD INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 95 = 1989 SLD 95 = 1989 PTD 683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Management Expenses in Insurance\n•\nRelevant Provision: Section 10(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nExpenses exceeding prescribed limits are deductible if incurred wholly for business purposes.\nCase References: Alpha Insurance Co. and New Jubilee Insurance Co.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.109 of 1979, heard on 22-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Nasim Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE (A), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NORWITCH UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 96 = 1989 SLD 96 = 1989 PTD 684 = (1989) 60 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 34 and 33(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAfter Tribunal restores the original assessment, the ITO lacks jurisdiction to reopen it without new material.\no\nReopening based on the same material violates legal authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,33(6) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.D-917 of 1979, decision dated: 21st November, 1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Fazeel for Petitioner.muhail Munsoor", + "Party Name:": "BADRUDDIN H. MAVANI\nvs\n Income Tax OFFICER CIRCLE XII (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 97 = 1989 SLD 97 = 1989 PTD 687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Assessments\n•\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 66 & 160 of the Income-tax Act, 1922; Article 199 of the Constitution.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nHigh Court allowed assessments nearing time-bar, with a stay on implementation for six months.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,160 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional petition No.D-590 of 1987, decision dated: 25-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioner. Abul Khair Ansari,s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SEABANA ENTERPRISES\nvs\nTAX OFFICER CIRCLE XVII A S T ZONE, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 98 = 1989 SLD 98 = 1989 PTD 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Land Converted to Housing\n•\nRelevant Provisions: Sections 66, 66-A, and 12-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nConversion of agricultural land to housing sites and leasing plots is a transfer of capital assets.\nCase References: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 972 and Bachu Bai F.E. Dinshaw v. Commissioner of Income Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66A,12B ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.613-615 of 1975, decision dated: 5-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "M.H. KANIA, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "R.K, PALSHIKAR (HUF)\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADHYA PRADESH, NAGPUR, BHAN DARA, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 99 = 1989 SLD 99 = 1989 PTD 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Receipts\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSociety engaged in sugar manufacturing deducted amounts under a bye-law for specific purposes.\no\nThe retrospective amendment to the bye-law was invalid, as societies lack such powers.\no\nDeductions were treated as revenue receipts as per the unamended bye-law.\nReferences:\n•\n87 I.T.R. 542, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2427.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.563 and 564 (NT) of 1975, decision dated: 6-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PAATHAK, C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, U.P.II, LUCKNOW\nvs\nBAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD., BAZPUR, DISTRICT NAINITAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 100 = 1989 SLD 100 = 1989 PTD 711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSeizure of smuggled goods was treated as concealed income since the assessee failed to prove ownership.\no\nInclusion of the goods' value in taxable income and penalty imposition was upheld.\nReferences:\n•\n1983 Tax L.R. 179, 135 I.T.R. 652.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1863 of 1986, decision dated: 2nd May 1988", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANTHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. N.M. Ghatate Mrs. S.V. Deshpande, for Petitioner. Kuldip Singh, Addl. Solicitor, General, B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "CHUHARMAL TAKARMAL MOHNANI\nvs\nCOMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX, M.P., BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 101 = 1989 SLD 101 = 1989 PTD 716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Loss\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDespite a change in shareholding exceeding 51%, the assessee could carry forward losses.\no\nThe change in shareholding was not aimed at tax avoidance.\nReferences:\n•\n143 I.T.R. 856, 143 I.T.R. 863.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1520 (NT) of 1986 (Arising out of S L P (Civil) No. 6762 of 1979), decision dated: 5-09-1980", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK C, J. AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V.S. Desai and A. Subhashini. Harish Salve, Mrs. A. K. Verma and Joel Peres,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY\nvs\n Messrs ITALINDIA COTTON CO. (P) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 102 = 1989 SLD 102 = 1989 PTD 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Honorarium and Medical Allowance Exemption\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nHonorarium and medical allowances for employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education were exempt under Clause 41-A.\nCase Reference:\n•\nI.T.A. No. 5405/LB of 1986-87.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.II,PartI,cl.41A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4920/LB 11 of 1986-87, decision dated: 31st October, 1988", + "Judge Name": "MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir Qureshi, A C/DR. Allah Ditta", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 103 = 1989 SLD 103 = 1989 PTD 721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday for New Unit\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTax holiday under Section 15-BB was granted to the assessee's new unit for the relevant period before withdrawal in June 1970.\nReferences:\n•\nFinance Ordinance, 1971.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB ", + "Case #": "I.T.C: No. 103 of 1979, decision dated: 22nd December 1988", + "Judge Name": "SALIM AKHTAR AND ALLHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Applicant Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "JAMIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 104 = 1989 SLD 104 = 1989 PTD 728", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Nullity of Garnishee Order\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nA garnishee order specifying an incorrect amount rendered the sale and the order itself void.\no\nAuction purchasers were refunded with interest for compensation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2340 of 1988 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9946 of 1987, dated 2-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SURINDER MATH KAPOOR\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 105 = 1989 SLD 105 = 1989 PTD 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Amendment\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAmendment to Section 18-A(6) by the Finance Act, 1973, was applied retrospectively.\nReference:\n•\n1987 P.T.D. 739.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=8A(6) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 16 of 1983, decision dated: 6-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Nizam Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ALLIED TRADING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 106 = 1989 SLD 106 = 1989 PTD 736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Foreign Remittances\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nOnly remittances classified as income or revenue profit were taxable.\no\nCapital receipts remained exempt.\nRegulation Reference:\n•\nM.L.R. 104 and 105.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.74 of 1979, decision dated: 5-11-1988, hearing DATE : 12-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMst. KHATOON BAIJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 107 = 1989 SLD 107 = 1989 PTD 737 = (1989) 60 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Scope Under Clause (119)\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInterest income was not exempt under Clause (119) as it was not derived from manufacturing processes.\no\nTax holidays under Section 15-BB differed from exemptions under Clause (119).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.Cl.(119) Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 4108/KB of 186-87, decision dated: 11-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.H. Faridi. A.R. Memon", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 108 = 1989 SLD 108 = 1989 PTD 743 = (1989) 60 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity as Deduction\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nLiability for gratuity must be payable in the relevant year for deduction.\no\nGratuity is taxable only in the hands of recipients.\nReference:\n•\n1982 P.T.D. (Trib.) 1.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,25(c),24,16(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. s Nos. 254 to 256/LB of/1984-85, 1906/LB to 2876/LB of 1986, 87 1842/LBI/DB and 1843/LBI/DB of 1987-88, decision dated: 31st July, 1988, hearing DATE : 5-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sadullah Khan AC/DR. MA. Malik, FCA, M.A. Malik F C A. Sadullah Khan AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 109 = 1989 SLD 109 = 1989 PTD 758 = (1989) 60 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice of Demand\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFresh demand notices outside the provisions of Section 85 are illegal.\no\nNotices become debts once issued.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 5180 of LB/1986-87, decision dated: 21st January, 1989, hearing DATE : 17-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, FAKHAR-UD-DIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Bashir Ahmed. Munir Qureshi, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 110 = 1989 SLD 110 = 1989 PTD 762 = (1989) 60 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Retrospective Amendment\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAmendments to Section 13(1)(d) were not retrospective", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),13 ", + "Case #": "ITA. No.810/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 22-02-1989, hearing DATE : 17-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ FAKHAR-UD-DIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MIRA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Iqbal and Fazal Mehmood, CA.. Munir Qureshi AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 111 = 1989 SLD 111 = 1989 PTD 763", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retained Income for Surcharge\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nIncome-tax liability was included in retained income for surcharge computation.\nReference:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1988 P.T.D. 666", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,FirstSched,PartIII ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.28 of 1988, decision dated: 13-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A\nvs\nMessrs CHEMDYES PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 112 = 1989 SLD 112 = 1989 PTD 764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retained Income for Surcharge\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nIncome-tax liability was included in retained income for surcharge computation.\nReference:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1988 P.T.D. 666.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),4(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.100 of 1979, decision dated: 10-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMUHAMMAD BASHIR SULEMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 113 = 1989 SLD 113 = 1989 PTD 769", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Regulations\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRepatriated amounts not sent within prescribed time under M.L.R. 105 were ineligible for exemption.\no\nTribunal upheld the department's assessment under specific provisions", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.70 and 71 of 1971, decision dated: 16-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sohail Hameed for Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Nasim Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "CONIMISSIONER OF Income Tax KARACHI (WEST) KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs WILH WILHELMSEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 114 = 1989 SLD 114 = 1989 PTD 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Regulations\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRepatriated amounts not sent within prescribed time under M.L.R. 105 were ineligible for exemption.\no\nTribunal upheld the department's assessment under specific provisions", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1792 (NT) (Allahabad) of 1974 and 609 (NT) (Gujarat) of 1975 decided on 10th November 1987", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L, OZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Guari Shanker, Senior Advocate Amicus curiae Manij Arora and S. Rajappa. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate and K.C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashinis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAZID ALI ABID ALI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LUCKNOW and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 115 = 1989 SLD 115 = 1989 PTD 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Challenges to Tax Notices\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nConstitutional petitions against tax notices are generally discouraged, barring patent illegality.\no\nSelf-assessment schemes and contingent liabilities require proper record maintenance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-529 and Miscellaneous Application No. 1242 of 1988, decision dated: 30-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nasim for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs H.M. ABDULLAH\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 116 = 1989 SLD 116 = 1989 PTD 803", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Remuneration from Foreign Employers\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRemuneration includes fees received by consultants and technicians, not just salaries.\nReferences:\n•\nA.I.R. 1958 S.C. 388", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3947 (NT) of 1987 (arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 7301 of 1987, decision dated: 27th November 1987", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 117 = 1989 SLD 117 = 1989 PTD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowable Deduction for Repairs\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe case addressed the deductibility of expenses related to repairs of a leased property. The lessee undertook minor repairs such as whitewashing, electrical, and sanitary repairs, while the lessor retained responsibility for major structural repairs. The Income Tax Tribunal held that repair expenses borne by the lessee could be considered allowable deductions under the Income Tax Act. The rationale was that these expenses were necessary to maintain the property’s usability for business operations.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: (1980) QB 12; (1965) 57 I.T.R. 609.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 960 to 962 (NT) of 1975, decision dated: November, 1987", + "Judge Name": "M.H. KANIA AND M.N VENKATACHALIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SIR SHADI LAL AND SONS, SHAMLI\nvs\nCOMMISSTIONER OF IncomE tax, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 118 = 1989 SLD 118 = 1989 PTD 811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Completed Assessments and Civil Court Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe term completed assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act referred to assessments finalized before the commencement of the new Act. In this case, the assessment was finalized before the enactment, but a subsequent reference reduced the tax liability and led to a refund order. However, the refund was decided after the new Act’s commencement, and the assessee was held not entitled to interest on the refunded amount under the new Act.\nThe case also discussed the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction in statutory matters. It was established that when a statute creates both the right and the remedy for enforcement, civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred. However, when a pre-existing right is recognized and a statutory remedy is provided without excluding the civil courts, the remedies may coexist.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: (1981) 130 I.T.R. 180; A.I.R. 1975 SC 2238; A.I.R. 1969 SC 78", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4034 of 1975, decision dated: 11-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "S. NATARAJAN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "RAJA RAM KUMAR BHARGAVA by Legal Heirs", + "Party Name:": "RAJA RAM KUMAR BHARGAVA by Legal Heirs\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 119 = 1989 SLD 119 = 1989 PTD 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Filing References\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe High Court emphasized that delays in filing applications for reference must be justified with sufficient cause for each day of delay. In this instance, the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation, leading to the dismissal of the application as time-barred.\nAdditionally, the court rejected the argument that a void Tribunal order could circumvent the limitation period, affirming that such a contention was legally misconceived.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: Allah Bachai v. Haji Wahid Bakhsh, 1974 S.C.M.R. 108; Conforce Ltd. v. Syed Ali Shah, PLD 1977 SC 599.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No 56 of 1988 decided on 17-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND IRSHAD HASARS KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.Enver Shaukat for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Nawaz for income Tax Deptt", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARIF MEDICINE CO\nvs\nTHE C.I.T. LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 120 = 1989 SLD 120 = 1989 PTD 823", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Fresh Assessment and Penalties\n•\nKey Findings:\nThis case dealt with reassessments initiated under Section 65 and subsequent penalties imposed under Section 111. The reassessment excluded tax payments from admissible expenses. The assessee challenged these orders in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequently filed a constitutional petition.\nThe High Court refrained from expressing opinions on the merits of the case but emphasized that the assessee had adequate remedies available within the statutory framework. The court observed that the orders were not prima facie without jurisdiction and advised resolving the matter through the departmental appellate process.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,111 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-628 of 1988, decision dated: 12-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN ACTING C.J AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "HABIB INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 121 = 1989 SLD 121 = 1989 PTD 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Management Expenses in Excess of Limits\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe Supreme Court had conclusively determined that management expenses exceeding prescribed limits under Rule 40 of the Insurance Rules, 1922, were admissible if incurred for business purposes. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 66(2), affirming that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: Income Tax (Central) Karachi v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd., PLD 1981 S.C. 293; 1980 P.T.D. 73.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.21 of 1979, decision dated: 30-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Harder. S. Irtaza Hussain Zaidi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSION OF IncomE tax\nvs\nEAGLE STAR INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 122 = 1989 SLD 122 = 1989 PTD 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss of Assets in East Pakistan\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe loss of assets in East Pakistan, later acquired by the Bangladesh Government, was held to fall under the scope of Section 10(2)(vii) as a deductible loss. The court reasoned that such losses incurred due to government expropriation should be treated as business losses for taxation purposes.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: M/s United Liner Agencies of Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1988 P.T.D. 277.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1983, decision dated: 30-11-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO.LTD\nvs\nTHE C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 123 = 1989 SLD 123 = 1989 PTD 828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Absence of New Material\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe Tribunal found no new material to justify reopening the assessment under Section 42(2). The High Court upheld this finding and dismissed the reference. This emphasized that assessments cannot be reopened in the absence of substantive new evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(2),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1979, decision dated: 1st November, 1988", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND INMAN ALI G.KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs MERCK SHARP & DHOME OF PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 124 = 1989 SLD 124 = 1989 PTD 829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss of Shares in East Pakistan\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe loss of shares in companies registered in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was characterized as a capital loss. The ruling highlighted the nature of such shares as investments and their treatment under tax law.\nReferences:\n•\nLegal Instruments Cited: C.B.R. Circular No. 11 of 1972.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.70 of 1979, decision dated: 18-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, C, J. AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B KARACH\nvs\nYOUSUF H.R. DADA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 125 = 1989 SLD 125 = 1989 PTD 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Repatriated Amounts\n•\nKey Findings:\nRepatriated amounts declared under M.L.R. 104 and M.L.R. 105 were exempt from taxation as they constituted capital receipts rather than revenue income. The court reinforced the principle that non-revenue remittances are not taxable.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mst. Marian Bai Ahmed, ITC 37/79.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.98 of 1979, decision dated: 21st December 1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SALEEM SULEMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 126 = 1989 SLD 126 = 1989 PTD 831 = (1993) 67 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Head Office Expenses of Non-Residents\n•\nKey Findings:\nNon-resident assessees were entitled to claim reasonable Head Office expenses as deductions under Section 10(2)(xvi). The court emphasized that the reasonableness of such expenses must be adjudicated as a factual issue by the assessing officer, and findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless proven perverse.\nReferences:\n•\nLegal Framework Cited: Rule 40, Income-tax Rules, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),66(2) Income Tax Rules, 1922=40 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference. No.105 of 1979, decision dated: 12-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. A.A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs B.P. (PAKISTAN) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 127 = 1989 SLD 127 = 1989 PTD 835 = (1989) 60 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Residential Status and Inaccurate Declarations\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe residential status of an assessee directly affects the scope of total income. An incorrect declaration of residential status constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and is subject to penalties under Section 111. However, penalties are unwarranted if the error is proven unintentional.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11,111 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 363/1B of 1987-88, decision dated: 5-10-1988", + "Judge Name": ", JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Aslam, D R. U.D. Qureshi, I T P", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 128 = 1989 SLD 128 = 1989 PTD 843 = (1989) 60 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Documentation\n•\nKey Findings:\nThe failure of the assessee to submit requested documents within the stipulated time led to their exclusion from the Self-Assessment Scheme. The decision was upheld as consistent with C.B.R. Circular No. 9 of 1987, which explicitly outlined such consequences for non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.618 of 1988/BWP, decision dated: 18-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Tayyib for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FRIENDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 129 = 1989 SLD 129 = 1989 PTD 847 = (1989) 60 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions for Educational Institutions\n•\nKey Findings:\nA registered society running a school was eligible for tax exemptions under Clauses 86 and 94 of the Second Schedule if it met specific conditions:\no\nSolely established for educational purposes.\no\nOperated not for profit.\no\nOpen to the general public, without restrictions.\nThe court clarified that institutions serving limited audiences or promoting broader social goals beyond education did not qualify for exemptions.\nReferences:\n•\nCases Cited: C.I.T. v. Surat Art Silk Manufacturers Association, (1980) 122 I.T.R. 1.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(1),SecondSchedCls.86,94 Societies Registration Act, 1860=3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3602 to 3604/LB 3758/LB to 3706/LB of 1986-87, 176/LB to 181/IB of 1988-89, decision dated: 29-03-1989, hearing DATE : 11-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "QADEER AHMAD SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A.. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Ishaq LA and Aftab Iqbal Lone AC/DR. Mohammad Amin Butt and Arshad Qayyum", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 130 = 1989 SLD 130 = 1989 PTD 859 = (1989) 60 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Annual Letting Value of Property\n•\nKey Issue: The method of determining the annual letting value (ALV) of a property for tax purposes, considering the constraints imposed by rent restriction laws.\n•\nRuling:\nThe court held that the annual letting value fixed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), ignoring the restrictions under rent control laws, was unreasonable and invalid. The Tribunal clarified that rent restriction laws, such as the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, set a ceiling on permissible rent increases, limiting them to 10% annually after three years. Therefore, any determination of ALV beyond this limit would be inconsistent with these laws. The ITO was directed to re-evaluate the ALV using the previously fixed base value by the Tribunal, incorporating a 10% increase every three years, as stipulated by the rent laws.\no\nKey Legal Principle: The ALV must be reasonable and consistent with legislative restrictions, such as rent control laws.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 19(2)(b); Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19(2)(b) Income Tax Act, 1922=9(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1295 to 1298/KB of 1984-85, 227 to 229/KB and526/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 12-01-1989, hearing DATE : 1st January, 1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "G.M. Gangat. Shahid Jamal DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 131 = 1989 SLD 131 = 1989 PTD 867 = (1989) 60 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Proportionate Profit Computation for Non-Resident Shipping Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Deviation by the ITO from the established method of computing proportionate profits for a non-resident shipping company based on Pakistan earnings.\n•\nRuling:\nThe court held that the ITO incorrectly adopted the method prescribed for advance tax (1/6th of gross receipts) as the basis for final income computation. The ITO deviated from the method historically applied (proportionate profit based on Pakistan receipts to world income) without sufficient justification. The absence of a voyage account did not preclude the use of the historical method as the necessary information for proportionate calculation was available. The court directed the ITO to revert to the previously used method unless the assessee failed to furnish the requisite data.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Any deviation from established methods of computation must be justified with clear reasoning and supported by unavailability of essential data.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 80(6) & (7); Rule 40, Income-tax Rules, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80(6),(7) Income Tax Rules, 1922=40 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As.Nos.2203/KB, 2204/KB, 2109/KB and 2110/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 6-06-1989, hearing DATE : 18th March 1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Razaq Memon, D.R.. Arif M. Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 132 = 1989 SLD 132 = 1989 PTD 876 = (1989) 60 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Taxes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObligation of the ITO to issue refunds.\no\nConditions for re-opening cases under Section 65.\n•\nRuling:\no\nThe ITO is obligated to refund taxes when a clear determination of overpaid tax exists, regardless of whether the assessee has claimed the refund. The court criticized attempts to justify withholding refunds without proper cause.\no\nSection 65 actions require the ITO to demonstrate that income escaped assessment or was under-assessed, supported by definitive information and with appropriate approvals. The inquiry letter issued without adhering to these conditions was deemed invalid.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Tax refunds are mandatory upon determination, and actions to re-open cases require strict compliance with procedural prerequisites.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 65 & 100.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100,65 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3511 of 1988, decision dated: 29th January,1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch.Liaqat Ali for petitioner. Malik Mohd. Nawazs", + "Party Name:": "INAYAT ULLAH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 133 = 1989 SLD 133 = 1989 PTD 878 = (1989) 60 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credit and Onus of Proof\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nOnus on the assessee to explain the source of cash credits.\no\nScope of appellate forums in re-evaluating facts.\n•\nRuling:\nThe Tribunal and Commissioner found that the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of cash credits through third-party confirmation. The ITO’s contrary finding was overruled as it lacked substantive evidence. The court reinforced that appellate bodies are not bound to address every trivial point if they do not materially affect the outcome.\no\nKey Legal Principle: The onus shifts to the department to disprove the assessee’s explanation once the initial burden is discharged.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 13.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),13 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.62 of 1988, decision dated: 22-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "MAHBOOB AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIOENR OF IncomE tax\nvs\nWEIGHING EQUIPMENT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 134 = 1989 SLD 134 = 1989 PTD 882 = (1989) 60 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Residents in Tribal Areas\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, to Swat and related tribal areas.\n•\nRuling:\nThe court held that the Ordinance had not been extended to Swat. Taxation of individuals in such areas depends on their residential status as defined under Section 2(40). Since the assessee was a non-resident, his income was not chargeable to tax. The tribal status of Swat under Article 246 of the Constitution further insulated the assessee from the application of the Ordinance.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Tax laws are geographically limited and apply only within areas explicitly covered by the legislation.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 2(40), 9, & 12; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 1(2) & 246.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(1),2(32),2(40),9 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 257 (P B) to 259 (PB) of 1987-88, decision dated: 22-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD KHIYAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zar Khalil. Khalid Majid Co., C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 135 = 1989 SLD 135 = 1989 PTD 887", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fresh Grounds in Appeals\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditions for allowing fresh grounds during appeal.\no\nRequirement of a show-cause notice for adjustments in self-assessment returns.\n•\nRuling:\nThe Tribunal permitted fresh legal grounds that went to the root of the case and required no new evidence. However, the ITO’s adjustment of inadmissible claims in self-assessment returns without issuing a show-cause notice was invalid as it violated natural justice principles.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Natural justice requires the affected party to be heard before adverse actions are taken.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 59(3), 107 & 134", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.1575/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 20-02-1989, hearing DATE : 19-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq. Qurban Ali Bugti", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 136 = 1989 SLD 136 = 1989 PTD 894", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Increase in Dower and Tax Implications\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTax implications of increased dower under Muslim law.\no\nIntersection of Islamic principles with statutory tax laws.\n•\nRuling:\nThe court held that acknowledgment or declaration of increased dower is sufficient proof under Islamic law, and no statutory requirement for contemporaneous documentation can override this principle. Furthermore, tax authorities cannot impose rules contrary to Islamic injunctions.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Statutory provisions must align with Islamic principles under Article 227 of the Constitution.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Statutes: Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Sections 16(3)(a)(iii), 23 & 66(1); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 227 & 2-A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3)(a)(iii),23,66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),2A,203Ato203-J,227 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.32 of 19.80, decision dated: 19-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, USMAN ALI SHAH AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record.M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Mian AZIZ A. SHEIKH\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, INVESTIGATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 137 = 1989 SLD 137 = 1989 PTD 909", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Collection Charges and Allowable Deductions under Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944\n•\nKey Issue: Whether collection charges for cesses can be allowed as a deduction from total agricultural income.\n•\nRuling:\nThe court interpreted the terms accrue, receive, and including within the context of Section 6(7) of the Act and concluded that collection charges for cesses are not admissible deductions. The rationale was that such expenses do not qualify as a deduction under the statutory framework governing total agricultural income.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Deductions are strictly governed by the letter of the law, and collection charges not explicitly included are inadmissible.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Cap Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (1921) 1 K.B. 64; Tenant v. Smith (1892) A.C. 150.\n(b) Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\n•\nKey Issue: Principles for interpreting fiscal statutes.\n•\nRuling:\nThe court reaffirmed that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their wording. Equity, presumptions, or intentions not explicitly stated in the law cannot be considered.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Fiscal laws are to be applied precisely as written, without any implied meanings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.12 of 1951, decision dated: 16-12-1952", + "Judge Name": "ABDUL RASHID C, J., SHAHABUDDIN AND A.R. CORNELIUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Asir, Senior, Advocate with Modaris Ali instructed by A.B. Mahmud Hussain Attorney. Baquer, Senior Advocate with M. Fazlul Haq instructed by K. Hussain Attorney,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL IncomE tax, EAST BENGAL\nvs\nB.W.M. ABDUR RAHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 138 = 1989 SLD 138 = 1989 PTD 917 = (1989) 60 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Taxability of Rent from Employer under Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nKey Issue: Whether rental income received by an employee from an employer for self-occupied property is taxable under Sections 19 and 16.\n•\nRuling:\nRental income received by an employee from the employer, even for self-occupied property, is taxable under Section 19 as income from house property. Simultaneously, the perquisite of rent-free accommodation provided by the employer is taxable under Section 16. However, this does not constitute double taxation, as these are distinct tax heads.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Taxability depends on the nature of the income and its classification under specific sections of the Ordinance.\n________________________________________\n(b) Legal Mistakes and Concealment\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a mistaken legal claim constitutes concealment.\n•\nRuling:\nClaiming an exemption under a mistaken interpretation of law does not amount to concealment under Section 111. Such cases should not be disqualified from the Self-Assessment Scheme.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Concealment requires intentional suppression of income or wrongful claims for undue benefits.\n________________________________________\n(c) Allowing Fresh Grounds on Appeal\n•\nKey Issue: Powers of the Tribunal to allow fresh grounds not raised before lower authorities.\n•\nRuling:\nFresh grounds, especially those questioning the legality of an assessment or addressing substantive issues, can be allowed at the appellate level if they do not require additional evidence.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Appellate tribunals have discretion to consider legal questions not initially raised, provided procedural fairness is maintained.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: C.I.T. v. Steel Cast Corporation, 1989 PTD 938; 1988 PTD (Trib) 987.\n________________________________________\n(d) Interpretation of Section 19(3)\n•\nKey Issue: Whether rental income from an employer qualifies for exemption as self-occupied property under Section 19(3).\n•\nRuling:\nThe court clarified that exemption under Section 19(3) applies only if the owner occupies the property for personal residence. Renting the property to an employer disqualifies it from exemption, regardless of subsequent personal use.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Exemptions must be interpreted strictly in accordance with legislative intent.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Highlands Manufacturers (Pak) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1984 P.T.D. 250.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,16,5,9,131(4),111(2),59,134,19,68,59,131(2),19(3),Sched. Income Tax Rules, 1982=5,9 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.2234/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 26-06-1989, hearing DATE : 2-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousuf Sharieh D.R.. Sattar Adam F.CA.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 139 = 1989 SLD 139 = 1989 PTD 938", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Jurisdiction in Appeals\nKey Issue: Scope of the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction and ability to consider new issues.\n•\nRuling:\nThe Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to issues expressly or impliedly decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, it has wide powers to entertain new legal arguments within the scope of the appeal. The Tribunal must determine whether the issue was raised and consider its implications accordingly.\no\nKey Legal Principle: The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to the subject matter of the appeal but allows new arguments to support existing claims.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T., [1967] 63 I.T.R. 232 (SC); C.I.T. v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., [1967] 66 I.T.R. 710 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.72 of 1974 decided 17th December 1975", + "Judge Name": "B.J. DIVAN C.J AND T. U. MEHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K.H. Kaji with R.P. Bhat for Commissioner. K.C. Patel", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (OF IncomE tax, GUJARAT-III\nvs\nSTEEL CAST CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 140 = 1989 SLD 140 = 1989 PTD 989 = (1989) 60 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Head Office Expenses for Non-Resident Companies\nKey Issues:\n1.\nComputation of Head Office Expenses in Foreign Currency\no\nExpenses should be computed in foreign currency and converted to local currency at the prevailing rate.\n2.\nMeaning of Head Office Expenditure\no\nIncludes executive and general expenses incurred outside Pakistan for business purposes.\n•\nRuling:\nExpenses must fulfill specific conditions, including relevance to business operations and adherence to prescribed limits under Rule 20 of the Income-tax Rules, 1982. The law aims to balance fairness in execution with statutory limits.\no\nKey Legal Principle: Legislative intent and prescribed limits must guide the computation of allowable expenses.\nReferences:\n•\nRelevant Provisions: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 24(e); Rule 20, Income-tax Rules, 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24 Income Tax Rules, 1982=20 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.118/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 10-06-1989, hearing DATE : 15-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Razzaq Memon, D.R.. E.U. Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 141 = 1989 SLD 141 = 1989 PTD 1004 = (1990) 61 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Definition of Total Income under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance\n•\nKey Issue: Interpretation of total income in the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance (WWFO).\n•\nRuling:\nThe term total income as used in the WWFO carries the same meaning as ascribed in Section 2(44) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. This harmonized definition ensures consistency between the two statutes.\n(b) Scope of Total Income for Global Earnings\n•\nKey Issue: Inclusion of worldwide income for calculating total income. \n•\nRuling:\nAll global income must be included to compute the total income. However, the WWFO applies a 2% charge only on the portion of income assessable under the Income-tax Ordinance and exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 in a year.\n(c) Exemption from Workers Welfare Fund\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of WWFO when income is exempt under the Income-tax Ordinance.\n•\nRuling:\nIncome not assessable under the Income-tax Ordinance due to Second Schedule Clause 122 exemptions does not fall within the scope of the WWFO. The provisions of Section 4 of the WWFO are inapplicable to such cases.\n(d) Exclusion of Exempt Income from Total Income \n•\nKey Issue: Definition and treatment of exempt income under Section 14 and the Second Schedule.\n•\nRuling:\nIncome excluded under Section 14 and the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Ordinance cannot be deemed assessable unless expressly included. Such income remains outside the purview of total income under the WWFO.\n(e) Prohibition on Taxation of Exempt Income\n•\nKey Issue: Authority of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to tax exempt income.\n•\nRuling:\nThe ITO lacks authority to levy taxes on income exempt under Section 14 and the Second Schedule. Taxation of exempt income is not permissible under Section 62 of the Ordinance.\n(f) Workers Welfare Fund as a Beneficial Legislation\n•\nKey Issue: Nature and scope of WWFO.\n•\nRuling:\nDespite being beneficial legislation, the WWFO does not authorize the ITO to levy additional liabilities on income not assessable under the Income-tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(44),.2(44),14 & SecondSched,62,14 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.1963/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 16-07-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Memon. Farooq Ali", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 142 = 1989 SLD 142 = 1989 PTD 1008", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Mandatory Filing of Certified Copies for Reference Applications\nKey Issue: Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nRuling:\nFiling a certified copy of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order is mandatory for reference applications. Failure to do so renders the reference non-maintainable. Exceptions for dispensing with such filings are only valid if a formal application is submitted and approved.\nReferences:\n•\nTax Reference Nos. 207/1972, 167/1973, and 165/1972.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.312 of 1972, heard on 20-05-1989, hearing DATE : 17th May,1989", + "Judge Name": "MAHBOOB AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. A.H.Najfi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nGULZAR MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 143 = 1989 SLD 143 = 1989 PTD 1010 = (1992) 65 TAX 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments under Section 65\n(a) Conditions for Reopening Assessments\n•\nKey Issue: Situations where the ITO can reopen assessments.\n•\nRuling:\nReopening is permissible under five specified conditions, including escaped income, under-assessment, excessive relief, or failure to assess under Section 59. Prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and possession of definite information are prerequisites.\n(b) Prohibition on Reopening Based on Opinion Changes\n•\nKey Issue: Use of opinion changes as a basis for reopening.\n•\nRuling:\nReopening assessments based solely on a change of opinion is impermissible, as it leads to undue harassment.\n(c) Reason to Believe in Reopening Cases\n•\nKey Issue: Subjectivity in reopening cases.\n•\nRuling:\nThe phrase reason to believe requires objective satisfaction and good faith, not mere suspicion or negligence by tax officers.\n(d) Constitutional Remedies in Fiscal Disputes\n•\nKey Issue: Use of constitutional petitions in fiscal matters.\n•\nRuling:\nConstitutional petitions are valid remedies in fiscal disputes where reopening lacks new facts or grounds.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (AIR 1961 SC 372); Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO (AIR 1975 SC 1268).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1195 of 1987, decision dated: 13-06-1989, hearing DATE : 8-06-1989", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs M.R. SONS\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 144 = 1989 SLD 144 = 1989 PTD 1016 = (1992) 65 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Tax Holidays\n(a) Normal Depreciation during Tax Holidays\n•\nKey Issue: Entitlement to depreciation during tax holidays.\n•\nRuling:\nAssessees are entitled to claim normal depreciation as per Section 10(2)(vi), but additional depreciation is excluded under Section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n(b) Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation\n•\nKey Issue: Treatment of unabsorbed depreciation after tax holidays.\n•\nRuling:\nUnabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward under Section 10(2)(vi). This entitlement remains unaffected unless explicitly excluded.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Income-tax v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., 1985 PTD 395.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,10,24(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1981, decision dated: 30th May. 1989, hearing DATE : 13-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ANWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 145 = 1989 SLD 145 = 1989 PTD 1020", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowable Deductions for Interest on Asset Purchase\nKey Issue: Deductibility of interest on asset purchases.\n•\nRuling:\nInterest on the purchase price of business assets is deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi) as an expenditure incurred wholly for business purposes.\nReferences:\n•\nCivil Appeals Nos. 77-K to 80-K of 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 75 of 1973, decision dated: 3rd April, 1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Khalid Anwar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ERUCH MANECKJEE AND NAUROZE MANECKJEE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 146 = 1989 SLD 146 = 1989 PTD 1025", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions for Insurance Companies\nKey Issue: Allowability of reserves and provisions for insurance companies.\n•\nRuling:\nReserves for unexpired risk exceeding 40%, provisions for staff bonuses and gratuities, and unpaid taxes for over three years are allowable deductions. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly deleted disallowances by the ITO.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Commissioner of Income-tax v. New Jubilee Insurance Co., PLD 1982 Kar. 684.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1985, decision dated: 5-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shakih Haider for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs PREMIER INSURANCE OF PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 147 = 1989 SLD 147 = 1989 PTD 1027 = (1990) 61 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Married Women’s Property Act\n(a) Protection of Married Women’s Properties\n•\nKey Issue: Scope of protection under the Act.\n•\nRuling:\nProperties, earnings, and insurance policies expressly for the benefit of wives and children are deemed trusts, immune from creditors and estate claims.\n(b) Effect of Assignment on Insurance Policies\n•\nKey Issue: Assignment validity under Section 6.\n•\nRuling:\nPolicies assigned unconditionally to wives or children are treated as separate trusts under Section 6.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Shamdas Gobindram v. Mt. Savitribai (AIR 1937 Sind 181).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=14 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.14 of 1981, heard on 9-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khurshid Anwer Shaikh. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LATIF EBRAHIM JAMAL\nvs\nTHE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 148 = 1989 SLD 148 = 1989 PTD 1034 = (1991) 64 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 10--Business allowances--Where a partner in a firm earns profits out of the business of the firm and in his individual assessment claims any expenditure incurred in earning that profit, he is entitled to such 'deduction in respect of his own business--If a partner is able to establish that expenditure claimed by him was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business and was spent in view of commercial expediency to earn the share of his profit from the firm, he would be entitled to claim deduction of such -exposes under S.10(2)(xv).\n \nShantikumar Narottam Moovajce v. C.I.T., Bombay City (1955) 27 I T R 69; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 1 T R 57; Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. K.R. Irani (1963) 48 IT, R 525 and Feroz H. Kundianawala v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1978) 113 I T R 873 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.22 of 1979, heard on 15-05-1989. dates of hearing: 24th April and 15-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.F. Virjee for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAMSHED MARKER BROTHERS LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 149 = 1989 SLD 149 = 1989 PTD 1048 = (1990) 61 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Collection of Advance Tax\n(a) Responsibility for Tax Collection in Auctions\n•\nKey Issue: Party responsible for advance tax collection during auctions.\n•\nRuling:\nThe responsibility lies with the auctioneer or entity conducting the sale, not with the property owner.\n(b) Interpretation of Machinery Provisions\n•\nKey Issue: Broad interpretation of machinery provisions.\n•\nRuling:\nProvisions should ensure recovery but must align with statutory language and intent.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Messrs Escorts Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Lahore, 1975 PTD 50.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7A),52 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-471 of 1984, heard or 8th October 1985", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR, MAMOON KAZI AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Akhtar for Petitioner. M. Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 150 = 1989 SLD 150 = 1989 PTD 1065 = (1990) 61 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Definition of Proceedings under Section 13(1)\n•\nKey Issue: Scope of the term proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nRuling:\nThe word proceedings is not restricted to assessment proceedings alone but includes all actions that may be initiated under the Ordinance before the commencement of assessment proceedings.\n(b) Inquiry Proceedings Prior to Assessment\n•\nKey Issue: Legality of inquiry proceedings initiated before issuing a notice to file returns.\n•\nRuling:\nThe inquiry conducted by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) on receiving a complaint, even before issuing notice for filing returns, was valid. The discovery of undisclosed income during these inquiries is considered made in the course of any proceedings under the Ordinance.\n________________________________________\n(c) Discovery in the Course of Assessment Proceedings\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of discoveries made prior to formal assessment proceedings.\n•\nRuling:\nInformation obtained by the ITO before the initiation of formal assessment proceedings remains valid during subsequent assessment. Discovery does not lose its relevance when the proceedings formally begin.\n________________________________________\n(d) Ownership of Foreign Currency\n•\nKey Issue: Ownership of foreign currency recovered from the assessee.\n•\nRuling:\nThe ITO’s conclusion that the foreign currency belonged to the assessee, based on lack of evidence supporting the claim that it was held in trust for a foreign resident, was upheld. The diversity of currencies further supported the ITO’s inference.\n________________________________________\n(e) Additional Grounds in Appeals (Accountant Member's View)\n•\nKey Issue: Admissibility of additional grounds requiring factual investigation.\n•\nRuling:\nAdditional grounds requiring fresh investigation into facts cannot be entertained as pure questions of law in appellate proceedings.\n________________________________________\n(f) Additional Grounds in Appeals (Judicial Member's View)\n•\nKey Issue: Admissibility of additional grounds presenting pure questions of law.\n•\nRuling:\nAdditional grounds not requiring factual investigation and constituting pure legal questions can be raised during appellate proceedings.\n________________________________________\n(g) Confiscation Loss and Its Deduction\n•\nKey Issue: Treatment of confiscated foreign currencies and their impact on income.\n•\nRuling:\nThe confiscation of foreign currencies by Customs Authorities, being incidental to the illegal trading business of the assessee, is deductible from the business income as a business loss.\n________________________________________\n(h) Set-Off for Loss Due to Confiscation\n•\nKey Issue: Set-off against loss from confiscated foreign currencies.\n•\nRuling:\nLosses incurred due to the confiscation of foreign currencies and travelers’ cheques, directly linked to the assessee’s illegal business, qualify for set-off against business income under Section 34.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Badridas v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1934 ITR 10), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Piara Singh (1986 PTD 26), C.I.T. v. S.C. Kothari (1982 ITR 792).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13(1),144,145,146,30,34,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 75(IB) and 76(IB) of 987-88, decision dated: 9-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar. Shaukat Ali Babar, A.C. D.R., Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Legal Adviser and Mubeen Malik, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 151 = 1989 SLD 151 = 1989 PTD 1085 = (1990) 61 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Balance of Profits for Insurance Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Acceptance of profits disclosed by insurance companies under the Insurance Act.\n•\nRuling:\nThe ITO must accept the profit figures disclosed by the accounts submitted under Section 15(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938. However, expenditures not permissible under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, can be excluded.\n________________________________________\n(b) Treatment of Advance Tax and Interest\n•\nKey Issue: Allowability of advance tax and interest as expenditures.\n•\nRuling:\nAdvance tax payments and interest earned are deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi), provided they pertain to the business operations of the insurance company.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1980 PTD 73).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),FirstSched,R,6,18A ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 21 of 1981, decision dated: 10-08-1989", + "Judge Name": "TANZIL-UR-RAHMAN AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Hyder for the Applicant. Ali Athar and Abdul Wadood", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNEW JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 152 = 1989 SLD 152 = 1989 PTD 1088 = (1990) 61 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Additional Tax\n•\nKey Issue: Application of amended provisions of Section 18-A(6).\n•\nRuling:\nAdditional tax under Section 18-A(6), as amended by the Finance Act, 1973, applies retrospectively for 15 months.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Olympia (1987 PTD 739)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A(6) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. I.T.Rs: Nos.71/79, 11 /80, 16/80, 4/81, 33/81, 10/82, 79/82 98/82, 3/83, 66/83; 85/83, 93/83, 94/83, 56/84, 72/84, 154/84, 149/84 of 1983, decision dated: 15-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND AHMED ALI U. KURSHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider, Waheed Farooqui, Nasrullah Awan and Mrs. Rashid Patel for Applicant..Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Rehanul Hassan Naqvi, Mazhar Jafri, Sami-ud-Din, Sami AA.Sharif, Abdul Rauf, Ali Amjad and Abdul Wadood", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs OSMAN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 153 = 1989 SLD 153 = 1989 PTD 1089", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay Against Recovery of Tax\n(a) Interim Stay Orders\n•\nKey Issue: Grant of interim stay orders against tax recovery.\n•\nRuling:\nHigh Court granted interim stays subject to providing security or bank guarantees. Such stays are permissible under Article 199(4A) of the Constitution of Pakistan for limited periods (e.g., six months), provided compliance with procedural safeguards.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4A) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.1301 of 1988, decision dated: 8th January. 1989", + "Judge Name": "HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. Shaikh Hyder", + "Party Name:": "HAMDARD DAWAKHANA\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN PANEL02, COMPANIES-IIIncome Tax DEPARTMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 154 = 1989 SLD 154 = 1989 PTD 1090", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments Based on C.B.R. Circulars\n(a) Filing Constitutional Petitions Against Notices\n•\nKey Issue: Alternative remedy as a bar to constitutional petitions.\n•\nRuling:\nWhere the appellate process is unlikely to yield different results due to departmental circulars, constitutional petitions are maintainable despite alternative remedies.\n(b) Profits of Insurance Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Computation of profits for insurance businesses.\n•\nRuling:\nProfits of life insurance companies are computed under Rules 1-4 of the Fourth Schedule, while general insurance companies’ profits must align with Rule 5, limiting ITO’s scope of inquiry.\n(c) Exempt Income\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of exempt income included in annual accounts.\n•\nRuling:\nExempt income, such as interest on Khas Deposit Certificates, is not exempt when included in annual profit disclosures for insurance companies under Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Habib Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (PLD 1985 SC 109).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,26(a),FourthSched,5,26,15,65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 488, 494, 548, 549, 536 to 539, 641, 642, 736 to 748 of 1988, decision dated: 20-07-1989. dates of hearing: 16th and 17-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND SH. ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Mansoor Ahmad, Naseem Farooqui Ali Amjad for Petitioner. Sheich Haider and Abul Khair Ansari", + "Party Name:": "ADAMJEE INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 155 = 1989 SLD 155 = 1989 PTD 1109 = (1989) 60 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Timelines for Proceedings Under Sections 56, 65, and 66(3)\n•\nKey Issue: Validity and timelines for initiating and completing proceedings regarding property ownership disputes settled by the Supreme Court.\n•\nRuling:\no\nProceedings under Section 56 had to be initiated within one year (by 30-6-1984) from the financial year when the Supreme Court decision came to the Assessing Officer's notice.\no\nThese proceedings had to conclude by 30-6-1985 or 30-6-1986, depending on the timelines for consequential assessments under Section 65.\no\nIf the case fell under Section 66(1)(b), the assessment could extend to 30-6-1986.\n________________________________________\n(b) Challenging the Validity of Notices\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of notices when jurisdiction is not disputed.\n•\nRuling:\nAssessees cannot challenge the validity of notices if the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is undisputed.\n________________________________________\n(c) Taxability of Interest Under the Land Acquisition Act\n•\nKey Issue: Tax treatment of interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\n•\nRuling:\no\nMajority View: Interest awarded under Section 28 is a capital receipt of non-recurring nature and not taxable. It compensates for delayed compensation for land acquisition, and subsequent yields on the consolidated amount are taxable as income.\no\nMinority View (Judicial Member): Interest awarded under Section 28 is a revenue receipt and taxable as it compensates for the loss of income from the compensation amount.\n________________________________________\n(d) Precedents and the Role of Supreme Court Obiter Dicta\n•\nKey Issue: Binding nature of Supreme Court obiter dicta on lower forums.\n•\nRuling:\nEven obiter dicta from the Supreme Court are binding on lower judicial forums.\n________________________________________\n(e) Retrospective Application of the Income-Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nKey Issue: Whether income from interest escaped assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1922, can be assessed under the Ordinance of 1979.\n•\nRuling:\no\nIncome escaping assessment during the 1922 Act could only be assessed under Section 34 of that Act. Such income does not fall under the purview of Section 56 of the Ordinance, 1979, as the latter has no retrospective application.\no\nAssessments under Section 56 initiated post-1-7-1979 for income from 1955-56 to 1972-73 are void due to expired limitation periods under Section 65(3).\n________________________________________\n(f) Inherent Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer\n•\nKey Issue: Jurisdictional validity of notices under Sections 56 and 65.\n•\nRuling:\no\nLack of inherent jurisdiction cannot be cured by the filing of returns.\no\nSection 66(3) does not apply where the income sought is unrelated to property ownership disputes but rather concerns other sources.\nReferences:\n•\nCases: Nagina Silk Mills v. ITO (PLD 1963 SC 322), Crescent Board v. ITO (1985 PTD 276), Kohinoor Textile Mills v. CIT (PLD 1974 SC 284).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66(3),56,65,11,9,166(2)(c)(ii),65,56,166(2)(ii),5 & 66(3), Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Land Acquisition Act, 1894=28 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 317/PB to 322/PB; 324/PB to 336/PB of 1986-87 and 330/PB to 339/PB of 1987-88, heard on 16-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, QADEER AHMED SIDDIQI, AND, JUDICIAL MEMBERS A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, L.A. and Aftab Iqbal Lone, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 156 = 1989 SLD 156 = 1989 PTD 1137 = (1990) 61 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Definition of Trading Liability \n•\nKey Issue: Scope of the term trading liability under Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nRuling:\nThe term includes liabilities arising from trade, business, or professional activities. This broad definition encompasses excise duties debited to sales accounts, as they are statutory liabilities directly linked to business operations.\n________________________________________\n(b) Government Levies as Trading Liabilities\n•\nKey Issue: Whether statutory levies are trading liabilities. \n•\nRuling:\nAll statutory impositions such as taxes and duties linked to business activities are trading liabilities under Section 10(2-A).\n________________________________________\n(c) Interpretation of Words and Phrases\n•\nKey Issue: Meaning of trade, trading, liability, and trading liability. \n•\nRuling:\no\nTrade: Buying, selling, or professional activities for monetary gain.\no\nTrading Liability: Obligations arising out of trade-related activities, broadly encompassing all statutory liabilities, including taxes and excise duties.\nReferences:\n•\nDictionaries Used: Black's Law Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.11 of 1981, decision dated: 3rd September, 1989, hearing DATE : 16-08-1989", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TANVEER TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 157 = 1989 SLD 157 = 1989 PTD 1141 = (1990) 61 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Escaped Assessment and Scope of Section 65\n•\nKey Issue: Can reassessment under Section 65 be based on deducing a new conclusion from existing materials?\n•\nRuling:\no\nReopening assessment under Section 65 requires fresh material or definite information not previously considered.\no\nDeducing a different conclusion from the same documents amounts to a change of opinion, which is not permissible.\no\nWhere materials are fully disclosed and consciously assessed, reopening is not justified unless new facts emerge.\n________________________________________\n(b) Reopening Based on Property Valuation\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of reopening assessments based on a valuation report obtained after the initial assessment.\n•\nRuling:\no\nReopening assessments to question property valuation post-assessment is impermissible if the valuation could have been challenged during the original proceedings.\n________________________________________\n(c) Reopening Due to Contradictory Loan Entries\n•\nKey Issue: Can contradictory evidence regarding loan entries justify reopening under Section 65?\n•\nRuling:\no\nContradictory certificates or evidence about loan entries constitute fresh material, allowing reopening under Section 65.\n________________________________________\n(d) Reopening Due to Allocation of Salaries\n•\nKey Issue: Can reassessment be based on reallocation of salaries between trading and profit/loss accounts?\n•\nRuling:\no\nReallocation of salaries without discovery of new facts or evidence does not justify reassessment under Section 65.\n________________________________________\n(e) Jurisdiction of Notices Under Section 65\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of proceedings initiated on ultra vires notices.\n•\nRuling:\no\nIf a notice is issued without jurisdiction or is ultra vires, all subsequent proceedings and orders are void and illegal.\n________________________________________\n(f) Severability of Notices\n•\nKey Issue: Can partially valid notices under Section 65 sustain reassessment proceedings?\n•\nRuling:\no\nNotices partially valid and partially without jurisdiction are severable. The invalid portion does not invalidate the entire notice.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-786 of 1987, decision dated: 28th August 1989. dates of hearing. 7th and 10-08-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner. Waheed Farooqis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JESON INTERNATIONAL (Pvt.) Ltd\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE C-7, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 158 = 1989 SLD 158 = 1989 PTD 1149 = (1990) 61 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Rulings\n(a) Admission as Evidence\n•\nKey Issue: Can admissions be relied upon as conclusive evidence?\n•\nRuling:\no\nAdmissions are the best evidence, though not conclusive, and are decisive unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.\n________________________________________\n(b) Determination of Partner’s Age\n•\nKey Issue: Is a birth certificate more reliable than a national identity card for determining a partner’s age in firm registration cases?\n•\nRuling:\no\nBirth certificates are conclusive if issued by a municipal official and carry greater evidentiary weight compared to identity cards.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 3125/KB to 3128/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 20th September 1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Akber Ansari. Laiq Ali Khan D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 159 = 1989 SLD 159 = 1989 PTD 1155 = (1990) 61 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Certificate for Advance Tax\n(a) Validity of Exemption Certificates\n•\nKey Issue: Duration of validity of exemption certificates issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax.\n•\nRuling:\no\nExemption certificates are valid only during the year goods were imported and cannot be retrospectively applied", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30(1),50,53,79 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 1989, decision dated: 23rd May, 1989, hearing DATE : 17-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO AND MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Saeed for Petitioner. Muhammad Riaz Ahmads", + "Party Name:": "MAHMEED (PRIVATE) Ltd\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, QUETTA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 160 = 1989 SLD 160 = 1989 PTD 1158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Race Clubs\n(a) Tax Exemption for Horse Racing Income\n•\nKey Issue: Can a race club claim exemption as an organization encouraging sports under the Income-tax Ordinance?\n•\nRuling:\no\nHorse racing, being a recognized major sport, qualifies the organization for exemption as an entity established for encouraging sports", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,cl,90 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1219/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 9th December 1988, hearing DATE : 14th November 1988", + "Judge Name": "A. A. ZUBERI AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Iqbal Lone. Ahmed Shuja Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 161 = 1989 SLD 161 = 1989 PTD 1163 = (1990) 61 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms\n(a) Effectiveness of Registration\n•\nKey Issue: Does a firm's registration apply to subsequent years?\n•\nRuling:\no\nRegistration remains effective for subsequent years unless there is a change in the firm's constitution.\n________________________________________\n(b) Powers of the Income-tax Officer Pre-1986\n•\nKey Issue: Could unregistered firms be treated as registered before the 1986 amendments?\n•\nRuling:\no\nPrior to 1-7-1986, the Income-tax Officer could treat unregistered firms as registered. This power ceased post-amendment.\n________________________________________\n(c) Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nKey Issue: Can errors in recognizing a firm's registered status be rectified?\n•\nRuling:\no\nOverlooking a firm’s registered status is a mistake apparent on record and can be rectified under Section 156.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68(4),69(1)(b)(ii),55,156,68 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 2918/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 9th September 1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Qadeer I.T.P.. Amin-e-Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 162 = 1989 SLD 162 = 1989 PTD 1169 = (1989) 60 TAX 106 = 1989 SCC 718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dower in Islamic Law and Taxation\n(a) Increase in Dower\n•\nKey Issue: Evidence requirements to establish an increase in dower.\n•\nRuling:\no\nAcknowledgment by the husband in any form suffices to prove an increase in dower. Requiring contemporaneous records is against Islamic principles.\n________________________________________\n(b) Constitutional Compliance with Islamic Injunctions\n•\nKey Issue: Can tax laws contradict Islamic principles under Article 227 of the Constitution?\n•\nRuling:\no\nNo law or rule, including tax laws, can contravene Islamic injunctions. Courts can strike down such laws or rules.\n________________________________________\n(c) Rule of Evidence\n•\nKey Issue: Application of evidentiary rules in Islamic law.\n•\nRuling:\no\nIn the absence of statutory evidentiary rules, courts may adopt just and fair rules, consistent with Islamic injunctions", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3)(a)(iii),23,66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),203Ato203-J,227,227(1),227(2),2A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.32 of 1980, decision dated: 19-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JUSTICE\nUSMAN ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri Advocate-on-Record.\nRespondent(s) by: M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chattha Advocate- on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "MIAN AZIZ A. SHEIKH\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax INVESTIGATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 163 = 1989 SLD 163 = 1989 PTD 1182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Honest Assessment and Leave to Appeal\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the assessment made was defective or justified.\n•\nRuling:\no\nThe assessment was found honest, and the basis for assessment was neither ignored nor defective.\no\nThe conduct of the assessee and other relevant factors were appropriately considered.\no\nNo justification was found for interference, and leave to appeal was refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 71 and 72 of 1985, decision dated: 26th February 1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND UNMAN ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 71 and 72 of 1985, decided on 26th February 1989\nTalib H. Rizvi. Advocate and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ch. M. Ishaque, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "SIDDIQUE TEXTILES LIMITED\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER, IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 164 = 1989 SLD 164 = 1989 PTD 1184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arrears of Tax and Security\n•\nKey Issue: Whether providing security instead of arrest was valid in tax arrears.\n•\nRuling:\no\nThe High Court’s directive that the petitioner furnish security to avoid arrest was lawful and proper.\no\nLeave to appeal against this order was refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.914 of 1981, decision dated: 19-07-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Hayee Mansoor Ahmad (absent) and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Mian AZIZUDDIN and another\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 165 = 1989 SLD 165 = 1989 PTD 1185 = (1990) 61 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit and Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\n•\nKey Issues and Rulings:\no\n(a) Scope of Tax Credit (Section 107):\n\nTax credit under Section 107 is not linked to the taxable status of income from the industrial undertaking.\n\nThe credit applies against the overall tax payable by the assessee, irrespective of whether profits are exempt under Section 48.\no\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes:\n\nRules are subordinate legislation and cannot override substantive provisions in the statute.\no\n(c) Procedural vs. Substantive Law:\n\nProcedural provisions (e.g., Rule 48) must align with and not defeat substantive provisions (Section 107).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,48 Income Tax Rules, 1982=48 ", + "Case #": "ITA. No.1651/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 29-01-1989, hearing DATE : 28th January 1989", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jamal D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 166 = 1989 SLD 166 = 1989 PTD 1192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Head Office Expenses and Double Taxation Treaty\n•\nKey Issues and Rulings:\no\n(a) Applicability of Pakistan Tax Laws:\n\nDomestic tax laws apply unless expressly overridden by treaty provisions.\n\nThe tax treaty with the USA does not specifically address head office expenses; hence Rule 20 applies.\no\n(b) Currency of Allowance:\n\nExpenses are assessed in Pakistani Rupees, even if incurred in foreign currency, to maintain consistency and fairness.\n\nAllowing expenses in foreign currency could lead to inconsistencies, especially with fluctuating exchange rates", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=20 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163,25 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2334/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 1st August, 1989, hearing DATE : 10-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Soli Parekh, I.T.P.. Nayyar Farazee, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 167 = 1989 SLD 167 = 1989 PTD 1199 = (1990) 61 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Loss Computation and Exemptions\n•\nKey Issues and Rulings:\no\n(a) Interest Set-off Against Loss (Clause 119):\n\nAssessee was right to offset interest earned on deposits against interest payable, reflecting the total loss as the computation aligns with Clause 119.\no\n(b) Miscellaneous Income Adjustment:\n\nMiscellaneous income related to business activities can be set off against losses.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,Cl.119,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3529/KB of 1086-87, 798/KB of 1987-88, 2121/KB of 1987-88 and 65/KB of 1988-89, decision dated: 8-08-1989", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ibrahim Seedat, A.C. A. R. Memon, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 168 = 1989 SLD 168 = 1989 PTD 1204 = (1990) 61 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Undertakings and Various Tax Provisions\n•\nKey Issues and Rulings:\no\n(a) Assembly vs. Manufacturing (Clause 122):\n\nThe term manufacture includes assembly processes unless explicitly excluded, as in Clause 98.\no\n(b) Interest Deduction (Section 23):\n\nInterest for acquiring fixed assets is not deductible, but interest for current assets is allowable.\no\n(c) Managing Agency Commission:\n\nManagement fee under a promoter's agreement is admissible if approved under applicable laws and amendments.\no\n(d) Royalty Payments:\n\nProvisions for royalty payments made for the first time were deemed capital in nature and disallowed.\no\n(e) Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF):\n\nWWF was rightly levied as the majority of shares were not government-owned.\no\n(f) Super-tax Rebate:\n\nPublic companies with shares quoted on the stock exchange are eligible for super-tax rebates.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.Cls.98,122,23(1),FirstSched,PartII,para.A(1)(2),134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.111/LB, 112/LB, 1904/LB/1987-88 and I.T.A. No.205/LB/ of 1987-88 and 619/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 30-01-1989, hearing DATE : 17th July 1988", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sikandar Kaleem. Iqbal Naeem Pasha with E.U. Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 169 = 1989 SLD 169 = 1989 PTD 1221 = (1990) 61 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Proceedings and Retrospective Definitions\n1.\n(a) Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:\no\nPenalty proceedings must be initiated during ongoing assessment proceedings.\no\nThe authority must be satisfied of concealment or default before conclusion.\no\nPenalty is quasi-criminal and requires proof of deliberate or conscious non-compliance.\no\nMerely being lawful is insufficient grounds for imposing a penalty.\n2.\n(b) Validity of Show-Cause Notices:\no\nA direction for penalty must be recorded in the assessment order.\no\nIssuance of a later show-cause notice under Section 116 cannot validate penalties if prior directions were absent.\n3.\n(c) Retrospective Explanation of Definite Information (Section 65):\no\nExplanation defining definite information is declaratory, extensive, and applies retrospectively.\no\nIt aims to clarify ambiguities regarding jurisdiction under Section 65.\n4.\n(d) Non-Compliance with Notice Issuance:\no\nPenalty imposed without proper notice under Section 116 was invalidated.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116,65(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals. Nos. 450/PB to 453/PB of 1987-88, decision dated: 5-06-1989", + "Judge Name": ", JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD KHIYAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "G.A. Jally. Saeed Iqbal D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 170 = 1989 SLD 170 = 1989 PTD 1233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation and Procedural Errors\n1.\n(a) Basis for Property Valuation:\no\nThe Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.) relied on conjectures without evidence or market analysis.\no\nRegistered deeds and Excise Authorities’ valuations were improperly disregarded.\n2.\n(b) Guidance from Other Valuations:\no\nExcise valuation, though not binding, should be considered as a guiding factor.\n3.\n(e) Opportunity:\no\nAssessees must be given an opportunity to present their case before additions under Section 13 are made.\n4.\n(f) Procedural Lapses:\no\nThe I.T.O. must issue clear, detailed notices post valuation under Section 13(2) before finalizing additions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 642/LB and 824/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 22-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmad Zia, AC/DR. Fayyaz Ahmad Chaudhry", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 171 = 1989 SLD 171 = 1989 PTD 1241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disputed Notices in Constitutional Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of notices questioned under Article 199.\n•\nRuling:\no\nDisputed facts related to notice issuance and service are unsuitable for constitutional jurisdiction.\no\nSuch matters should be resolved through statutory forums.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-19 of 1982, decision dated: 19-06-1989", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Gul Zaman Khan for Petitioner. Mohd. Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "NIAZI GRAMMAR SCHOOL\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 172 = 1989 SLD 172 = 1989 PTD 1245 = (1990) 61 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Income and Retrospective Exemptions\n•\nKey Issue: Retrospective applicability of Section 15-BB (4-AA).\n•\nRuling:\no\nSubsection (4-AA) operates only post-20th December 1971 and does not apply retrospectively", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB(4AA) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.12 of 1980, decision dated: 14-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE\nvs\nS. M. IDRIS ALLAHWALLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 173 = 1989 SLD 173 = 1989 PTD 1247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation Reserve as Admissible Expenditure\n•\nKey Issue: Whether provisions for taxation reserve qualify as admissible expenditure.\n•\nRuling:\no\nAmounts claimed as taxation reserves are admissible under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.4 of 1982, decision dated: 18th May 1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munirur Rehman for Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Rehanul Hassan Naqvi for Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs HABIB INSURANCE CO. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 174 = 1989 SLD 174 = 1989 PTD 1248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation Reserve as Admissible Expenditure\n•\nKey Issue: Whether provisions for taxation reserve qualify as admissible expenditure.\n•\nRuling:\no\nAmounts claimed as taxation reserves are admissible under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.3 of 1982, heard on 16-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Nasim Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ATLAS ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 175 = 1989 SLD 175 = 1989 PTD 1282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure—Capital vs. Revenue\n•\nKey Issue: Classification of lump-sum payments for technical know-how.\n•\nRuling:\no\nPayments for know-how within existing lines of production are revenue in nature and deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.43 of 1975, decision dated: 31st March, 1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "TA. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate for S.C. Patel and Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran. C.M. Lodha, Senior Advocate, M.N. Tandon for Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJARAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 176 = 1989 SLD 176 = 1989 PTD 1293 = (1990) 61 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Questions as Additional Grounds\n•\nKey Issue: Raising legal questions at later stages.\n•\nRuling:\no\nLegal questions can be introduced as additional grounds at any stage of proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=134 ", + "Case #": "I. -T .As. Nos. 607/LB of 1984-85, 4640/LB of 1985-86 and 2834/LB of 1986-87 of hearing: 15-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin Butt. Sikandar Kaleem, A C/D R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 177 = 1989 SLD 177 = 1989 PTD 1302 = (1990) 61 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Irregularities in Assessments\n1.\n(SLD #5201): Lack of Proper Assessment Order\no\nDemand notices without a formal assessment order are unlawful.\n2.\n(SLD #5202): Self-Assessment Scheme\no\nAssessees must file timely revised returns to avail scheme benefits.\no\nVoluntary additions shown in returns cannot be contested later", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,85 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 791-D and 795-D of 1984, heard on 19-09-1989, hearing DATE : 13th and 19-09-1989", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar and Wadood for Petitioner. Waheed Farooquis", + "Party Name:": "Miss NILOUFFAR J. MARKER\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE D1, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 178 = 1989 SLD 178 = 1989 PTD 1305 = (1990) 61 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Irregularities in Assessments\n1.\n(SLD #5201): Lack of Proper Assessment Order\no\nDemand notices without a formal assessment order are unlawful.\n2.\n(SLD #5202): Self-Assessment Scheme\no\nAssessees must file timely revised returns to avail scheme benefits.\no\nVoluntary additions shown in returns cannot be contested later", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61,62 ", + "Case #": "L.T.A Nos. 164/113 to 166/113 of 1988-89, decision dated: 21st August, 1989", + "Judge Name": "AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Z.A. Sheikh, D.R.for Appellant. Aftab Ahmad Kohati", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 179 = 1989 SLD 179 = 1989 PTD 1311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Society Deposits and Interest\n•\nKey Issue: Classification of deposits and interest payments.\n•\nRuling:\no\nMember deposits for share conversion and loan repayment are not loans.\no\nInterest paid on such deposits is inadmissible as expenditure", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1358 to 1361 of 1979 with Civil Appeal No. 3537 of 1984 decided on 1st May, 1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S.PATHAK C.J. I. AND L.M. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Ahuja, K. C. Dua and Miss. A Subhashini. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate Mrs. Anjali K. Verma and Joel Peres with him", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LUCKNOW\nvs\nBAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 180 = 1989 SLD 180 = 1989 PTD 1316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trust Income and Deductions\n1.\n(a) Income Assessment for Beneficiaries:\no\nReal income after deductions, not amounts paid, is assessable in beneficiaries’ hands.\n2.\n(b) Deductions from Personal Borrowings:\no\nInterest on personal borrowings is inadmissible for deduction.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 80 and 81 of 1975, decision dated: 1st March, 1989, hearing DATE : 1st May, 1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK C.J. I. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S.G. Patel, Advocate. V. Gauri Shankar and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. ARUNDHATI BALKRISHNA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, AHMEDABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 181 = 1989 SLD 181 = 1989 PTD 1319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains in Amalgamation\n•\nKey Issue: Whether share exchanges in company amalgamations constitute capital gains.\n•\nRuling:\no\nShare allotments in amalgamations do not amount to “exchange” or “relinquishment,” hence no capital gains arise.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1905 and 1906 of 1974 and 3414 of 1984, decision dated: 29th March,1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK C.J.I. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. Datta, Additional Solicitor-General, Dr. M.B. Rao and Miss A. Subhashini. Soli J. Sorabji, Senior Advocate, Harish N. Salve and Mrs. Anjali K. Verma", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY\nvs\nRASIKLAL MANEKLAL (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 182 = 1989 SLD 182 = 1989 PTD 1326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Delay in Filing Returns\n1.\n(a) Penalty for Delay:\no\nDefault in timely filing is sufficient for penalty; mens rea is unnecessary.\n2.\n(b) Wilful Default:\no\nWilful default requires proof of intent or negligence.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.630 and 631 of 1975, decision dated: 2-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocate and M. Raguraman or Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar and S.C. Manchanda, Senior Ad es and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "GUJERAT TRAVANCORE AGENCY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 183 = 1989 SLD 183 = 1989 PTD 1328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Procedural Timeliness\n1.\n(SLD #5207): Evidence in Penalty Proceedings\no\nPenalty requires substantive evidence of income concealment, beyond false explanations.\n2.\n(SLD #5208): Delay in Penalty Imposition\no\nPenalties must be levied within a reasonable time; nine years is excessive", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.333 of 1969, decision dated: 10-07-1975", + "Judge Name": "DEB AND DIPAK KIMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.L. Pal with N.L. Pal for the Commissioner. J.C. Pal with M. Beperjee for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGALIII \nvs\nLALIT MOHAN DEB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 184 = 1989 SLD 184 = 1989 PTD 1333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Procedural Timeliness\n1.\n(SLD #5207): Evidence in Penalty Proceedings\no\nPenalty requires substantive evidence of income concealment, beyond false explanations.\n2.\n(SLD #5208): Delay in Penalty Imposition\no\nPenalties must be levied within a reasonable time; nine years is excessive", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "R.C. No.8 of 1970, decision dated: 5-11-1971", + "Judge Name": "CHINAPPA REDDY AND A.D. V. REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Dasaratharama Reddy for the Assessee. P.Rama Rao for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K.P. NARAYANAPPA SETTY & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, A.P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 185 = 1989 SLD 185 = 1989 PTD 1334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Societies and Tax Exemptions\n1.\n(a) Exemptions for Marketing Activities:\no\nGinning and pressing of cotton integral to marketing qualifies for tax exemption.\n2.\n(b) Liberal Interpretation:\no\nTax provisions promoting cooperative societies warrant a liberal approach.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 513 to 515 of 1975, decision dated: 26-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK C.J. I, AND MA KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Anjali K. Verma, Miss Lekha Mathur and D.N. Misra Advocates with him. C.M. Lodha, Senior Advocates Miss A. Subhashini Advocate with him", + "Party Name:": "BROACH DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES, GINNING AND PRESSING SOCIETY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, AHMEDABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 186 = 1989 SLD 186 = 1989 PTD 1337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income, Loss, and Overriding Title\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of profits when a government-managed business exceeds a prescribed profit limit.\n•\nRuling:\no\nProfits retained by the assessee up to the limit were fully taxable.\no\nThere was no overriding title in favor of the government over the entire profit; only a share of excess profits, if any, would go to the government.\no\nWhen profits did not exceed the limit, the entire profit was taxed in the hands of the assessee.\n(C.I.T. v. Setaldas Tirathdas applied)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1442 of 1975, decision dated: 28-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK C.J. I AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "E.C. Agarwala, Advocate. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (M.B. Rao and Miss A. Subhasini Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "VIBHUTI GLASS WORKS \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 1 = 1988 SLD 1 = 1988 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Questions of Fact and Benami Transactions\n1.\n(a) Reference to High Court:\no\nQuestions regarding purchase price of machinery and accumulated savings were factual and within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.\no\nSuch findings do not raise questions of law warranting a reference to the High Court.\n2.\n(b) Benami Transactions:\no\nThe burden of proof to establish a transaction as benami rests on the tax department unless the assessee provides an explanation.\no\nIf the explanation is unsubstantiated, the department may rely on circumstantial evidence.\n(L. Sheo Narain Lal in re. and related cases distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 30 of 1986, decision dated: 4-10-1987. dates of hearing: 6th June and 4-10-1987", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ali Bin Abdul Qadir. M. Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S. MAHBOOB AHMAD and Co., Rawalpindi\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 2 = 1988 SLD 2 = 1988 PTD 10 = (1988) 57 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Debentures and Tax Deductibility\n•\nKey Issue: Classification of debentures and deductibility of interest paid.\n•\nRuling:\no\nDebentures represent borrowed capital, not equity, and are used as a financial instrument for raising loans.\no\nInterest paid on debentures for business purposes is deductible from income under the head “Income from Business or Profession.”\no\nCustoms debentures issued under deferred payment schemes were also treated as borrowed capital, and interest paid was deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(i)(vii),(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4506/LB of 1985-86 and 5179/LB of 1986-87 decided on 9-10-1987, hearing DATE : 1st September, 1987", + "Judge Name": "A. A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmad Chaudhary, C.A.. Shaukat Ali Babar, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 3 = 1988 SLD 3 = 1988 PTD 16 = (1988) 57 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Documentation Requirements\n•\nKey Issue: Denial of treatment under self-assessment without notice.\n•\nRuling:\no\nAssessees are entitled to a notice before denial of self-assessment under Section 59(1).\no\nThe I.T.O.’s failure to process the return within the statutory timeline cannot prejudice the taxpayer.\no\nA case qualifying under Section 59(1) must be accepted unless re-opened under Section 65.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62,65,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 583/PB/of 1986-87, decision dated: 9-06-1987", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Ahmad Saigal. Umar Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 4 = 1988 SLD 4 = 1988 PTD 18 = (1988) 57 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contractors and Applicability of Section 143\n•\nKey Issue: Scope of Section 143 for contractors and suppliers.\n•\nRuling:\no\nSection 143 applies to professional contractors engaged in building construction and related supply of goods or services.\no\nIt does not apply to general suppliers of goods unless the contract involves construction activities.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 540/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 9-09-1987, hearing DATE : 17-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmed Saleemi D.R.. M. Iqbal Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 5 = 1988 SLD 5 = 1988 PTD 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Annual Letting Value and Burden of Proof\n•\nKey Issue: Determination of the correct annual letting value.\n•\nRuling:\no\nThe I.T.O. must rely on reasonable evidence to determine annual letting value, including valuations by statutory authorities.\no\nDepartures from past practices require justification with supporting material.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 263, 264 and 269/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 18-10-1987, hearing DATE : 14-10-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid, D.R.. M.D. Gangat, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 6 = 1988 SLD 6 = 1988 PTD 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.)\n1.\n(a) Nature of Error:\no\nErrors under Section 34-A are legal in nature and must be prejudicial to revenue.\n2.\n(b-d) Scope of I.A.C.’s Powers:\no\nThe I.A.C. can only revise orders of the I.T.O., not those modified by appellate authorities.\no\nOnce an order merges with appellate decisions, it ceases to exist independently and is outside the I.A.C.'s jurisdiction.\n(1971 P.T.D. (Trib.) 53 and related cases applied)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4095, 4096 and 4097 of 1977-78, decision dated: 16-07-1978", + "Judge Name": "M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT, S.G. YAZDANI, AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Raza Naqvi. Aftab Ahmad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 7 = 1988 SLD 7 = 1988 PTD 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Expenses\n1.\n(a) Special Pay to Staff:\no\nPayments made as per industrial awards and local practices are deductible as business expenses.\n2.\n(b) Remission for Business Purposes:\no\nExpenses incurred to preserve client goodwill and prevent business loss, such as reimbursing demurrage charges, are allowable.\n3.\n(c) Bad Debts:\no\nOnly debts fulfilling Section 10(2)(xii) criteria and deemed irrecoverable by the I.T.O. can be written off.\n4.\n(d) Legal Expenses:\no\nCosts incurred during disputes before tribunals or courts are allowable as business expenses.\n5.\n(e) Letting Value:\no\nAnnual letting value should reflect bona fide rents, and arbitrary changes without supporting evidence are unjustified.\n6.\n(f) Forgery-related Losses:\no\nLosses arising from forgery can be written off in the year liability is determined after legal proceedings", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),9(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 192 of 1960-61, 1688 of 1961-62 and 320 of 1963-64, decision dated: 15-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "NUR ILLAHI, PRESIDENT AND M. T. SIDDIQUI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "J.F.C. Callahar. Iqbal Jafar.D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 8 = 1988 SLD 8 = 1988 PTD 45 = (1988) 57 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Detailed Scrutiny\n1.\n(a) Self-Assessment and Mixed Questions:\no\nControversies about self-assessment eligibility involve mixed questions of law and fact.\no\nAssessees can raise such objections at any stage, including during appeals.\n2.\n(b) Dealer Classification:\no\nAssessee dealing with tape recorders and recording cassettes was classified as a dealer of electrical and electronic appliances since recording involved electricity.\n3.\n(c) Exclusion from Self-Assessment Scheme:\no\nAssessee dealing in electronic appliances was correctly excluded from the scheme for detailed scrutiny.\n4.\n(d) Parallel Cases:\no\nParallel cases’ scrutiny depends on the department’s discretion; the assessee cannot demand similar treatment for exclusion based on parallels.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 148/IB-1985 of 1986, decision dated: 25-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.. Zahid Yasin Mufti", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 9 = 1988 SLD 9 = 1988 PTD 49 = (1988) 57 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax on Salary and Unilateral Relief\n1.\n(a) Inclusion of Salary in Total Income:\no\nSalary earned in Azad Kashmir was taxable as part of the assessee's total income when filed as a resident.\no\nAssessee was entitled to unilateral relief under Section 164 if tax was paid in Azad Kashmir.\n2.\n(b) Surcharge on Income:\no\nAssessed income below the threshold of Rs. 70,000 was exempt from surcharge from 1982-83 onward.\n3.\n(c) Duty of Assessing Officer:\no\nI.T.O. must record clear and positive findings in assessment orders.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=164,59(1),-Sched.I,ParaB ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 509(IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 30-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Majid, CA. Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 10 = 1988 SLD 10 = 1988 PTD 66 = (1988) 57 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retained Income and Working Capital\n1.\n(a) Retained Income Definition:\no\nExcludes distributed dividends and taxes payable but includes amounts retained for operational needs.\n2.\n(b-f) Definitions and Implications:\no\nWorking Capital: Difference between current assets and liabilities used for operational needs.\no\nCurrent Liabilities: Includes obligations due within a year, such as advance taxes.\no\nAdvance tax payments remain provisional until final adjustments post-assessment.\n3.\n(g) Applicability of Tax Laws:\no\nTax laws applicable in a specific assessment year are based on the law in force during that year.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A,21,22,22A23a23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 48 and 74 of 1982, 5, 20, 26, 30, 55 and 72 of 1983, 115. 132, 142, 143 of 1984, 10, 13, 14, 16, 78, 84, 86- 88, 94. 97 of 1985, 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 23, 27, 36 and 37 of 1986, decision dated: 17-09-1987. dates of hearing: 2nd, 7th and 8-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider, Waheed Farooqui and Nasarullah for Applicant.Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Ali Akhtar, Sirajul Haq, K. Salah-ud-Din, R.F. Virjee, Anwar Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Ibrahim Pishori and Rafique Comani", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 11 = 1988 SLD 11 = 1988 PTD 84 = (1988) 58 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Admissibility of Business Expenses\n•\nKey Issue: Whether bona fide expenses for the overall benefit of a business qualify for deduction.\n•\nRuling:\no\nExpenses benefiting the business broadly, even without immediate profit, qualify as admissible.\n(Eastern Investments Ltd. and related cases applied.)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 33 of 1983, decision dated: 4-11-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider Ali", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HORMONE LABORATORIES LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 12 = 1988 SLD 12 = 1988 PTD 88 = (1988) 57 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application and Reassessment\n1.\n(a) Retrospectivity of Amendments:\no\nAmendments by Finance Ordinance, 1980, apply prospectively unless explicitly stated.\no\nAdditions under Section 13(1)(aa) in the assessment year 1979-80 were illegal.\n2.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes:\no\nSection titles and headings cannot override or interpret plain statutory language.\n3.\n(c-f) Escaped Income and Procedural Requirements:\no\nSection 65: Notices under Section 65 are prerequisites for assessing escaped income.\no\nProcedural Defects: Absence of proper notice invalidates proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),65(a)(b)(c),15,9,2(24)(44),55,56,65,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6149/LB to 6159/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-10-1986. dates of hearing: 30th June and 1st July, 1986", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.A.M. SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar. Amjad Ali Ranjha A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 13 = 1988 SLD 13 = 1988 PTD 102 = (1988) 57 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty, Bad Debt, and Salary\n1.\n(a) Penalty for Non-Compliance:\no\nPenalties imposed for statutory infractions, like failing to maintain balances with the State Bank, are not deductible as business expenses.\n2.\n(b) Bad Debt:\no\nCertification by the State Bank does not bind the I.T.O., who retains discretion to determine bad debts.\n3.\n(c) Penal Interest:\no\nInterest paid for legal non-compliance is not deductible.\n4.\n(d) Salary Perquisites:\no\nExpenditure on employee benefits, such as house rent and loans, constitutes part of salary and is deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),23(1)(x),24(1),23 State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=36 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1238/KB and 1239/KB of 1981-82,decided on 22-11-1987, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid, D.R. Sirajul Haque Memon", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 14 = 1988 SLD 14 = 1988 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Dismissal\n•\nKey Issue: Absence of an assessment order in the field.\n•\nRuling:\no\nHigh Court dismissed the reference as it was misconceived, requiring resolution by the I.T.O. per the Tribunal's order.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 58 of 1983, decision dated: 8-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDAR ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Kazi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 15 = 1988 SLD 15 = 1988 PTD 112 = (1988) 57 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Registration of Firms\n1.\n(a) Avoidance of Tax Liability:\no\nA firm properly constituted under an instrument of partnership meeting Section 68 requirements cannot be denied registration merely because the firm's objective is to reduce tax liability.\no\nTax avoidance through lawful commercial arrangements is permissible.\n(CIT v. Hussain Corporation, Karachi 1983 PTD 289 ref.)\n2.\n(b) Powers of the I.T.O.:\no\nI.T.O.'s authority under Section 68 is limited to verifying whether the firm was genuinely constituted as per the partnership instrument.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1732/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 29-10-1987, hearing DATE : 19-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid. Nazir Ahmed Saleemi A. C. , D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 16 = 1988 SLD 16 = 1988 PTD 117 = (1988) 57 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Cases and Notices\n1.\n(a) Validity of Notices under Section 65:\no\nServing a signed notice under Section 65 is a prerequisite for reopening cases.\no\nUnsigned notices lack legal authenticity and invalidate subsequent proceedings.\no\nNotices under Sections 58, 61, or 62 cannot be issued unless Section 65 notice has been duly served.\n2.\n(b) Additions under Section 13(1)(aa):\no\nNo addition can be made unless the assessee is proven to have made investments or owns undisclosed money or valuable articles.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,58,61,62,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 7124/LB of 1986 87, decision dated: 30-10-1987, hearing DATE : 25-08-1986", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, AND M.A.M. SIDDIQUI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ilyas Zafar. Shoukat Ali Babar, A. C. D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 17 = 1988 SLD 17 = 1988 PTD 123 = (1988) 57 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Evidence\n1.\n(a) Legal Obligation for Exemption:\no\nAssessees claiming exemptions must present sufficient evidence to prove their entitlement.\no\nExemption claims must be supported by returns, relevant documents, and adequate proof.\n2.\n(b) Admission of New Evidence:\no\nEvidence not submitted during earlier proceedings is typically inadmissible unless explicitly called for by the Tribunal.\n3.\n(d) Onus for Unexplained Investments:\no\nThe assessee must provide a satisfactory explanation, including timelines, for unexplained investments.\no\nIn the absence of evidence, the assessing officer’s conclusions are upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1348 to 1350 of 1985-86, decision dated: 16-11-1987. DATE of nearing: 20-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "A.A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H Rizvi. Nazeer Ahmed Saleemi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 18 = 1988 SLD 18 = 1988 PTD 132 = (1988) 57 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 12-B--Assessee, a limited company and derived income inter alia from gains arising from sale of capital assets--Investment holding company--Functions--Activity of investment holding company cannot be treated as trading in shares on commercial scale, unless it is positively proved that company dealt commercially in shares--Where company sold part of its capital assets, resultant gain/loss was to be dealt with under S.12-B--[1979 PTD (Trib.) 12 overruled].\n \nA company who invests substantial capital in the purchase of shares of a subsidiary company in order to control the operations of the latter is called an Investment Holding Company. Sometimes the whole share capital of such a Holding Company is employed in this manner and no direct trading operations are undertaken. Control of the subsidiary company is secured by acquiring majority of the shares, carrying investing rights, which empower the investment holding company to control the composition of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary company.\n \nA company may be authorised to deal in shares and securities. If, therefore, the company buys and sells shares it may amount to carrying on the business in shares and securities. But, if the company is also authorised to invest in shares and securities and, therefore, acts as an investment holding company, in addition to investment dealing company, it will have to be shown that its activity amounted to dealing commercially in shares before profit therefrom is made taxable. If the shares and securities were purchased as investment, it will, notwithstanding the Memorandum that it may deal in shares, will not amount to trading in shares.\n \nActivity of assessee as investment holding company cannot be treated as trading in shares on commercial scale, unless it is positively proved that they deal commercially in shares.\n \n1979 P T D (Trib.) 12 overruled.\n \nSince company sold part of its capital assets hence the resultant gain/loss is to be dealt with under the provisions of section 12-B of the repealed Act.\n \n1979 P T D (Trib.) 12; I T A No. 2631/LB of 1979-80; case of PICIC 1980 P T D 322; I.T.A. No. 7281 of 1971-72 and In re: Miss Shirin Ayub Khan 1976 P T D 1980 ref.\n \n1979 P T D (Trib.) 12 overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3459 to 3462/LB of 1980-81, decision dated: 2-09-1987, hearing DATE : 13-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazeer Ahmad Saleemi, D.R.. Mohammad Amin But", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 19 = 1988 SLD 19 = 1988 PTD 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Precondition of Notice for Assessment\n1.\n(a) Notices as Jurisdictional Prerequisites:\no\nIssuance of notices is a mandatory jurisdictional step. Actions without proper notices are void.\n(Vellayan Chettiar v. Government of Madras PLD 1947 PC 160 ref.)\n2.\n(b-c) Nature of Section 63(3):\no\nSection 63(3) is not retrospective and introduces a new service requirement for notices.\n3.\n(d) Non-Issuance of Notices:\no\nNon-compliance with Section 34 invalidates subsequent assessments, as statutory requirements must be strictly followed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,63(3),5(5) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous No. 2070 of 1967 (Tax Reference No. 10 of 1960), decision dated: 13th October 1972", + "Judge Name": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND M.S.H. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Lone for the Petitioner. Javaid Hashmi for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (NORTH ZONE), LAHORE\nvs\nABDUL HAMID MUHAMMAD JAMIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 20 = 1988 SLD 20 = 1988 PTD 140 = (1988) 57 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Insurance Companies\n1.\n(a) Unified Taxation Approach:\no\nInsurance company income is taxed as a single unit, regardless of its sources, under Section 26(a) and the Fourth Schedule.\n2.\n(b) Capital Gains Exemption:\no\nExemptions for capital gains are unavailable if the gains are included in the balance of profit for taxation purposes.\n3.\n(c-d) Assessing Officer’s Powers:\no\nAssessing officers can disallow unsubstantiated expenses under both Rule 5(a) of the Fourth Schedule and Section 22.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,17,19,22,30,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5727/LB to 5729/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 28-11-1987, hearing DATE : 12-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir. M. Nawaz Malik, L.A. and Nazeer Ahmad Saleemi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 21 = 1988 SLD 21 = 1988 PTD 147 = (1988) 58 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\n1.\n(a) Apparent Mistakes:\no\nSection 156 rectification requires clear, apparent mistakes on record. Changes in opinion do not qualify.\n2.\n(d) Jurisdictional Limits:\no\nI.T.O. cannot overturn appellate orders using rectification powers. Such actions warrant constitutional challenge.\n(PLD 1985 SC 109 ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=156(1),ThirdSched.,PartI,16(1)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartI,69(4),156 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-246 of 1986, decision dated: 19-11-1987, hearing DATE : 11-10-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Akhtar for Petitioner. Waheed Farooquis", + "Party Name:": "D.D. SHROFF\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE D3, CENTRAL ZONE D, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 22 = 1988 SLD 22 = 1988 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge and Working Capital\n•\nCalculation of Retained Income:\no\nTax liabilities must be subtracted from total income when calculating retained income for surcharge purposes.\n(Finance Act 1977 ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.723(KB) of 1978-59, decision dated: 27-02-1987", + "Judge Name": "A. A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Feroze Shah. A.R. Diwan C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 23 = 1988 SLD 23 = 1988 PTD 161 = (1988) 57 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing and Default Penalties\n1.\n(a) Late or Non-Filing of Returns:\no\nLate filings without valid reasons attract penalties under Section 108.\no\nComplete non-filing necessitates notice under Section 56, followed by penalties or ex parte assessment.\n2.\n(b-d) Wealth Statements:\no\nFailure to file wealth statements leads to penalties under Section 110. Notices under Section 58 are prerequisites for action.\n3.\n(e) Legislative Intent:\no\nLegislative precision precludes superfluity in statutes, ensuring penalties align with explicit non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,62,63,108,58,61,63,110,116 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1603/KB and 1604/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 24-12-1987, hearing DATE : 25-10-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid, D.R.. Halimur Rehman Khan, ITPs", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 24 = 1988 SLD 24 = 1988 PTD 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Notional Income\n1.\n(a) Definition of Exempt under Section 151:\no\nThe term is exempt refers to exemptions under any legal provision, not just the Income-tax Ordinance.\n(1986 PTD 58 ref.)\n2.\n(b) Capital Gains and Exemptions:\no\nSecond Schedule’s provisions on capital gains exemptions align with Section 151.\no\nExemptions remain valid for recipients even after the introduction of Section 151 to minimize misuse.\n(1986 PTD (Trib.) 58 ref.)\n3.\n(e) Notional Income for Pre-Incorporation Expenses:\no\nNotional income cannot be calculated for periods when the company was not in existence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151,12(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 952/KB and 953/KB of 1983-84, heard on 13-10-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haque Memon. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 25 = 1988 SLD 25 = 1988 PTD 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Exemption and Interpretation of Statutes\n1.\n(a) Dividend from Tax-Holiday Companies:\no\nDividends from companies enjoying a tax holiday are exempt in the hands of the shareholders, ensuring the tax benefit is passed on.\n(PLD 1959 SC 219 ref.)\n2.\n(b) Interpretation Principles:\no\nStatutory provisions must align with the legislative objective to advance the Act's purpose.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 115 of 1971 decided on 12-05-1972", + "Judge Name": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND M.S.H. QURAISHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq. Muhammad Amin Butt", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMst. GULZARINA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 26 = 1988 SLD 26 = 1988 PTD 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Double Taxation and Taxability of Technical Services\n1.\n(a) Double Taxation Treaty (Pakistan-USA):\no\nCertain incomes, such as rent, royalties, or fees, are taxable in Pakistan even if derived by U.S. entities.\n2.\n(b) Taxability of Technical Services:\no\nFees for consultancy services rendered partly in Pakistan are taxable due to their territorial nexus with Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79,11(1),12(5) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1592/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 14-12-1987, hearing DATE 2-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid, DR with Riaz Nasir Kazmi, DR. H. Khawaja with Javed Khurram", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 27 = 1988 SLD 27 = 1988 PTD 195 = (1988) 58 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Losses and Tribunal References\n1.\n(a) Loss Due to East Pakistan’s Fall:\no\nLosses on depreciable fixed assets in East Pakistan are deductible under Section 10(2)(vii).\n(1986 PTD 461 ref.)\n2.\n(b) Tribunal Decisions:\no\nPoints not explicitly decided by the Tribunal are deemed to have been addressed if raised during proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii),66(1) & (2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 22 of 1981, decision dated: 8-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM, JJ AJMAL MIAN AND ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Akhtar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 28 = 1988 SLD 28 = 1988 PTD 200 = (1988) 57 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legislative Authority in Taxation\n1.\n(a) Income and Exemptions via Finance Acts:\no\nFinance Acts can redefine income and revoke exemptions granted under the Income-tax Act or Ordinance.\n2.\n(b) Taxability of Free Reserves:\no\nExcess free reserves over paid-up capital are taxable as artificial income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6C),3,4,4(1),7(1),22,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 32 of 1976, decision dated: 1st October, 1987, hearing DATE : 9-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Naseem Ahmed Khan for Applicant. \nMrs. Rashida Patels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAK. LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 29 = 1988 SLD 29 = 1988 PTD 206 = (1988) 58 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reassessment and Constitutional Jurisdiction\n1.\n(a) Invoking Section 65:\no\nReassessment under Section 65 requires specific preconditions, such as definite information or prior approval.\n2.\n(b-c) Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court:\no\nHigh Courts intervene only in cases of jurisdictional errors, mala fide actions, or clear contraventions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(1),65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1297 of 1986, decision dated: 10-12-1987, hearing DATE : 2-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmanul Hasan Naqvi and S.A. Wadood for Petitioner. Waheed Farooquis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WALI TRADERS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE XVIII, EAST ZONE, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 30 = 1988 SLD 30 = 1988 PTD 213 = (1988) 57 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Multi-Storied Buildings\n1.\nDefinition of Unit of Building :\no\nRefers to individual flats or apartments.\no\nExemption is granted only for multistoried flats designed for low-income groups meeting prescribed conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.II,PartI,70,71 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 618(IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 30-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Majid, C.A.. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 31 = 1988 SLD 31 = 1988 PTD 218 = (1988) 57 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Registration of Firms and Appeals\n1.\n(a) Appeal Grounds:\no\nGrounds not included in the memorandum of appeal cannot be raised later without filing additional grounds.\n2.\n(b-d) Registration of Firms:\no\nSource of partner contributions is immaterial for registration.\no\nFirms can seek registration even with nominal or no income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5387/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 2-11-1987, hearing DATE : 11-10-1987", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali Babar, AC/DR. M.H. Khokhar, I.T.Y.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 32 = 1988 SLD 32 = 1988 PTD 222 = (1988) 57 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreed Assessment\n•\nAgreed Assessment as a Contract:\no\nAn agreed assessment is valid only when both the assessing officer and the assessee gain mutual benefits, fulfilling contractual principles under the Contract Act.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos. 212 to 215 (IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 26-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.. Imam Din in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 33 = 1988 SLD 33 = 1988 PTD 227 = (1988) 58 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Pending Appeals and Jurisdiction\n1.\n(a) Appeals under Repealed Law:\no\nAppeals pending as of 1-7-1979 must be decided under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922.\n2.\n(e) High Court’s Jurisdiction:\no\nHigh Courts can set aside Tribunal orders if jurisdictional errors are identified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166,166(2),136(1),136(2A), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 40, 43 and 116 of 1984, decision dated: 4-11-1987, hearing DATE : 30-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haq", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE \"\"B\"\", KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 34 = 1988 SLD 34 = 1988 PTD 234 = (1988) 58 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Powers and Revisions\n1.\n(a) Pending Returns and Assessments:\no\nReturns filed before the Ordinance’s enactment must be assessed under the repealed Act.\n2.\n(b) Section 66-A Powers:\no\nRetrospective powers under Section 66-A allow revision of pre-enactment orders by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.).\n3.\n(c) Binding Nature of CBR Directives:\no\nCBR’s directives are binding on subordinate authorities but not on the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166(2)(0),66A,167(2)(0), Income Tax Act, 1922=34A,4(1), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4617 and 4618 of 1980-81, decision dated: 26-12-1987, hearing DATE : 30-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A.A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Muhammad Iqbal. M. Nawaz Malik, Legal Advisor and Nazir Ahmed Saleemi A./ D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 35 = 1988 SLD 35 = 1988 PTD 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Losses, Expenditures, and Perquisites\n1.\n(a) Classification of Amounts:\no\nIf a department does not classify an amount as a debt, it cannot treat it as a loan or advance falling under Section 4(1), Explanation of the Income-tax Act or Section 12(7) of the Ordinance.\n2.\n(b) Business Loss from Loan Guarantee:\no\nA company��s loss incurred due to guaranteeing a loan for another company with shared financial interests is deductible as a business loss since it is incidental to the company’s business.\n3.\n(c) Accounting Methods for Business Losses:\no\nLosses are recognized in the year liabilities are incurred if accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis, or in the year disbursed for cash-basis accounting.\n4.\n(d) Recognition of Bad Debts:\no\nLoss from bad debts is recognized only when there is no reasonable prospect of recovery.\n(Associated Banking Corporation of India Limited v. CIT ref.)\n5.\n(e) Scope of For the Purpose of Business :\no\nExpenditure incurred for preserving or facilitating business operations qualifies as business expenditure, provided it aligns with commercial expediency.\n6.\n(f) Loan Losses:\no\nLosses incurred on loans guaranteed for another company’s benefit but unrelated to trade are not deductible.\n(CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., CIT v. Abdullahbhai Abdul Kadar ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1),12(7) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),22(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 790, 791 and 403/KB of 1981-82, decision dated: 30-03-1986, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 1986", + "Judge Name": "GHULAM SADIQ AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid D.R.. I.N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 36 = 1988 SLD 36 = 1988 PTD 264 = (1988) 58 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Perquisites and Special Allowances\n1.\n(a-b) Taxability of Perquisites:\no\nFree accommodation, food, and laundry benefits provided to a hotel manager are taxable as perquisites unless proven necessary for employment duties.\n2.\n(c-d) Exemptions for Special Allowances:\no\nTo claim exemptions, the allowance must meet specific criteria, such as being directly related to and necessary for employment duties.\n3.\n(e-f) Definition of Perquisites:\no\nPerquisites include casual emoluments or benefits attached to a position and are taxable unless specific exemptions apply.\n4.\n(g-h) Laundry Services as Perquisites:\no\nFree laundry services provided to employees are taxable unless shown as wholly necessary for employment duties.\n(Mallalieu v. Drummond ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.II,39,16(2)(b) Income Tax Rules, 1982=39 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 360(IB) to 364(IB) of 1986-87, heard on 28-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "PER MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amir Alam Khan, F.C.A.. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 37 = 1988 SLD 37 = 1988 PTD 277 = (1988) 57 TAX 160 = (1988) 58 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Asset Losses Due to Bangladesh’s Secession\n1.\n(a) Compulsory Acquisition by Competent Authority:\no\nLosses on assets compulsorily acquired by the Bangladesh Government qualify for deductions under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.\n2.\n(b) Retroactive Recognition of De Facto Governments:\no\nActs of the Bangladesh Government during its de facto status are validated retroactively upon its recognition as a de jure government.\n3.\n(c-d) Abandoned Assets:\no\nAbandonment of assets in East Pakistan does not qualify as discarded for deduction purposes unless assets were lawfully acquired by Bangladesh under a competent authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 18, 19, 23 and 97 of 1979 6 of 1980, 15 and 24 of 1981, 45, 46 and 68 of 1982 and 11 and 22 of 1983, decision dated: 4-11-1987, hearing DATE : 23rd September, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Nasim Ahmed Khan, Ali Athar, S.A. Sarwana, Iqbal Naeem Pasha and Sirajul Haq Memon for Applicant. Waheed Farooqi, Nasrullah Awan, Shaikh Haider and Mrs. Rasheeda Patels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 38 = 1988 SLD 38 = 1988 PTD 290 = (1988) 57 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Additions\n1.\n(a) Justification for Reopening Assessments:\no\nReassessment is valid when supported by definite information and prior approval, even if objections about information adequacy arise later.\n2.\n(b) Confiscated Amounts as Income:\no\nConfiscated sums are treated as income from other sources, and subsequent expenditures on recovery are not deductible.\n3.\n(c-e) National Fund Bonds:\no\nPurchases of National Fund Bonds can offset assessments, provided they meet procedural and timing requirements.\n4.\n(h-i) Interpretation of Pending Assessments :\no\nPending assessments imply cases where the ITO retains the power to finalize decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(l),65,31,Sched.,172,2(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3534, 1536 and 1537/LB of 1986-87, heard on 8-12-1986", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Khan and Saadat Ali Khan. Munir Qureshi, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 39 = 1988 SLD 39 = 1988 PTD 310 = (1988) 58 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Books of Accounts\n1.\nAssessment Based on Accepted Methods:\no\nBooks of accounts reflecting consistent and past-accepted accounting methods cannot be summarily rejected without thorough examination.\n2.\nWork-in-Progress:\no\nIncomplete projects not exceeding 25% progress are excluded, but the method used must consistently reflect business practices.\nThis set of rulings clarifies business losses, tax treatment of perquisites, and assessment procedures, emphasizing consistent accounting methods and fair interpretations of statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,32, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1117/ KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 9-02-1988, hearing DATE : 26-01-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOORUL HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid, D.R.. Ebrahim Sidat, C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 40 = 1988 SLD 40 = 1988 PTD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebates, Penal Interest, and Statutory Interpretation\n1.\n(a) Unexplained Investments:\no\nApproval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.) for adding unexplained investments to income is sufficient.\n2.\n(b) Export Rebates:\no\nExport rebates are available to both the registered firm and its individual partners when the firm derives income from exporting goods manufactured in Pakistan.\n(1985 PTD (Trib.) 869 ref.)\n3.\n(c) Penal Interest and Advance Tax:\no\nIncome-tax Officers must account for refunds due before calculating liabilities for advance tax and penal interest.\n4.\n(d) Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes:\no\nAmbiguities in tax statutes should be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer.\n5.\n(e) Precedent Binding on Tribunal Members:\no\nA third member resolving disputes within a tribunal must follow precedent set by other division benches.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13(1)(d),13(2),267,Sched.I,PartIV,91 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2813 of 1982-83, decision dated: 9-09-1986", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ABRAR HUSSAIN AND WAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja. Akhtar Nazar Mian, D.R. with Ch. Muhammad Ishaq and Javaid Tahir Butt A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 41 = 1988 SLD 41 = 1988 PTD 324 = (1988) 57 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surveys, Reassessments, and Constitutional Jurisdiction\n1.\n(a) Scope of Survey:\no\nIncome-tax authorities can conduct surveys on existing assessees at their business premises.\n2.\n(b) Authority for Conducting Surveys:\no\nIndividuals not holding the status of Income-tax Officers cannot lawfully conduct surveys; such actions are invalid.\n3.\n(d-f) Reassessment Requirements:\no\nFor reassessment, the I.T.O. must possess definite information or I.A.C. approval. Survey findings alone do not qualify as definite information. \n4.\n(g) Constitutional Jurisdiction:\no\nRemedies under the Income-tax Ordinance must be exhausted unless the impugned order is patently without jurisdiction, mala fide, or violates natural justice principles.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=145,146,65,44 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition Nos. 11 to 36 of 1987, decision dated: 8-06-1987. dates of institution: 11th to 22-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "ABDUL GHAFOOR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Manzoor for Petitioners. Basharat Ahmed Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL HAMID and others\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION/Income Tax OFFICER & C.I.T. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 42 = 1988 SLD 42 = 1988 PTD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accounting Methods and Awan Committee Formula\n1.\n(a-b) Rejection of Books of Accounts:\no\nThe Awan Committee formula can only be applied when substantial defects in the assessee’s books justify their rejection. A mere shortfall in production does not warrant rejection or additions.\n2.\n(c) Certification of Closing Stock:\no\nAbsence of a Chartered Accountant’s certificate for closing stock valuation is not grounds to reject accounts if audited financials provide sufficient verification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 1 of 1978, decision dated: 5-10-1987, hearing DATE : 16-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 43 = 1988 SLD 43 = 1988 PTD 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court References and Surcharges\n1.\n(a) Misconceived Reference:\no\nHigh Court references based on questions already decided in favor of the department are inadmissible.\n2.\n(b) Surcharge on Retained Income:\no\nTaxes already paid cannot be considered part of retained income", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 101 and 102 of 1983, decision dated: 9-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. J. H. Rahimtoola", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 44 = 1988 SLD 44 = 1988 PTD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Airline Ticket Revenue and Unearned Income\n1.\n(a-b) Revenue Recognition for Airlines:\no\nTicket revenue becomes income only when utilized. Unclaimed balances transferred to profit accounts cannot be classified as income.\n(Punjab Steel Scrap Merchants Association Ltd. v. CIT ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-110 of 1980, decision dated: 21st January, 1988. dates of hearing: 3rd February, 1987 and 21st January, 1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C, J., ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Yousuf Rafi, Advocate-ort-Record. Mrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER Income Tax (CENTRAL); KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 45 = 1988 SLD 45 = 1988 PTD 345 = (1988) 57 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exempt Allowances and Rebate Computations\n1.\n(a) Provisions on Exempt Allowances:\no\nExempt allowances are deducted only where explicitly allowed by law. Rebate is computed at the average tax rate, not through straight deductions.\n2.\n(b) No Conflict in Provisions:\no\nThe First Schedule and Section 49 of the Income-tax Ordinance must be read together; they collectively guide rebate computations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=49,14,16(1)(a),39,44,44A,46,Sched.I,PartI,para ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 6366 of 1979-80, decision dated: 1st February, 1986, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 1985", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ZAFFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja Khan. Kh. Sarwar AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 46 = 1988 SLD 46 = 1988 PTD 350 = (1988) 58 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Co-operative Societies, Adventures in Trade, and Capital Gains\n1.\n(a) Local Authority Status:\no\nCo-operative societies are not local authorities and cannot claim exemptions under the corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Ordinance.\n2.\n(c) Adventures in Trade:\no\nSolitary transactions are considered adventures in trade only when initial intent is to resell for profit. Mere price inflation does not render a transaction taxable.\n3.\n(d) Compulsory Acquisition and Capital Gains:\no\nProceeds from compulsory acquisition of immovable property are treated as capital gains and are exempt under Section 27 of the Income-tax Ordinance, aligning with constitutional limitations.\n4.\n(e) Fund Payments:\no\nPayments to unapproved funds are not deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=49,FirstSched, ", + "Case #": "I. T. As Nos. 1684/ KB of 1982-83 and 2031/ KB to 2033/ KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 25-11-1987, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muktada Karim. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 47 = 1988 SLD 47 = 1988 PTD 354 = (1988) 57 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Co-operative Societies, Adventures in Trade, and Capital Gains\n1.\n(a) Local Authority Status:\no\nCo-operative societies are not local authorities and cannot claim exemptions under the corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Ordinance.\n2.\n(c) Adventures in Trade:\no\nSolitary transactions are considered adventures in trade only when initial intent is to resell for profit. Mere price inflation does not render a transaction taxable.\n3.\n(d) Compulsory Acquisition and Capital Gains:\no\nProceeds from compulsory acquisition of immovable property are treated as capital gains and are exempt under Section 27 of the Income-tax Ordinance, aligning with constitutional limitations.\n4.\n(e) Fund Payments:\no\nPayments to unapproved funds are not deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.II,57,61,2(32),14(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-Tax Appeals Nos. 3592/LB and 3593/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 5-05-1986, hearing DATE : 9-12-1985", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt and F.R. Hashmi F.C.A.. M. Ilyas Khan Legal Advisor and Amjad Ali Ranjha D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 48 = 1988 SLD 48 = 1988 PTD 369 = (1988) 58 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Income and Commercial Expediency\n1.\n(a) Interest Income as Business Income:\no\nInterest earned on fixed deposits from unutilized loan funds borrowed for setting up an industry was deemed business income. It could be set off against interest paid before capitalization, as such actions were based on commercial expediency.\no\nThe assessee minimized losses by earning interest on unutilized funds, showcasing prudent financial management. (Moosa Sons Ltd. v. C.I.T. ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1818/KB to 1821/ KB of 1983-84, 1754/ KB to 1756/KB and 4242/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 21st February, 1988, hearing DATE : 1st February, 1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Farooq Ali, C.A.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 49 = 1988 SLD 49 = 1988 PTD 377 = (1988) 58 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Receipts of Casual and Non-Recurring Nature\n1.\n(a) Taxability of Unexplained Receipts:\no\nReceipts deemed casual and non-recurring in nature but with unexplained sources were treated as income from undisclosed sources and taxed accordingly.\no\nInadequate evidence, such as unverified betting claims, leads to rejection of exemption claims. (PLD 1981 SC 85 ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii),4(2C),4(2-E),2(6C) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4811/LB and 4810/LB of 1980-81, decision dated: 11-02-1988, hearing DATE 3rd January 1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT AIL KHAN. CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mohammad Ishaque L.A and Shaukat Ali Babar A.C./ D.R.. Irfan Aslam Sheikh, respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 50 = 1988 SLD 50 = 1988 PTD 383 = (1988) 58 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minors in Partnership and Legal Implications\n1.\n(a) Admission of Minors to Benefits of Partnership:\no\nMinors cannot contract as partners but can be admitted to the benefits of a partnership under Section 30 of the Partnership Act.\no\nThe firm's registration remains valid if the dominant clause of the partnership deed shows minors were only admitted to the benefits of the partnership.\no\nLegal capacity of a guardian to represent minors in agreements was affirmed. (Addepally Nageswara Rao v. C.I.T. ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68(2)(c) Partnership Act, 1932=30 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1562 of 1982-83, decision dated: 3rd July, 1985, hearing DATE : 2-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid A. Sheikh. M. Arshad Pervez A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 51 = 1988 SLD 51 = 1988 PTD 394 = (1987) 56 TAX 112 = (1988) 58 TAX 1 = 1987 PLD 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Partnerships\n1.\n(a) Partnership Formed by Oral Agreement:\no\nA firm formed by oral agreement and formalized by a written partnership deed before the year's end qualifies for registration.\no\nThe substitution of constituted by for constituted under in Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act allows for retrospective validation of partnerships", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A,a2(11)(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 77 to 113 of 1975 and 119 of 1978, decision dated: 17-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "MOHAMMED HALEEM, C, J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Meqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1975)\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 80 to 83, 87, 104, 111, 112 and 113 of 1975)\nCh. Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch, Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 78, 79, 84, 85, 91, 92, 93 a 97 to 103 and 105 to 109 of 1975)\nCh. Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 of 1975)\nCh. Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 86, 88 to 90 and 110 of 1975)\nNemos (in above Appeals)\nCh. Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1978)\nImtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs LYALLPUR COLD STORAGE, LAHORE ROAD, LYALLPUR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 52 = 1988 SLD 52 = 1988 PTD 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Debt for Allowance\n1.\n(a) Guarantee for Debt Not Considered a Trading Debt:\no\nGuarantee payments for debts unrelated to business operations or incidental to business are not deductible as bad debts.\no\nA debt must qualify as a trading debt tied directly to the assessee's trade to be eligible under Section 23(1). (C.I.T. v. Birla Brothers ref.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22(2),23(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 790, 791 and 403/KB of 1981-82, decision dated: 30-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "GHULAM SADIQ, FARHAT ALI AND SIKANDER HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 53 = 1988 SLD 53 = 1988 PTD 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Search and Seizure by Income-Tax Authorities\n1.\n(a) Abuse of Power in Search and Seizure:\no\nSeizure without proper authorization or exceeding authority is invalid.\no\nEvidence irrelevant to proceedings must not be seized.\no\nWrits of mandamus can quash actions where abuse of power is evident. (AIR 1984 SC 72 ref.)\n2.\n(b) Relevance of Seized Documents:\no\nBoth the Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer must ensure seized documents are relevant to proceedings", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=96,98,165 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3302 of 1963 , decision dated: 27-08-1964", + "Judge Name": "Y. G. OAK AND GANGESHWAR PRASAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.N. Panchuri, K.L. Misra, S. Ray for Petitioners. R.L. Gulatis", + "Party Name:": "SETH BROTHERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM through Sri Vishwa Nath\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, U.P., LUCKNOW and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 54 = 1988 SLD 54 = 1988 PTD 477 = (1988) 58 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions and Cash Credits\n1.\n(a-b) Burden of Proof for Cash Credits:\no\nUnexplained cash credits are taxable as income unless the assessee proves they derive from a previously taxed source.\no\nThe burden lies on the assessee to establish the legitimacy of cash credits.\n2.\n(c-d) Unexplained Cash Credits in Business Accounts:\no\nIf cash credits are part of business accounts and additions are made to the trading account, the Income-tax Officer must demonstrate that unexplained cash credits are not already covered by such additions", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 100 and 101/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 30-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 55 = 1988 SLD 55 = 1988 PTD 481 = (1988) 58 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exploration and Production of Petroleum\n1.\n(a) Treatment of Exploration Activities as Separate Undertakings:\no\nAgreements for petroleum exploration with the government encompass all leases related to exploration, discovery, and extraction.\no\nExpenditure on surrendered areas or dry wells can be set off against successful projects under the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\n(b) Agreements Before 1979 Governed by Earlier Law:\no\nExploration agreements predating July 1, 1979, remain subject to the Income-tax Act, 1922. The principles of loss carry-forward and set-off are consistent under both regimes.\n3.\n(c) Loss Carry-Forward:\no\nLosses from surrendered areas or dry wells may be carried forward under the terms of the specific agreement but are not automatic.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FifthSched Income Tax Act, 1922=SecondSched,2(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 965/113, 966/IBi79/IB and 80/IB of 1986-87, decision dated: 14-02-1988, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1987", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleem Zulfiqar, Bar-at-Law and Khalid Majeed, C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos. 965/IB and 966/IB of 1986-87)\nNazir Ahmad Saleemi, A.C., D.R. and Maqbool Hussain, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 965/IB and 966/IB of 1986-87) \nNazir Ahmad Saleemi, A.C., D.R. and Maqbool Hussain, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 79/IB and 80/IB of 1986-87)\nSaleem Zulfiqar, Bar-at-Law and Khalid Majeed, C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos. 79/IB and 80/IB of 1986-87)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 56 = 1988 SLD 56 = 1988 PTD 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prize Bonds and Taxation\n1.\n(a) Exemption for Prize Money:\no\nSubstantial documentary evidence confirming the ownership and prize winnings is sufficient to exempt prize money from taxation.\no\nAuthorities cannot rely on probabilities or assumptions to override documented evidence.\n2.\n(b) Invalid Additions to Income:\no\nAdditions to income unsupported by reliable evidence must be set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,60 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,12,14,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos.210, 211, 212, 213, 214 and 215 (Pb.) of 1984-85, decision dated: 10th February 1985", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Ehsanul Haq I.T.P.. Zulfiqar Ali D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 57 = 1988 SLD 57 = 1988 PTD 497 = (1988) 58 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Double Taxation and Royalty Payments\n1.\n(a) Royalty and Consultancy Fees:\no\nRoyalty for patents, secret processes, or consultancy fees paid by a non-resident company with operations in Pakistan is taxable if services are utilized in Pakistan, even if performed elsewhere.\n2.\n(b) Double Taxation Agreements:\no\nRoyalty or fees derived from management, control, or supervision of another concern do not qualify as industrial or commercial profits and are taxable under the source country's laws.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18(3B),42(3),4(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 383/KB of 1932-83, decision dated: 28-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Faizul Alam, C.A.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 58 = 1988 SLD 58 = 1988 PTD 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Assessments\n1.\n(a) Basis for Determining Advance Tax Liability:\no\nLiability under Section 18-A(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, must be based on a completed assessment under Section 23(3), not an interim one under Section 23-B.\n2.\n(b) Additional Tax Limitation:\no\nAdditional tax cannot be levied beyond June 30 of the year following the assessment year.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A,23(3),23B ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1979, decision dated: 31st March, 1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Rehan Hassan Naqvi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, INVESTIGATION, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NISHAT MILLS LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 59 = 1988 SLD 59 = 1988 PTD 512 = (1988) 57 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Reserve Creation\n1.\n(a) Fictional Reserves Not Taxable:\no\nA surplus recorded as a fictional entry in capital gains accounts, without actual profit realization, is not taxable. Fiction cannot substitute reality unless expressly provided by law.\no\nReserves must derive from real profits, not accounting necessities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1)Expln.5, ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 29, 33, 34 and 35 of 1976, decision dated: 28-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasarullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 60 = 1988 SLD 60 = 1988 PTD 516 = (1988) 57 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dual Taxation and Excess Income\n1.\n(a) Dual Taxation Prohibited:\no\nInadmissible claims removed from profit and loss accounts and subsequently taxed as excess income cannot be taxed twice.\no\nTax authorities must reconcile additions with previous adjustments to avoid duplication", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos. 45 and 47 of 1975, decided or 13-09-1987, hearing DATE : 17-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel for Applicant. Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION)\nvs\nMessrs NISHAT MILLS Ltd. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 61 = 1988 SLD 61 = 1988 PTD 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Royalties and Place of Income Accrual\n1.\n(a) Place of Accrual for Royalties:\no\nRoyalties received by a society from India under an agreement are considered income accrued in India and are taxable there.\no\nThe income belongs to the society, despite distribution to members, as there is no overriding charge.\n2.\n(b) Agreement Jurisdiction:\no\nThe situs of payment or agreement execution (e.g., England) does not alter the taxability of income accrued in India.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 488 of 1975, decision dated: 10-08-1976", + "Judge Name": "A.G. GUPTA AND, JASWANT SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hardayal Hardy, Senior Advocate (S.K. Mehta, M. Qamar-ud-Din and P.N. Puri, Advocates with him) No. 1\nA.K. Sen, Senior Advocate (S. K. Mehta, M. Qamar-ud-Din and P.N. Puri, Advocates with him) No. 2\nS.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate, (P.L. Juneja and S.P. Nayar, Advocates with him) for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY Ltd. and another\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 62 = 1988 SLD 62 = 1988 PTD 532 = (1988) 57 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss and Bad Debt\n1.\nAdmissibility of Loan as a Business Loss:\no\nA loan advanced by an investment company, later becoming a bad debt, is admissible as a business expense under Section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\no\nThe Tribunal concluded that the loan was integral to the company's money-lending activities, validating it as a business loss.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 59 of 1983, decision dated: 24th September 1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE\nHAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasir-ud-Din Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Zia H. Rizvi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nPAKISTAN INVESTMENT LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 63 = 1988 SLD 63 = 1988 PTD 542 = (1988) 58 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Assessments and Statutory Amendments\n1.\nSecond Additional Assessments:\no\nReopening assessments for the same year requires a new notice under Section 65(1)(a) or (b) if related to escaped or under-assessed income.\no\nCases initially assessed under Section 59 may be reopened under Section 65(1)(c) without needing prior approval or definite information.\n2.\nEffect of Finance Ordinance, 1982:\no\nSection 65(3) and newly added Section 65(3-A) set a 10-year limit for reopening cases and one year for completing reassessments post-notice.\n3.\nRetrospective Application of Curative Statutes:\no\nAmended laws must honor vested rights and cannot invalidate prior decisions favorable to taxpayers.\n4.\nSecond Reassessment Without Fresh Material:\no\nReassessment notices must rely on new evidence; reliance on previously used material invalidates subsequent notices without approval", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(3) & (3A), ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.235, 702, 773, 859, 860 and 1141 of 1985 and 236 of 1986 decided on 30-04-1988. dates of hearing: 9th, 14th, 15th and 16-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt and Abdul Qayyum Bhatti for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHAUDHRY TEXTILE MILLS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE V, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 64 = 1988 SLD 64 = 1988 PTD 563 = (1988) 58 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Employee and Whole-Time Employment\n1.\nDefinition of Employee:\no\nA director qualifies as an employee under Rule 39(3)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1922, only if fully employed by a single company.\no\nPart-time engagement with multiple companies disqualifies directors from being considered full-time employees.\n2.\nInterpretation of Whole Time :\no\n Whole time signifies exclusive service to a single employer, excluding proportional time-sharing between entities", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=39(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.13 of 1983, decision dated: 9-03-1988. dates of hearing: 28th February and 2-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN, C.J. AND SALEEM AKHTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A\nvs\nS. MAZHAR HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 65 = 1988 SLD 65 = 1988 PTD 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Super-Tax Rebates and Interpretation of Statutory Terms\n1.\nConditions for Super-Tax Rebate:\no\nRebates are applicable only if the processed product meets specified criteria, such as being grain, under Finance Acts 1965, 1967, and 1968.\n2.\nInterpretation of Processing :\no\n Processing must align with activities like freezing, preserving, or canning to qualify for tax rebates.\n3.\nDenial of Rebate for Corn Oil Extraction:\no\nExtraction of corn oil and by-products from maize did not fulfill the rebate criteria under relevant Finance Acts.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=55,66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 88-K of 1983, 202-K of 1984 and 135-K of 1986, heard on 27-01-1988, hearing DATE : 27-01-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 88-K of 1983)\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 88-K of 1983)\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 202-K of 1984)\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 202-K of 1984)\nHaziqul Khaii, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 135-K of 1986)\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 135-K of 1986)", + "Party Name:": "RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. Ltd\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 66 = 1988 SLD 66 = 1988 PTCL 40 = 1988 PTD 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reopening of Assessments and Procedural Compliance\n1.\nRequirements for Reopening Cases:\no\nDefinite information or prior approval is not needed for reopening cases assessed under Section 59(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, if specified by the Central Board of Revenue.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme and Positive Evidence:\no\nOnly cases with positive evidence of concealment qualify for reopening under Section 65.\n3.\nLimitations on Reopening Self-Assessment Cases:\no\nSuspicion alone does not justify reopening; concrete evidence is essential to disqualify returns from the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(2),59(1),13,5(1)(c),59,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1124/LB, 1125/GB, 1126/LB and 1127/LB/1983-84, decision dated: 31st October, 1985", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Shuja Khan. M. Arshad Pervaiz A. C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 67 = 1988 SLD 67 = 1988 PTD 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Allocation of Expenses Against Exempt Income\n1.\nInterest Allocation:\no\nInterest paid on borrowed capital cannot be allocated between dividend income (exempt) and other taxable income.\no\nAdministrative and other expenses are similarly disallowed against exempt dividend income", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),15BB ", + "Case #": "I.T. Rs. Nos. 17 to 20 of 1977, decision dated: 24-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPICIC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 68 = 1988 SLD 68 = 1988 PTD 647 = (1988) 58 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice and Exemptions\n1.\nIssuance of Notice:\no\nA notice under Section 34 read with Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, can be issued anytime for cases where returns were not filed.\no\nUnder the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65 allows notice for reopening cases when no return was filed for multiple years.\n2.\nCooperative Societies and Interest Income:\no\nExemption for interest income applies only if derived from investments with cooperative banks under Item 103(c) of the Second Schedule.\no\nInterest earned from deposits with other banks is taxable, and associated overhead expenses are allowable at a reasonable rate.\n3.\nPenalty for Nil Returns:\no\nFiling nil returns does not attract penalties under Section 88, as no tax was due on such returns.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=39,22(1)(2),22(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166(1),(2)(ii),65,88 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3381 to 3391 of 1984-85, decision dated: 31st March, 1986, hearing DATE : 28-01-1986", + "Judge Name": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 69 = 1988 SLD 69 = 1988 PTD 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Cooperative Societies\n1.\nExemptions for Cooperative Societies:\no\nProfits derived from dealings with non-members are not exempt from tax.\no\nSocieties with substantial activities cannot claim exemption as a cottage industry.\no\nIncome from manufacturing and selling agricultural implements is exempt under specific notifications", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=14(3)(a),14(3)(b)(ii),60 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 312 of 1974-75; 1337 and 1338 of 1975-76, decision dated: 25-04-1978", + "Judge Name": "M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND S.G. YAZDANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Chughtai. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 70 = 1988 SLD 70 = 1988 PTD 662 = (1988) 57 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Questions of Law and Intangible Additions\n1.\nIncome Classification:\no\nRented income from properties under agreement to purchase is a question of law.\no\nA Tribunal's finding on cash credits being attributable to prior assessed income is a question of fact.\n2.\nIntangible Additions:\no\nIntangible additions to book profits during assessment are part of real income, usable for tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 161 and 162 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd January, 1987", + "Judge Name": "S.S. CHADHA AND S.N. SAPRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Wazir Singh and R.C. Pandey for Commissioner. Anoop Sharma, R.K. Raghavan and Miss Amita Gupta", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGUN NIDHI DALMIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 71 = 1988 SLD 71 = 1988 PTD 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Omission\n1.\nReassessment Jurisdiction:\no\nReassessment after four years requires proof of failure by the assessee to disclose material facts.\no\nErrors due to the Income-tax Officer's oversight cannot justify reopening assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi),(viA),34(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1792 of 1971, decision dated: 16-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.H. Dhebar, S.K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia. R. M. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Girish Chandra", + "Party Name:": "PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, WARD A, RAJKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 72 = 1988 SLD 72 = 1988 PTD 673 = (1988) 58 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax Arrears\n1.\nDemand and Recovery:\no\nTimely demands and certificates validate recovery proceedings.\no\nSuits challenging tax recovery are not maintainable unless statutory remedies have been exhausted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46(7),33A Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=5,100 ", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No.196 of 1985, decision dated: 10-02-1988, hearing DATE : 18-01-1988", + "Judge Name": "AKHTAR HASSAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Iftikhar Ahinad Dars. Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others\nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 73 = 1988 SLD 73 = 1988 PTD 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Principles\n1.\nPenalty Imposition:\no\nPenalty proceedings are quasi-criminal; the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to show deliberate defiance of law.\no\nAbsence of mens rea invalidates penalty imposition.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Case No. 141 of 1975 decided on 18-02-1977", + "Judge Name": "M.L. SHRIMAL AND M.L, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. K. Mal Lodha for Applicant. L.R. Mehta", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax RAJASTAHNII\nvs\nRAWAT SINGH AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 74 = 1988 SLD 74 = 1988 PTD 683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Dividend Income\n1.\nDividend Income:\no\nDividends are taxable under business income only if shares are part of the stock-in-trade.\no\nMere investment in shares for dividends does not constitute a business activity.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,12 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1964, decision dated: 2-11-1965", + "Judge Name": "K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai with S. Murthy and B.P. Maheshwari. A. V. Viswahanatha Sastri with N.D. Karkhanis, R. H. Dhebar and R.N. Sachthey", + "Party Name:": "BENGAL AND ASSAM INVESTORS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 75 = 1988 SLD 75 = 1988 PTD 689", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership and Minors\n1.\nValidity of Partnerships:\no\nA minor cannot be a full partner with liability for losses under the Partnership Act.\no\nPartnerships that violate this principle cannot be registered under Section 26-A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 Partnership Act, 1932=30 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1959, decision dated: 1st December, 1960", + "Judge Name": "J.L KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND, J.C SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Rajagopal Sastri with D. Gupta. Rameshwar Nath, S.N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF 1NCONIETAX, BOMBAY\nvs\nDWARKADAS K ETAN & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 76 = 1988 SLD 76 = 1988 PTD 694 = (1987) 55 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Purposes and Exemptions\n1.\nCharitable Purpose:\no\nA Road Transport Corporation offering public utility services is considered charitable, even when run on business principles.\no\nIncome used for public benefits, such as road development, qualifies for tax exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(0) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 216 to 218 of 1973, decision dated: 7th-March, 1986", + "Judge Name": "V.D TULZAPURKAR AND D.P. MADAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate with A. Subhashini, Advocate,\nF.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, with T. A. Ramchandran and B. Parthasarathi, Advocates\nO.P. Rana, Senior Advocate with G.S. Chatterjee, S.K. Dholakia, C.S.S. Rao and Raju Ramchandran, Advocates, for intervener", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 77 = 1988 SLD 77 = 1988 PTD 702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Deeds and Registration\n1.\nRegistration with Minor Partners:\no\nA guardian partner can consent to a minor being admitted to the benefits of a partnership.\no\nOmission of loss-sharing clauses does not invalidate the partnership deed if intentions are clear", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A Partnership Act, 1932=4,30 ", + "Case #": "Case referred No.2 of 1966, decision dated: 16-09-1969", + "Judge Name": "GOPAL RAO EKBOTE AND RAMACHANDRA RAJU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. Venkatappa Sastri for the Assessee. P. Rama Rao for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ADDEPALLY NAGESWARA RAO and brothers\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax A.P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 78 = 1988 SLD 78 = 1988 PTD 723 = (1988) 58 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC)\n1.\nScope of Section 66-A:\no\nThe IAC can revise erroneous orders prejudicial to Revenue interests.\no\nErrors leading to tax losses are sufficient grounds for invoking Section 66-A.\n2.\nDiscretion and Evidence:\no\nThe IAC must exercise discretion justly, ensuring decisions are not arbitrary or capricious.\no\nCases reopened under Section 66-A must demonstrate a clear revenue loss.\n3.\nJudicial Review:\no\nHigh Courts can review notices under Section 66-A only if actions lack jurisdiction, violate natural justice, or infringe fundamental rights", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59A(1),56A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-343 and 344 of 1987, decision dated: 22-05-1988 , hearing DATE : 15-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "SHAHABUDDIN\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RANGEI, WEST ZONE, KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 79 = 1988 SLD 79 = 1988 PTD 734 = (1988) 58 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Interpretation and Depreciation Allowance\n1.\nAmbiguity in Legislation:\no\nCourts must adhere to legislative intent based on statutory wording.\no\nAmbiguities arise when a term or phrase is reasonably open to multiple interpretations.\no\nBenevolent provisions should be interpreted broadly to reduce hardship.\n2.\nDepreciation Allowance:\no\nDepreciation deductions apply only to assets used wholly or partially for business purposes.\no\nAllowance is calculated based on depreciation actually allowed, not merely claimed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 117/LB to 122/LB of 1986-87, 569/LB and 570/LB of 1981-82, decision dated: 26-06-1988, hearing DATE : 21st June, 1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Siddiqui Akhtar Chaudhry, I.T.P../Respondent. Nazir Ahmed Saleemi, A.C./D.R../ Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 80 = 1988 SLD 80 = 1988 PTD 745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Directions and Depreciation on Chartered Assets\n1.\nTribunal’s Powers:\no\nThe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal can direct the Income-tax Officer to adopt previously accepted assessment methods.\n2.\nDepreciation on Chartered Assets:\no\nDepreciation cannot be claimed for assets not owned by the assessee, such as chartered vessels.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=40 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 7 and 9 of 1979, decision dated: 16th March 1988", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. G. M Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs ELLERMEN LINE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 81 = 1988 SLD 81 = 1988 PTD 747 = (1988) 58 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition and Scope of Salary\n1.\nSalary Components:\no\nOvertime and leave salary are included within the definition of salary under Section 10(4)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\no\nThese payments are part of remuneration and compensation for services rendered.\n2.\nEjusdem Generis Principle:\no\nGeneral terms in statutory lists are interpreted in line with specific preceding terms.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(4)(d) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 191/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 16-06-1988, hearing DATE : 27-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MOHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND MANZURUL HAQUE, MEMBERS PER MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid, D.R...M. Tanauli", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 82 = 1988 SLD 82 = 1988 PTD 754 = (1988) 58 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Proceedings and Property Valuation\n1.\nScope of Proceedings:\no\nThe term proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, includes inquiries and recovery actions beyond assessment.\n2.\nProperty Valuation:\no\nAssessing Officers can challenge declared property values in books and wealth statements and determine reasonable valuations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1006/LR and 1140/LR of 1987-88, decision dated: 13-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A.A-. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ilyas Zafar (in I.T.A. No. 1006/LB of 1977-78 and in I. T. A. No. 1140/ LB of 1987-88). Shaukat Ali Babar, A.C./D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 1140/LB of 1987-88 and in I.T.A. No. 1006 of 1987-88)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 83 = 1988 SLD 83 = 1988 PTD 760 = (1988) 58 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments and Change of Opinion\n1.\nEssentials for Reopening:\no\nDefinite information or material change must support reopening assessments under Section 65.\no\nMere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer does not justify reassessment.\n2.\nRole of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner:\no\nApproval for reassessment must involve careful scrutiny and cannot be mechanical or arbitrary.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,63 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1523/ KB to 1526/KB of 1982-83,.decided on 8-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 84 = 1988 SLD 84 = 1988 PTD 768 = (1988) 58 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalties for Non-Compliance\n1.\nPenalty Imposition:\no\nPenalty under Section 28(1-B) applies for failure to pay advance tax as required under Section 18-A.\no\nLegislative references must be interpreted contextually to identify relevant provisos.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A,28(1A),(1B)(b) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1595 and 4434 of 1971-72, decision dated: 21st May, 1985, hearing DATE : 4-01-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin Butt. Nazir Ahmed Saleemi, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 85 = 1988 SLD 85 = 1988 PTD 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Escaped Income and Reassessment Validity\n1.\nDefinition of Escaped Income:\no\nIncome included in a return but left unassessed, or whose assessment was later canceled, constitutes escaped income.\no\nReassessment is valid if initiated within one year of such income escaping assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 15 of 1967, heard on 12-04-1972", + "Judge Name": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Petitioner. Javed Hashmi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEDr. KHURSHID ALAM MALIK, SHEIKHUPURATAX, LAHORE ZONE (WEST PAKISTAN), LAHORE\nvs\nDr. KHURSHID ALAM MALIK, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 86 = 1988 SLD 86 = 1988 PTD 775 = (1988) 58 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Orders and Principles of Merger\n1.\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner’s Powers:\no\nRevision under Section 66-A applies only to Income-tax Officer’s orders and not those superseded by appellate decisions.\n2.\nTax Credit and Depreciation:\no\nTax credits under Section 107 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, apply only to machinery intended for installation.\n3.\nPrinciple of Merger:\no\nAppellate orders replace original assessments, and issues not raised by the appellant are deemed settled under constructive res judicata.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,Sched.III,8(8)(b),129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1384/KB and 1183/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 17-07-1988, hearing DATE : 4-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MANZURUL HAQUE AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS PER MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haque. Mohammad Farid D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 87 = 1988 SLD 87 = 1988 PTD 785 = (1988) 58 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes and Reopening of Assessments\nTopic (a): Rectification of Mistakes Apparent from Record\n•\nConclusion:\nSection 156 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 allows rectification only for mistakes apparent in the individual assessee’s record, not in the records of related entities such as firms. Assessments marked subject to rectification do not automatically become provisional unless the mistake is evident and satisfies Section 156 provisions.\n•\nReferences:\n(1973) 28 Tax 1164, (1980) 42 Tax 171, C.I.T. v. Khemchand Ramdas (1938) 6 ITR 414 (P.C), and others.\nTopic (b): Reopening of Assessments\n•\nConclusion:\nReopening assessments under Sections 65 and 156 is valid only with new material unavailable during the original assessment. Simple reapplication of judgment on existing facts does not justify reopening. The officer's failure to apply diligence during the original assessment does not authorize later reopening.\n•\nReferences:\n(1987) PTD (Trib.) 539, Kopurabari Ventateswarlu v. IInd Additional I.T.O. (1967) PTD 34, Muhammad Bashir v. I.T.O. (1982) PTD 322 (Lahore H.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 41/KB to 50/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 11-06-1988, hearing DATE : 4-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ebrahim Dahudwala, F.C.A.. A.G. Channa, D.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 88 = 1988 SLD 88 = 1988 PTD 795 = (1988) 58 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compliance with Gift Tax Act Notices\nTopic (a): Service of Notice under Section 16\n•\nConclusion:\nService of notice under Section 16 of the Gift Tax Act, 1963 is valid even with procedural irregularities if the assessee acknowledges proceedings. The objective of notice is to inform, not necessarily follow procedural perfection.\n•\nReferences:\n1988 PTD 135, PLD 1969 Dacca 76, PLD 1956 Lahore 434.\nTopic (b): Time Limit for Initiating Proceedings\n•\nConclusion:\nIf no return is filed under Section 13, proceedings can be initiated within eight years under Section 16(1)(a). Filing a return shifts the focus to escapement under Section 16(1)(b).\n•\nReferences:\nG.T.A. No. 3/LB of 1986-87.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=16 ", + "Case #": "G.T.A. No. 9/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 5-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "A.A. ZUBERI AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali Babar D.R. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 89 = 1988 SLD 89 = 1988 PTD 800 = (1988) 58 TAX 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Actions and Unexplained Investments\nTopic (a): Ex Parte Action\n•\nConclusion:\nAn Assessing Officer is not required to issue fresh notices for every hearing if the assessee has failed to appear after proper initial service.\n•\nReferences:\n1976 PTD 9, PLD 1975 Lahore 1317.\nTopic (b): Unexplained Investment\n•\nConclusion:\nUnexplained investments are added to income only after obtaining I.A.C.’s approval. Approval must align with Section 13(1)(aa).\n•\nReferences:\n1987 PTD (Trib.) 36.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,65,13(1)(aa), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 121(PB) to 126(PB) and 264(P.B.) to 269(P.B.) of 1587-88, decision dated: 12-05-1988, hearing DATE : 3rd May 1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Irshad Shaheen, D.R.. Fayyaz Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 90 = 1988 SLD 90 = 1988 PTD 806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Representative Assessee\nNon-Resident Company and Representative Assessee’s Liability\n•\nConclusion:\nA person appointed as a representative assessee post-financial year cannot be retroactively held liable for the non-resident’s advance tax obligations. Financial statutes must not impose retrospective penalties unless explicitly stated.\n•\nReferences:\nEast End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1952) AC 109, Income-tax Reference No. 55 of 1970.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T. Reference 55 of 1970, decision dated: 9-02-1978", + "Judge Name": "DIPAK KUMAR SEN AND C.K. BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.L. Pal with Apt Sengupta for the Commissioner. Dr. D. Pal with Miss M. Seal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGAL1\nvs\nT.I. & M. SALES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 91 = 1988 SLD 91 = 1988 PTD 816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notice for Additions\nAdditions from Unexplained Sources\n•\nConclusion:\nWithout a show-cause notice or specific I.A.C. approval, additions from unexplained income are invalid. Approval of the overall assessment order does not substitute for specific approval.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1003 of 1985-86, decision dated: 4-08-1986", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja Khan,. S. Maqbool Hussain Shah, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 92 = 1988 SLD 92 = 1988 PTD 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Appellate Authority\nJurisdiction of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.)\n•\nConclusion:\nThe A.A.C. cannot issue directions affecting prior years; they must focus solely on the year under review.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3278 of 1980-81, decision dated: 14-10-1981", + "Judge Name": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja Khan. Khalid Mahmood, A.C./ D.R. IRespondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 93 = 1988 SLD 93 = 1988 PTD 819 = (1987) 55 TAX 140 = (1989) 59 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": High Court’s Jurisdiction and Mixed Questions\nTopic (a): Reference to High Court\n•\nConclusion:\nHigh Courts must accept the Tribunal’s primary findings of fact but can challenge conclusions based on incorrect legal applications. Mixed questions of law and fact allow High Court interference.\n•\nReferences:\nJ.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. v. Griffiths (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) [1962] 40 T.C. 281.\nTopic (b): Dealing in Shares\n•\nConclusion:\nClassifying an activity as investment or trade depends on the cumulative facts and legal analysis. Profit motive alone does not define business activity.\n•\nReferences:\nDhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. C.I.T. [1967] 63 ITR 651.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1954 and 1955 of 1974, decision dated: 8-05-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with Miss A. Subhashini. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate with Harish Salve, Mrs. Anjali K Verma and Joel Peres", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax; BOMBAY\nvs\nH. HULCK LARSEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 94 = 1988 SLD 94 = 1988 PTD 838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Petty Tax Liability\nSupreme Court and Minimal Tax Disputes\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court declines to entertain appeals involving trivial tax liabilities without addressing substantive issues.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1679 of 1973, decision dated: 1st April, 1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.C. Dua and Miss Subhashini fcr Appellant. Harish Salve, J.B. Dadachanji with Mrs. Anjali K Verma", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax BOMBAY\nvs\nK.A. PATH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 95 = 1988 SLD 95 = 1988 PTD 839 = (1987) 55 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Loss\nLoss from Land Transactions\n•\nConclusion:\nLosses from selling fixed assets purchased for non-trading purposes are capital losses, not revenue losses.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1649 of 1974, decision dated: 16-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Govind Das with J.R. Das. S.C. Manchanda, with K.C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "MADNANI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (P) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 96 = 1988 SLD 96 = 1988 PTD 841 = (1987) 55 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Returns\nContinuous Default and Penalty Assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nA continuing failure to file returns justifies penalties under the prevailing tax law during the infraction. The 1961 Act's penalty provisions supersede those of the 1922 Act for post-1962 defaults.\n•\nReferences:\nDhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. C.I.T. [1967] 63 ITR 651.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1943 of 1974, decision dated: 11-12-1985", + "Judge Name": "V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND RAMGANATH MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.K. Dholakia with R.C. Bhatia and P.C. Kapoor. S.C. Manchanda with M.N. Tandon and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "MAYA RANI PUNJ\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 97 = 1988 SLD 97 = 1988 PTD 851 = (1987) 55 TAX 52 = (1988) 58 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Waiver and Revision in Income Tax\nTopic (a): Levy of Interest Without Application for Waiver\n•\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's failure to file a return in time resulted in levied interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not apply for interest waiver or reduction. Therefore, a revision petition on this matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax was not maintainable. The law mandates that interest waiver or reduction can only be considered if applied for before the Assessing Officer.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, Sections 139(8) and 215.\nTopic (b): Levy of Interest on Advance Tax Shortfall\n•\nConclusion:\nThe levy of interest for underpayment of advance tax below 75% of assessed tax was held not appealable unless the liability itself was contested.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1338 and 1340 of 1974, decision dated: 15-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate with Vinod Bobde, Mrs. A.K. Verma and P. Rajagopal, Advocates. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 98 = 1988 SLD 98 = 1988 PTD 857 = (1988) 58 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reopening of Assessments and Judicial Scope\nTopic (a): Judicial Inquiry into Basis of Reopening\n•\nConclusion:\nThe High Court cannot conduct inquiries into whether the Income-tax Officer's information, forming the basis of assessment reopening, is correct. Such matters require departmental inquiry.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65; Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199.\nTopic (b): Reopening Under Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion:\nAssessments made under the Self-Assessment Scheme cannot be reopened simply as a change of opinion since the scheme operates on the principle of accepting submitted details at face value.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1359 of 1986, decision dated: 14-04-1986", + "Judge Name": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ziaullah for petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT ART FABRICS LTD. through its Chief Executive\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE CIRCLE, V, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 99 = 1988 SLD 99 = 1988 PTD 859 = (1988) 58 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legality of Income-Tax Department Seizures\nSearch and Seizure Warrants for Confiscated Money\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Department's search and seizure of money previously confiscated by Customs and released under quashed proceedings were deemed illegal.\n•\nReferences:\n1976 Tax LR 688, (1975) 101 ITR 854, (1971) 80 ITR 418.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1666(NT) of 1974, decision dated: 17-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax HARYANA and others\nvs\nTARSENI KAMAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 100 = 1988 SLD 100 = 1988 PTD 867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Earned Income Relief\nEligibility for Earned Income Relief for Beneficiaries\n•\nConclusion:\nA waqf beneficiary receiving income not derived from personal exertions or business is ineligible for earned income relief.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 2 and 41(1)(2).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,41(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 94 to 101 of 1974, decided on. 6-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji ABDUL HAMEED represented by his Legal Heirs", + "Party Name:": "Haji ABDUL HAMEED represented by his Legal Heirs\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, U.P. LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 101 = 1988 SLD 101 = 1988 PTD 869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": High Court’s Authority and Loss Classification\nTopic (a): High Court’s Authority Over Tribunal Findings\n•\nConclusion:\nThe High Court can only disturb findings of fact by the appellate Tribunal if they lack evidence or involve legal misdirection.\n•\nReferences:\n73 ITR 652, 75 ITR 17.\nTopic (b): Business vs. Capital Loss\n•\nConclusion:\nLosses incurred from Government bonds purchased to secure business relations are considered business losses.\n•\nReferences:\n73 ITR 685, 63 ITR 609.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1359 (NT) of 1984, decision dated: 16th July 1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messr PATNAIK & CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 102 = 1988 SLD 102 = 1988 PTD 882 = (1987) 55 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Additional Compensation\nTaxability of Enhanced Compensation\n•\nConclusion:\nCompensation from land requisitioned by the Government is taxable only upon final determination of compensation, not during provisional awards or pending appeals.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1126 of 1974, decision dated: 29-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V.S. Desai, Senior Advocate (Dr.) M.B. Rao and Miss A Subhashini. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGALII\nvs\nHINDUSTAN HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 103 = 1988 SLD 103 = 1988 PTD 886 = (1987) 56 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Validity\nReopening Assessments on Revised Returns\n•\nConclusion:\nIssuance of a reassessment notice is valid if new information arises, even from the assessee’s voluntary revised return.\n•\nReferences:\nC.I.T. v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569, (1968) 67 ITR 11.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 967 of 1972,.decided on 19-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, .JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V.S. Desai, Senior advocate with Aruna Jain and Ashok Mathur. C.M. Lodha, Senior. Advocate with Miss Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "NIRANJAN & CO. P. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGAL, and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 104 = 1988 SLD 104 = 1988 PTD 892 = (1987) 55 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off of Business Loss\nSet-Off of Loss Against Foreign Income\n•\nConclusion:\nDividend income taxable in Pakistan can be set off against Indian business losses for computing the global income, irrespective of double taxation agreements.\n•\nReferences:\nRamesh R. Saraiya v. C.I.T. (1963) 55 ITR 699.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1350 and 1351 of 1974, decision dated: 15-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate and Niss. A. Subhashini. Bishamber Lal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHI\nvs\nMAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS Co. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 105 = 1988 SLD 105 = 1988 PTD 898 = (1987) 55 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Property to Avoid Tax\nValidity of Transfers to Avoid Tax Payments\n•\nConclusion:\nAsset transfers made during reopened assessments cannot be deemed invalid solely based on the Government's tax claims.\n•\nReferences:\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=53 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 1974, decision dated: 15-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini. A.T.M. Sampath and P.N. Ramalingams", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA\nvs\nRAJESWARI & CO. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 106 = 1988 SLD 106 = 1988 PTD 902 = (1987) 55 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Employee Benefits\nDeductibility of Contributions to Employee Insurance\n•\nConclusion:\nEmployer contributions to employee insurance are deductible only in the year when control over the funds is relinquished through amendments to the policy or plan.\n•\nReferences:\nC.I.T. v. Anderson Wright Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 115.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 1973, decision dated: 10-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai with Miss A. Subhashini. A. K. Sen with T.A. Ramachandran and D. N. Gupta", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGALI\nvs\nASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 107 = 1988 SLD 107 = 1988 PTD 905 = (1987) 55 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Provisions\nHigh Court’s Jurisdiction Over Gratuity Provisions\n•\nConclusion:\nHigh Courts can direct deductions for gratuity liabilities under writ jurisdiction if statutory conditions are met.\n•\nReferences:\nShree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1985) 156 ITR 585.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1247 of 1980, decision dated: 8-01-1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar with Miss A. Subhashini. Mrs. Anjali K. Verna", + "Party Name:": "D. V. BAPAT Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE, BOMBAY\nvs\nTATA IRON AND STEEL Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 108 = 1988 SLD 108 = 1988 PTD 907 = (1987) 55 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Stay of Tax Recovery\nHigh Court’s Power to Stay Recovery\n•\nConclusion:\nHigh Courts lack inherent power to stay tax recovery during reference proceedings, but may intervene under constitutional jurisdiction if appellate remedies are misused.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 66 and 66-A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66A Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No s. 77 and 78 of 1974 and 1668 of 1978, decision dated: 19-12-1985", + "Judge Name": "Y. D. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.C. Manchanda with Miss A. Subhashini and B.B. Ahuja. S.T. Desai with Harish Salue, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Miss Lira Goswami and J.B. Dadachanji", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHI\nvs\nBANSI DHAR & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 109 = 1988 SLD 109 = 1988 PTD 920 = (1987) 56 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Undervalued Share Sales\nBurden of Proof on Undervalued Transactions\n•\nConclusion:\nCapital gains from share sales below break-up value cannot be reassessed unless the Department proves undervaluation or undisclosed consideration.\n•\nReferences:\nSivakami Company Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 311.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12-13(2), ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1532 to 1535 .of 1974 decided on 18-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.C. Manchanda with K. C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADRAS\nvs\nSHIVAKAMI CO. P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 110 = 1988 SLD 110 = 1988 PTD 925 = (1987) 56 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Limitations in References\nPowers of High Court in References\n•\nConclusion:\nThe High Court cannot compel the Tribunal to state a case if findings are evidence-backed, even if the Court disagrees.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1379 and 1380 (NT) of 1974, decision dated: 19-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ORISSA\nvs\nORISSA CORPORATION (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 111 = 1988 SLD 111 = 1988 PTD 930 = (1987) 55 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Relief and Rectification\nGrant of Relief in Absence of Records\n•\nConclusion:\nTax relief requires clear records; rectifications cannot create new entitlements.\n•\nReferences:\nI.T.O. v. Asok Textiles Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 732.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 1974 decided on 16-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "H. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. K. Dhingra. Milon K. Banerjee, Additional Solicitor-General of India and Miss A. Subhashinis", + "Party Name:": "ANCHOR PRESSINGS (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax U. P. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 112 = 1988 SLD 112 = 1988 PTD 934 = (1987) 55 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment on Incomplete Disclosure\nConditions for Reopening Assessments\n•\nConclusion:\nReassessment cannot be initiated without evidence of incomplete or false disclosures in the original assessment.\n•\nReferences:\nC.I.T. v. Hemchandra Kar (1970) 77 ITR 1.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1189 and` 1190 of -1974, decision dated: 8-05-1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Devi Pal, Miss M. Seal, D-.N. Gupta, H. K. Dutt and Miss Mridul Ray. C. M. Lodha and Dr. V. Gauri Shankar with Miss A Subhashini and C.V. Subba Raos", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN OIL CORPORATION\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE V, CALCUTTA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 113 = 1988 SLD 113 = 1988 PTD 945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt Deductions\nDeductibility of Surety and Trade Debts\n•\nConclusion:\nBad debts must be directly linked to business operations to qualify for deduction; debts from guarantees require proof of business necessity.\n•\nReferences:\nMadan Gopal Bagla v. C.I.T. (1956) 30 ITR 174.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2380 and 2381 of 1966, decision dated: 23rd April, 1970", + "Judge Name": "J. C. SHAH, K.S. HEDGE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sukumar Mitra with S. K. Aiyar R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma. A. K. Sen with O. P. Khaitan and B. P. Meheshwaris", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBIRLA BROS. P. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 114 = 1988 SLD 114 = 1988 PTD 950 = (1987) 55 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trust and Ownership\nTrust Funds and Ownership Questions\n•\nConclusion:\nUnsubstantiated claims of trust funds or ownership require the Department to prove misuse or undisclosed sources.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1793 to 1798(NT) of 1974, decision dated: 9-05-1986", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CALCUTTA\nvs\nBIJU PATNAIK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 115 = 1988 SLD 115 = 1988 PTD 967 = (1989) 59 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "A.A.C.’s Adjudication Responsibilities\nAdjudication Limits of A.A.C.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe A.A.C. must finalize adjudications once initiated, barring delegation to other forums.\n•\nReferences:\nC.B.R. Circular No. 8 of 1983.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1), ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 514-A (IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 5-01-1988", + "Judge Name": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Z. A. Sheikh. Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 116 = 1988 SLD 116 = 1988 PTD 973 = (1989) 59 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Justification for Reopening Assessments\nInvalid Notices for Reopening\n•\nConclusion:\nReassessment based on vague or unsupported notices is invalid and of no legal consequence.\n•\nReferences:\nPLD 1980 Lahore 449.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,56 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos.309 to 313 (IB) and 347 to 351 (IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 14-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia A. Rizvi. Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 117 = 1988 SLD 117 = 1988 PTD 979 = (1989) 59 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday Violation Discovery\nRetrospective Actions for Tax Violations\n•\nConclusion:\nViolations discovered post-repeal of relevant laws cannot revive repealed provisions under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.\n•\nReferences:\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 General Clauses Act, 1897=6(a)(c) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 333/ KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 8-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Farid. D.R.. Javed Siddiqui and Abid Shirazee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 118 = 1988 SLD 118 = 1988 PTD 982 = (1989) 59 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Public Limited Company\nSupremacy of Legislative Amendments\n•\nConclusion:\nDefinitions introduced through Finance Ordinances override subordinate legislations like S.R.O.s or C.B.R. Circulars.\n•\nReferences:\nFinance Ordinance, 1983.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.I,PartII ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1585/KB of 1984-85, 2650/KB of 1987-88 and 2/KB of 1985-86, decision dated: 18-07-1988, hearing DATE . 13-07-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBERI AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rustum Jee C.A.. Mohammad Farid DR,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 119 = 1988 SLD 119 = 1988 PTD 985 = (1989) 59 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Gift Declarations\nTaxation of Gift Income\n•\nConclusion:\nGifts are taxed from the date of declaration, charging income in the donee’s hands from that date.\n•\nReferences:\nI.T.A. No. 313(IB)/87-88.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.94 (IB) of 1987-88, decision dated: 8-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR. Khalid Waheed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 120 = 1988 SLD 120 = 1988 PTD 987 = (1988) 58 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Exceptions\nCriteria for Denying Self-Assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nThe denial of self-assessment requires positive evidence of concealment. Presumptions or insufficient capital claims do not justify deviation.\n•\nReferences:\nC.B.R. Circular No. 3 of 1985.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.3467/LB of 1986-87; decided on 12-05-1988, hearing DATE : 10-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid A. Sheikh. Shaukat Ali Babar D. R.,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 121 = 1988 SLD 121 = 1988 PTD 989 = (1989) 59 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Status and Definition of an Assessee\nTopic (a): Status of an A.O.P. (Association of Persons)\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer treated the assessee as an A.O.P. based on the return form, despite discrepancies on different pages of the form. Since the assessment order listed the status as A.O.P., no other status could be attributed to the assessee.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 58 and 2(6)(32).\nTopic (b): Requisitioning of Assets and Liabilities\n•\nConclusion:\nA statement of assets and liabilities can be requisitioned from both an A.O.P. and an individual, with additional information required under Section 58(1)(b)(c).\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 58.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=58,2(6)(32) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.1173(IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 25-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah DR. C. A Malik", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 122 = 1988 SLD 122 = 1988 PTD 992 = (1989) 59 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Purchase of Property and Assessment Additions\nTopic (a): Disputed Property Value\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer cannot question the declared purchase price of a property without concrete evidence. Deviations must be substantiated by proof.\n•\nReferences:\nI.T.A. Nos. 185/IB/1985-86 and 110/IB/1985-86.\nTopic (b): Reopening Assessments and Additions\n•\nConclusion:\nReopening assessments based on differences in property valuation by the Excise and Taxation Department is unjustified without approval from the I.A.C. and supporting evidence. The officer erred by accepting the Excise Department's valuation.\n•\nReferences:\nI.T.A. Nos. 185/IB/1985-86 and 110/IB/1985-86.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,13(1)(aa),(d),(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.708 (IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 8-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Malik. Maqbool Hussain Shah DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 123 = 1988 SLD 123 = 1988 PTD 994 = (1988) 58 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Information \nInvalidity of Audit Party Reports as Information \n•\nConclusion:\nAn audit party's report highlighting a change of opinion on previously considered material does not constitute information. Reassessment based on such reports is invalid.\n•\nReferences:\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case- No. 84of 1981, decision dated: 14-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "G. G. SOHANI AND R. X. VARMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Chaphekar for Applicant. R. C. Mukati", + "Party Name:": "H. H. Maharaja Shri LOKENDRA SINGH JJ\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 124 = 1988 SLD 124 = 1988 PTD 996", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Proceedings\nRight to Be Heard Before Recovery Enforcement\n•\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner was not confronted with material identifying them with the firm assessed for income-tax. The High Court directed the department to provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond before enforcing recovery.\n•\nReferences:\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1988,. decided on 28-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ishtiaq A. Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaques", + "Party Name:": "Rana ABDUL HAMEED\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 125 = 1988 SLD 125 = 1988 PTD 998 = (1988) 58 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Reopening\nTopic (a): Applicability of Section 65\n•\nConclusion:\nSection 65 does not apply when an assessment is completed under Section 62 after issuing a notice under Section 56.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 62, 65, and 56.\nTopic (b): Dismissal of Reference Application\n•\nConclusion:\nThe reference application raised factual permutations already addressed by lower forums. With no new evidence provided, the application was dismissed.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 1 to 5 of 1988, decision dated: 12-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA AND MUHAMMAD ILYAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AFZAL BROTHERS INDUSTRIES\nvs\nTHE Income Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 126 = 1988 SLD 126 = 1988 PTD 1001", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Interest on Loans\nInterest Deduction for Tax and Annuity Deposits\n•\nConclusion:\nInterest on loans used to pay taxes or annuity deposits is not an expenditure incurred wholly for income generation and is therefore not deductible.\n•\nReferences:\nBai Bhuriben Lallubhai v. C.I.T. (1956) 29 ITR 543 (Bom), C.I.T. v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.65 of 1975 decided on 22nd April 1987", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK. C, J., RANGANATH MISRA AND K. N. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. A. Ramachandra, Senior Advocate with S.C. Patel. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate with Dr. M. B. Rao and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "Smt. PADMAVATI JAIKRISHNA\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJRAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 127 = 1988 SLD 127 = 1988 PTD 1005 = (1988) 57 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital or Revenue Expenditures\nAgreement for Trade Marks and Distributorship\n•\nConclusion:\nExpenditures incurred by a tanner for obtaining trade mark rights and appointing distributors were deemed revenue expenses.\n•\nReferences:\nAssam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1163 of 1974, decision dated: 3rd February, 1987", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with M. N. Tandon and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates. B. P. Singh Ranjit Kumar and K. J. John Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, U.P\nvs\nBRITISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 128 = 1988 SLD 128 = 1988 PTD 1009 = (1988) 57 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Perquisites and Employee Reimbursements\nReimbursements Not Considered Perquisites\n•\nConclusion:\nReimbursements for house rent, medical expenses, and staff salaries do not qualify as perquisites and are not disallowable.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 364 of 1975, decision dated: 6-06-1982", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUBHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Bagchi and A. N. Bhattacharyya for the Commissioner. R. N. Bajoria and S. K. Bagadia", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGENERAL MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 129 = 1988 SLD 129 = 1988 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreements and Ex Parte Assessments\nTopic (a): Agreements for Assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nAn agreement for assessment requires mutual consent. A one-sided proposal by the assessee cannot bind the Income-tax Officer.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 62.\nTopic (b): Justification for Ex Parte Action\n•\nConclusion:\nEx parte assessment was justified as the assessee failed to cooperate and provide necessary details despite warnings.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,111,116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. No. 434 to 443/HQB of 1987-88, decision dated: 28-08-1988, hearing DATE : 17-07-1988", + "Judge Name": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, A. A. ZUBERI AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir I. T. P.. Muhammad Farid D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 130 = 1988 SLD 130 = 1988 PTD 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Powers and Reopening of Cases\nTopic (a): Tribunal’s Judicial Role\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal must exercise powers reasonably and base satisfaction on objective criteria.\n•\nReferences:\nMaharani Nanak Kumari Sahiba v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 462.\nTopic (b): Burden of Proof in Escaped Assessments\n•\nConclusion:\nThe department must prove that income escaped assessment. Unsupported allegations cannot justify reassessment.\n•\nReferences:\nCIT Bombay v. Gopal Vaijnath Manohar AIR 1935 Bom. 410.\nTopic (c): Conditions for Reopening\n•\nConclusion:\nReopening assessments require clear evidence of undisclosed income or non-compliance with legal provisions.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,135 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3470 of 1987, heard on 3rd July, 1988", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaques", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MUHAMMAD SADIQ\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 131 = 1988 SLD 131 = 1988 PTD 1044 = (1987) 56 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Obligation to Disclose Facts\nDisclosure of Material Facts and Reassessment\n•\nConclusion:\nThe obligation to disclose material facts lies with the assessee. Failure to disclose such facts enables the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments.\n•\nReferences:\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons v. First I.T.O. (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 800 to 807 of 1974, decision dated: 12-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.G. Gokhale, B.R. Agarwala and Miss Vijayalakshmi Memon, Advocates. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with K.C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "INDO-ADEN SALT MANUFACTURING AND TRADING CO. P. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 132 = 1988 SLD 132 = 1988 PTD 1055", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Registration of Firms\nRegistration of Firms and Change in Constitution\n•\nConclusion:\nRegistration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, does not automatically continue for subsequent periods. However, a firm that underwent a change in constitution on the last day of the previous year can file for registration under the new legislation, provided the firm existed throughout the relevant period.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 26-A; Income-tax Rules, Rule 22(4)(ii) & Form 11-A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A Income Tax Rules, 1922=22(4)(ii),11A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1912(NT) of 1974, decision dated: 17-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BIHAR, PATNA\nvs\nAMAR SINGH GOWAMAL & SONS, JHARIA, DHANBAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 1 = 1960 SLD 1 = 1960 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income\nTaxability of Income Accrued in Taxable Territories\n•\nConclusion:\nCommissions and allowances earned outside Pakistan but related to services rendered for companies in Pakistan are considered income accrued in Pakistan and are taxable. Indirect accruals from sources in taxable territories are treated equivalently.\n•\nReferences:\nImperial Tobacco Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1959 PTD 21; St. Lucia Usines v. Colonial Treasurer (1924); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai (1950).", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Cases Nos. 13 and 14 of 1958, decision dated: 3rd March 1959", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMED, C, J. AND CHAKRABORTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Asrarul Hussain with Muhammad Nurul Huq for Applicant. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with A. M. Khan Choudhury", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS OCTAVIOUS STEEL & Co. LTD. CALCUTTA -\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 2 = 1960 SLD 2 = 1960 PTD 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estimation of Profits\nRejection of Accounts and Additional Additions\n•\nConclusion:\nIf accounts are rejected and profits estimated using a flat turnover rate, further additions for unexplained cash credits derived from the same books are impermissible.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 30 of 1957, decision dated: 24-02-1959", + "Judge Name": "CHANDRA REDDY, C, J., AND, JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Kuppuswami for A ssessee. C. Kondaiah for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MADDI SUDARSANAM OIL MILLS Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD & ANDHRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 3 = 1960 SLD 3 = 1960 PTD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accounting Systems and Income Recognition\nDetermining Income from Sales and Stock\n•\nConclusion:\nFor an assessee who records income only upon sales, excess sales, and unaccounted closing stock for a given year can be treated as income for that year.\n•\nReferences:\nNot explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,13 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 11 of 1957, decision dated: 10-02-1959", + "Judge Name": "CHANDRA REDDY, C, J., AND, JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. Rajeswara Rao and M. S. R. Sastry.. Kondaiah for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JALDU ANANTHA RAGHURAMA ARYA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 4 = 1960 SLD 4 = 1960 PTD 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Recovery of Tax and Detention\nCollector’s Authority for Recovery of Tax\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Collector, under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 48 of the Revenue Recovery Act, has the power to order the arrest and detention of a tax defaulter without prior notice in cases of deliberate evasion or potential absconding.\n•\nReferences:\nCollector of Malabar v. Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee (1957) 32 ITR 124", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 662 of 1959, decision dated: 10th August 1959", + "Judge Name": "CHANDRA REDDY, C, J., AND, JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Rajah lye, J. V. Srinivasa Rao and M. J. Swami for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "HARIRAM DHOLANDAS\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF KURNOOL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 5 = 1960 SLD 5 = 1960 PTD 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital or Revenue Receipt\nCompensation for Managing Agency Rights\n•\nConclusion:\nA lump sum received by managing agents as compensation for modifying a remuneration agreement was deemed a capital receipt, as it compensated for the deterioration of the managing agency’s value.\n•\nReferences:\nGlenboig Union Fireclay Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1922); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vazir Sultan & Sons (1959); Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1956, decision dated: 4th August 1959", + "Judge Name": "S. R. DAS, C, J. BHAGWATI AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. V. Viswanatha Sastri (S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, with him). M. C. Setalved Attorney General for India (K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta with him)", + "Party Name:": "GODREJ & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 6 = 1960 SLD 6 = 1960 PTD 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms with False Statements\nConditions for Registration Despite False Statements\n•\nConclusion:\nRegistration cannot be denied based solely on false statements regarding profits or their division among partners, provided the firm’s existence aligns with the instrument of partnership. Misstatements can, however, lead to cancellation under specific provisions.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income-tax, West Punjab v. Kirpa Ram Sethi & Sons PLD 1952 Lah 67.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1956, decision dated: 28th May 1956, hearing DATE : 26th May 1956", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney.Fazal Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Doss Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Nazir-ud-Din, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PUNJAB, N.-W. F. P. & BAHAWALPUR-\nvs\nMESSRS MAULA DADMUHAMMAD SAEED OF SHEIKHUPURA-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 7 = 1960 SLD 7 = 1960 PTD 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Agricultural Income Tax and Hindu Law\nTopic (a): Definition of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)\n•\nConclusion:\nPost-1951, the term “HUF” in the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act includes families governed by Mitakshara, Dayabhaga, or any other Hindu law school.\n•\nReferences:\nKalyanji Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income Tax.\nTopic (b): Partition and Cessation of HUF\n•\nConclusion:\nTo prove partition, the principles of personal law (Mitakshara or Dayabhaga) must be applied. The intention to separate and holding properties in definite shares constitute a partition.\n•\nReferences:\nMulla’s Principles of Hindu Law, 11th Edition.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 1 of 1956, decision dated: 19th June 1957", + "Judge Name": "ISPAHANI AND ASIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Radhikaranjan Guha and B N. Chowdhury. Syed A. B. M. Hussain, Assistant Government Pleader and Fakir Abdul Mannan", + "Party Name:": "HIMANGSHU CHANDRA CHOUDHURY \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, EAST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 8 = 1960 SLD 8 = 1960 PTD 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Employer-Provided Benefits\nHousing Assistance and Taxability\n•\nConclusion:\nPayments to employees for losses on the sale of housing under a collateral housing assistance scheme were deemed non-taxable, as these were not profits derived solely from employment but part of an independent agreement.\n•\nReferences:\nHerbert v. McQuade (1902); Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. case (1954).", + "Court Name:": "Court of Appeal", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "(1959) 1 Ch. 22 decided on 7-07-1958", + "Judge Name": "UPJOHN, JENKINS, PARKER AND PEARCE L., JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "JENNINGS\nvs\nKINDER (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) AND HOCHSTRASSER (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\n vs \nMAYES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 9 = 1960 SLD 9 = 1960 PTD 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to State a Case\nAppellate Tribunal and Supreme Court Jurisdiction\n•\nConclusion:\nAn appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable solely against the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to state a case under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Without pursuing the procedural recourse through High Court under Section 66(2), the Supreme Court will not adjudicate on the appeal's merits.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 33(4), 66(1), 66(2); Constitution of India, Article 136.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33(4),66(1)(2) Constitution of India=136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 241 to 244 of 1956, decision dated: 1st May, 1959", + "Judge Name": "BHAGWATI, SYED, JAFER IMAM, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. C. Chatterjee (Sukumar Ghose with him). C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta with him)", + "Party Name:": "CHIMMONLALL RAMESHWARLALL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL) CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 10 = 1960 SLD 10 = 1960 PTD 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms\nLeave to Appeal and Jurisdiction of High Courts\n•\nConclusion:\nThe High Court's decision to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 66-A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is valid only for cases under its jurisdiction. Appeals under the Saurashtra Income-tax Ordinance lacked jurisdiction under the Constitution's provisions for appeals, as these were advisory in nature. Registration under Section 26-A was limited to specific periods based on partnership agreements.\n•\nReferences:\nSaurashtra Income-tax Ordinance; Income-tax Act, 1922, Sections 26-A, 66-A(2); Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1956).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A,66A(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1957, decision dated: 22nd April 1959", + "Judge Name": "S. R. DAS, C, J., BHAGWATI AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta. R. J. Kolah, Dilip Dwarka Das, J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY NORTH, KUTCH & SAURASHTRA\nvs\nPATEL & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 11 = 1960 SLD 11 = 1960 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts\nCharitable Trusts for Specific Communities\n•\nConclusion:\nA trust created for charitable purposes, with specific preferences for certain castes or family members, is exempt under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, provided the purposes remain wholly charitable or religious. Preferences do not negate the trust's charitable nature if all conditions for charitable intent are met.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 4(3)(i); Trustees of the Charitable Fund v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1959) 36 ITR 513.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(i) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 24 of 1956, decision dated: 17th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for Commissioner. N. A. Palkhivalas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II\nvs\nTrustees of Seth MEGHJI MATHURADAS CHARITY TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 12 = 1960 SLD 12 = 1960 PTD 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculation and Business Loss\nSet-Off of Losses from Different Businesses\n•\nConclusion:\nThe speculative losses in commodities like gold, silver, and shares could not be set off against the profits of the cloth business. Despite shared premises and resources, the two businesses lacked unity of purpose and interdependence, which are essential to qualify as the same business under Section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 24(2); Scales v. George Thompson & Co. Ltd. (1927) 13 TC 83.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 42 of 1958, decision dated: 16th and 17th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Kolah. G. N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MANILAL DAHYABHAI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 13 = 1960 SLD 13 = 1960 PTD 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undistributed Profits\nAscertainment of Profits under Section 23A\n•\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 23A, undistributed profits must consider commercial profits, not assessable income. The Income-tax Officer must factor in anticipated tax liabilities and actual financial conditions when determining whether it was unreasonable to distribute higher dividends. Overprovision in prior years can be adjusted in the current year.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 23A; Commissioner of Income-tax v. F. L. Smidth & Co. (Bombay) Ltd. (1959) 35 ITR 183.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 44 of 1958, decision dated: 17th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala. G. N. Joshi for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NEW MAHALAXMI SILK MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I" + }, + { + "Case No.": "356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 14 = 1960 SLD 14 = 1960 PTD 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Return and Re-assessment\nValidity of Return and Re-assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nA voluntarily filed return, even if submitted late and disclosing income below the taxable limit, is valid under Section 22(3). The Income-tax Officer cannot ignore such a return. Re-assessment initiated under Section 34 without regard to the filed return is invalid.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 22(1), 22(3), and 34; Ranchhoddas Karsondas v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1954) 26 ITR 105 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22(1)(2)(3),34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal NO 281 of 1955, decision dated: 8th May 1959", + "Judge Name": "S. R. DAS, C, J., BHAGWATI AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta. R. J. Kolah and Ram Ditta Mal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II\nvs\nRANCHHODDAS KARSONDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 15 = 1960 SLD 15 = 1960 PTD 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Reserves \nClassification of Unutilized Profits\n•\nConclusion:\nUnappropriated profits carried forward without being explicitly set apart for a specific purpose do not qualify as reserves under Rule 2(1) of Schedule II of the Business Profits Tax Act. Explicit allocation by authorized personnel is necessary for classification as reserves. \n•\nReferences:\nBusiness Profits Tax Act, 1947, Schedule II, Rule 2(1); R. Sim & Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1955) 27 ITR 530 approved", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=11,2(I) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1958, decision dated: 3rd December 1959", + "Judge Name": "M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Nazir-ud-Din, Attorney\nMuhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sardar Shah Bokhary, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NORTH ZONE, WEST PAKISTAN \nvs\nTHE LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, LTD., LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 16 = 1960 SLD 16 = 1960 PTD 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax and Priority\nState's Priority in Recovery\n•\nConclusion:\nThe State has priority in recovering arrears of income tax from sale proceeds held by a court. A request by the Collector, in compliance with Rule 22 of Schedule II to the Public Demands Recovery Act, enables the executing court to prioritize tax dues over other creditors.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 46(2); Civil Procedure Code, Section 151; Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (1955) 28 ITR 797 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46(2) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 513 of 1955, decision dated: 2nd September 1958", + "Judge Name": "SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Anil Kumar Sinha for Petitioner. Balai LalPal, J, Majumdar and Somendra Chandra Bose for Opposite Parties", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED PICTURES LTD\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 17 = 1960 SLD 17 = 1960 PTD 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Borrowed Money and Capital Computation\nClassification of Trade Liabilities\n•\nConclusion:\nAmounts due to suppliers for goods purchased on credit cannot be considered borrowed money for computing average capital under the Excess Profits Tax Act. Such amounts are trade liabilities, not loans or capital. Observations in remand orders are not binding unless explicitly finalized.\n•\nReferences:\nExcess Profits Tax Act, Rule 2(A) of Schedule II; Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1953) 23 ITR 120.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Case No. 191 of 1948, decision dated: 16th April 1959", + "Judge Name": "BHARGAVA AND SAHAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Satish Chandra for the Assessee. Gopal Behari for the Commissioner Solicitors . Solicitor of Inland Revenue . J.W. Ridsdale", + "Party Name:": "LAXMI Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U. P. & V. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 18 = 1960 SLD 18 = 1960 PTD 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Periodical Payments\nLiability to Tax under Schedule D or E\n•\nConclusion:\nPeriodical payments to a deceased director's executors under a contractual agreement are taxable under Case III of Schedule D as annual payments, not under Schedule E. The agreement generates income independently of the deceased's services, continuing beyond their death.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1952, Section 123; Stainers Executors v. Purchase (1952) AC 280 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "110. L. R. 406 decided on 7-03-1958", + "Judge Name": "VAISEY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "WESTMINSTER BANK LTD\nvs\nBARFORD (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 19 = 1960 SLD 19 = 1960 PTD 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax and Mandamus\nDiscretion in Tax Recovery\n•\nConclusion:\nThe discretionary refusal by the Income-tax Officer to treat an assessee as not in default under Section 45, based on the time already given for payment, is not irrelevant. However, incorrect grounds for refusal cannot warrant a writ of mandamus, as this would require appellate review, which is not permissible.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 45; Constitution of Pakistan, 1956, Article 170; Sreeramamurthi v. Income-tax Officer, Vizianagaram (1956) 30 ITR 252 ref.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45 Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=170 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1957, decision dated: 7-07-1959", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AHMAD ANSARI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Venkatarama Sastri for Petitioner. C. Kondaiah", + "Party Name:": "MALLADI SITARAMA SASTRI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 20 = 1960 SLD 20 = 1960 PTD 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Limitation and Communication of Orders\nService of Tribunal Orders\n•\nConclusion:\nAn advocate representing the assessee is not deemed an authorized agent for the purpose of receiving Tribunal orders unless explicitly empowered. The limitation period under Section 66(1) starts from the date the assessee receives the order.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 66(1); Appellate Tribunal Rules, Rule 34; Gopiram Bhagwandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1956) 30 ITR 8 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33(4),66(1) Income Tax Rules, 1922=22 ", + "Case #": "S. J. C. No. 3 of 1956, decision dated: 28th January 1959", + "Judge Name": "BALAKRISHNA RAO AND BARMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Mohanty. H. Mohapatra for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NANDRAM HUNATRAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 21 = 1960 SLD 21 = 1960 PTD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notice for Re-assessment\nValidity of Service\n•\nConclusion:\nService of a re-assessment notice under Section 34 by affixing it on the premises is invalid unless reasonable efforts were made to serve the assessee personally or locate them. A decision validating service is appealable under Clause 15 of the Calcutta High Court Letters Patent.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 34; Constitution of India, Article 226; Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co. (1872) 8 Beng. L R 433 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "A. F. O. O. No. 125 of 1958, decision dated: 24th December 1958", + "Judge Name": "K. C. DAS GUPTA, C, J. AND BHAGWATI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Advocate-General. Meyer and B. L. Pals", + "Party Name:": "GOPIRAM AGARWALA\nvs\nFIRST ADDITIONAL Income Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 22 = 1960 SLD 22 = 1960 PTD 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices and Technical Irregularities\nEffective vs. Valid Service\n•\nConclusion:\nService of notices under Section 63 of the Income-tax Act is effective if the notice reaches the intended party, even if technically irregular. A firm’s knowledge of the notice waives its right to object.\n•\nReferences:\nCivil Procedure Code, Order III Rule 2, Order V Rule 12, Order XXX Rule 3; Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1944) 12 ITR 393 ref", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.III,r.2,O.V,r.12,O.XXX,r.3 Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),63(1),22(2),22(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No. 5 of 1952 referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore on the 29th July 1952 under section 66 (1) of the income tax Act. Answered on 5-02-1957. dates of hearing : 2nd, 3rd & 4th January 1957", + "Judge Name": "B. Z. KAIKAUS AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB, ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Hidayat Ali Taib and Amir Ahmad. Sh. Abdul Haque", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IDREES BARRY & Co. LAHORE \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N. W. F. P.LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 23 = 1960 SLD 23 = 1960 PTD 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Findings on Partition\nFinality of Tribunal's Findings\n•\nConclusion:\nWhether a Hindu Undivided Family effected a partition and formed a partnership is a question of fact. The Tribunal's findings, based on proper material, are conclusive and not subject to a reference under Section 66(2).\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 66(2); Rangalal Modi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (1950) 18 ITR 383 mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Applications Nos. 2 and 3 of 1959, decision dated: 20th August 1959, hearing DATE : 19th and 20th August 1951", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMAD, C, J. AND ASIR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with A. M. Khan Choudhury for Petitioner. Asrarul Hossain with Md. Nurul Huq", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST PAKISTAN\nvs\nNABADWIP CHANDRA-HARAN CHANDRA SAHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 24 = 1960 SLD 24 = 1960 PTD 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Alteration of Assessment Year\nLegislative Authority in Taxation\n•\nConclusion:\nThe legislature can alter the previous assessment year for newly established businesses through explicit legislation. Vested rights can be affected if the enactment operates retrospectively.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 2(11); Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Sind Hindu Provident Funds Society (1940) 8 ITR 467.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(11)(i)(c) ", + "Case #": "Reference Cases Nos. 11 and 12 of 1958, decision dated: 5th February 1959", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMED, C, J. AND CHAKRABORTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with A. M. Khan Chowdhury for Applicant. Asrarul Hussain with Md. Nurul Huq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN\nvs\nRADHASHYAM AGAR WALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 25 = 1960 SLD 25 = 1960 PTD 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Assessments\nIncome Computation\n•\nConclusion:\nSection 13 does not authorize arbitrary estimations by the Income-tax Officer. The estimate must be based on cogent reasons and approximate the truth. Questions about the fairness of the standard adopted justify a reference to the High Court.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 13, 23(3); Dhakeswari Cotton Mills, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1955) 27 ITR 126 rel", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,23(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Application No. 10 of 1955, decision dated: 7th December 1955", + "Judge Name": "IBRAHIM AND CHAKRABORTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Hossain and K. Hossain for Petitioner. K. M. Hasan and Afzalul Haque for Opposite Party", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUSUFF \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST BENGAL Opposite Party" + }, + { + "Case No.": "368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 26 = 1960 SLD 26 = 1960 PTD 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Losses in Taxation\nLosses and Dividend Payments\n•\nConclusion:\nCapital losses are not included under losses as defined in Section 2 of the Tanganyika Income-tax Ordinance but may be considered when determining the reasonableness of dividend payments. The Commissioner is not obligated to discover compensating gains.\n•\nReferences:\nTanganyika Income-tax Ordinance, 1950, Sections 2, 21.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A. ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 3 of 1956. decided on 22nd October 1957, hearing DATE : 24th June 1957", + "Judge Name": "LORDS TUCKER AND DENNING AND MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA", + "Lawyer Name": "F. Heyworth Talbot, Q. C. & Roderick Watson.Solicitors . Charles Russell & Co. R. Borneman, Q. C., & Stewart Newcombe.Solicitors . T. L. Wilson & Co", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nvs\nWILLIAMSON DIAMONDS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 27 = 1960 SLD 27 = 1960 PTD 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appealability of High Court Orders\nFinality of Orders under Section 66\n•\nConclusion:\nHigh Court orders under Section 66(2) are consultative and not appealable. Civil Procedure Code provisions do not apply to cases governed by special statutes like the Income-tax Act.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 66(2); Messrs P. A. Raju Chettiar & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1951) AIR Mad. 590.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),66A(2) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=109,110 ", + "Case #": "Application for Leave to Appeal to the Federal Court No. 5 of 1955, decision dated: 24th April 1956", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMED, C, J., AND RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. R. Guha and A. K. M. Nurul Islam for Petitioner. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and Ruhul Islam", + "Party Name:": "SATISH CHANDRA BISWAS \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 28 = 1960 SLD 28 = 1960 PTD 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applications for Reference\nTime-barred Applications\n•\nConclusion:\nIf an application for reference is rejected by the Tribunal as time-barred, the proper remedy is to apply to the High Court under Section 66(3). Applications under Section 66(2) are not valid remedies in such cases.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 66(3).", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),(2),(3),66 ", + "Case #": "Applications Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 1955, decision dated: 2nd May 1956", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMED, C, J. AND RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. C. Pakrasi and S. C. Bose for Petitioner. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and Afzalul Haque for Opposite Party", + "Party Name:": "THE VIKRAMPUR TEA INDUSTRY Co., LTD. Assessee \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST BENGAL Opposite Party" + }, + { + "Case No.": "371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 29 = 1960 SLD 29 = 1960 PTD 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Confidentiality of Income-tax Documents\nProduction of Documents in Evidence\n•\nConclusion:\nDocuments classified as confidential under Section 54 cannot be inspected or produced in evidence by non-assessees unless explicitly permitted under Section 54(3).\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 54; Anwar Ali v. Tafozal Ahmed (1925) 2 Rang. 391 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=54(1),(3),54 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1041 of 1957, decision dated: 28th November 1957", + "Judge Name": "RAMASWANI, C, J., AND R. K. CHOUDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Prem Lal and Parmeshewar Prasad Sinha for Petitioner. Bhabananda Mukerji and Prem Shanker Sahai for Opposite-Party", + "Party Name:": "BANARSI DEVI\nvs\nJANKI DEVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 30 = 1960 SLD 30 = 1960 PTD 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition and Pending Appeals\nDiscretion in Penalty Proceedings\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties under Section 46 cannot be imposed without first determining, under Section 45, whether an assessee in default has appealed against the assessment.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 45, 46.", + "Court Name:": "Mysore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45,46 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 135 of 1956, decision dated: 21st January, 1958", + "Judge Name": "S. R. DRAS.GUPTA, C, J., AND SOMNATH IYER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan for Petitioner. D. M. Chandrasekhar fox Advocate General", + "Party Name:": "ESTHURI ASWATHAIAH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, KOLAR CIRCLE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 31 = 1960 SLD 31 = 1960 PTD 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Proceedings Against Partnerships\nSubstitution of Partners\n•\nConclusion:\nWhen a partnership discontinues, arrears of tax can be recovered from partners under Section 44. Substitution of partners in recovery proceedings is valid under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 44, 46(2); Chengalvaroya Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1937) 5 ITR 70 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44,c46(2) ", + "Case #": "O. J. C. No. 441 of 1956, decision dated: 21st April 1958", + "Judge Name": "NARASIMHAM, C.J., AND G. C. DAS, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C. K. Ghose and B. N. Mohanty for petitioners. H. Mahapatra and Advocate General for Opposite Parties", + "Party Name:": "BAJRANGLAL CHOWKHANI and another\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CUTTACK and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 32 = 1960 SLD 32 = 1960 PTD 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Salaries to HUF Members\nWholly and Exclusively for Business\n•\nConclusion:\nSalaries paid by an HUF to its members can be deducted under Section 10(2)(xv) if they are for services rendered to partnership businesses and are commercially expedient. Payments lacking such justification are disallowed.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 10(2)(xv); Jethabhai Hirji & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1949) 17 ITR 533.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 633 of 1956, decision dated: 6th October 1958", + "Judge Name": "RAMASWAMI, C, J., AND KANHAIYA SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. N. Dutta, B. P. Rajgarhia and Harilal Agarwal for the Assessee. R. J. Bahadur for the Commissinoer", + "Party Name:": "JITMAL BHURAMAL\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 33 = 1960 SLD 33 = 1960 PTD 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Show Cause Notice\nValidity of Penalty Reissuance\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer retains jurisdiction to issue a fresh show-cause notice for penalty even after the initial penalty order is canceled on appeal for non-compliance with natural justice (e.g., failure to hear the assessee). The notice issued during assessment proceedings remains valid for this purpose.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 28; Banarsi Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1936) 4 ITR 217 ref.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 965 of 1956, decision dated: 12th December 1958", + "Judge Name": "SRINIYASACHARI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Rao for Petitioner. C. Kondaiah", + "Party Name:": "CHENNURU VENKATARAMANAIAH CHETTY & BROS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 34 = 1960 SLD 34 = 1960 PTD 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Inherent Powers and Writs\nDefault Dismissal and Review\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal has inherent powers to review its dismissal order if shown that notice of hearing was not properly served. A party can file a second writ petition if the relief sought is distinct. The petitioner's delay in seeking relief does not invalidate the application if justified.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 33(2), 66(4); Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227; Bhagwan Radha Kishen v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1952) 22 ITR 104 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33(2),66(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Writ No. 115 of 1957, decision dated: 12th August 1959", + "Judge Name": "MEHAR SINGH AND DUA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. N. Awasthy and B. C. Mahajan for Petitioners. S. M. Sikri (Advocate General) and H. R. Mahajans", + "Party Name:": "MANGAT RAM KUTHIALA (deceased) and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB, and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 35 = 1960 SLD 35 = 1960 PTD 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Natural Justice in Assessment\nAdditions Based on Comparative Data\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer must disclose the substance of comparative data used for assessing the yield and allow the assessee an opportunity to explain discrepancies. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Mysore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions (H.) Nos. 30 and 3 1 of 1956, decision dated: 10th February 1959", + "Judge Name": "AHMED ALI KHAN AND MIR IQBAL HUSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Krishnamurthy. D. M. Chandrasekher for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DAYARAM SURAJMAL\nvs \nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD AND ANDHRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 36 = 1960 SLD 36 = 1960 PTD 371 = 1960 PLD 187 = 1960 SCC 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Previous Year \nCentral Board Notifications and Retrospectivity\n•\nConclusion:\nA notification determining the previous year issued after the Finance Act cannot retrospectively alter liabilities already established. The assessee retains the right to choose the accounting period within statutory limits if no prior notification exists.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 2(11)(c); Maharajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1945) AIR PC 89 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(11)cl.(c), ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 25 D and 27 D of 1959, decision dated: 3rd February, 1960. dates of hearing : 26th and 28th January 1960", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. S. Suhrawardy and Asrarul Hossain, Senior Advocates Supreme Court (Md. Messer Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with them), instructed by Md. Nurul Haque, Attorneys. \nA. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by A. Matin Khan Choudhry, Attorneys", + "Party Name:": "RADHASHYAM AGARWALA \nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN (CENTRAL SECRETARIAT), DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 37 = 1960 SLD 37 = 1960 PTD 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Relief\nTaxation of Mutual Life Assurance Funds\n•\nConclusion:\nThe profits derived from a mutual life assurance association's UK branch are industrial or commercial profits under the Double Taxation Relief Order, 1947. These profits are assessable under the Order, overriding conflicting domestic rules.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1918 & 1952; Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order, 1947; Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Australian Mutual Provident Society (1947) AC 605 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "1959, Ch. 427, decision dated: 3rd & 4th June 1958", + "Judge Name": "JENKINS, PARKER AND PEARCE, L, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "OSTIME (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nAUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 38 = 1960 SLD 38 = 1960 PTD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nFees for Protection or Stopping Competition\n•\nConclusion:\nFees paid for exclusive rights or to stop competition, which confer enduring benefits to the business, are capital expenditures and not deductible as revenue expenses under Section 10(2)(xvi).\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 10(2)(xvi); Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1955) AIR SC 89 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 37 of 1959, decision dated: 2nd February 1960", + "Judge Name": "AKBAR AND ASIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. R. Guha and Md. Moazzem Hossain for Applicant. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din & Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT Co. LTD. \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 39 = 1960 SLD 39 = 1960 PTD 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Development Rebate for Buses and Lorries\nDefinition of Installed Plant \n•\nConclusion:\nBuses and lorries qualify as plant under Section 10(2)(vib). They are considered installed when put into service in business operations, making them eligible for development rebate.\n•\nReferences:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Sections 10(2)(vib), 10(5); Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saraspur Mills Ltd. (1959) 36 ITR 580 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vib),(5) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 68 of 1958, decision dated: 26th October 1959", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. S. Rama Rao Sahib for Commissioner. V. Sethuraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nSRI RAMA VILAS SERVICE (PRIVATE) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 40 = 1960 SLD 40 = 1960 PTD 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Taxing Authorities\nExclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction\n•\nConclusion:\nThe jurisdiction of civil courts is not excluded merely because a statute provides an alternative machinery for determining rights and liabilities. The bar under Section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 65 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, applies only when the subject matter falls strictly within the competence of the taxing authorities, excluding cases of fraud or abuse of statutory powers.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxing authorities are competent to decide on matters explicitly conferred by statutes, such as determining whether income is taxable or exempt.\no\nDecisions under the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934, do not preclude taxing authorities from deciding whether income is held for charitable or religious purposes.\no\nThe nature of a suit depends on its cause of action, not the decree or result.\n•\nReferences:\nSections 67, Income-tax Act, 1922; Section 65, Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944; Raleigh Investment Co. v. Governor General in Council PLD 1947 PC 19 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=67 ", + "Case #": "Appeal from Original Decree No. 45 of 1953; decided on 23rd August 1955", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMAD, A. C, J. AND RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M Asir, Senior Government Pleader and Syed A. B. Mahmud Hussain, Assistant Government Pleader. B. K. De and Sidique Ahmad Chowdhury", + "Party Name:": "THE PROVINCE OF EAST BENGAL \nvs\nDewan ABDUL ALIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 41 = 1960 SLD 41 = 1960 PTD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nTribunal's Discretion and High Court Review\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal's refusal to condone delay must be based on judicial discretion. The Tribunal's role under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act is to comply with the High Court's directions and not re-examine the validity of such directions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA delay of one day in filing an appeal requires explanation only for that day, not the entire limitation period.\no\nThe Tribunal's refusal to condone delay due to lack of credible evidence was deemed unjustified when the assessee provided reasonable grounds (e.g., mistaken advice).\no\nOrders refusing condonation effectively terminate appeals and are appealable decisions.\n•\nReferences:\nSections 33, 66(2), Income-tax Act, 1922; Mela Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1956) 29 ITR 607 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,66(2) ", + "Case #": "Case referred No. 78 of 1954, decision dated: 21-10-1959", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. V. Viswanatha Aiyar for the Assessee. C. S. Rama Rao Sahib for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "R. RENGANAYAKI AMMAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 42 = 1960 SLD 42 = 1960 PTD 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Residence for Tax Purposes\nDetermination of Corporate Residence\n•\nConclusion:\nA company’s residence is determined by the location of its superior or directing authority. Control exercised by a parent company over its subsidiaries does not establish residence unless it aligns with the subsidiaries' constitutional framework.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSubsidiaries operating independently under their boards, even if influenced by a parent company, are not deemed resident in the parent company’s jurisdiction.\no\n Residence implies actual management and control consistent with the company's governance structure.\no\nIn this case, the African subsidiaries were found to be resident in East Africa, not the UK, despite the parent's influence.\n•\nReferences:\nFinance Act, 1953, Section 20(9); De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe (1906) AC 455; Union Corporation Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1952) 34 TC 207 applied", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "(1959) Ch. 147, decision dated: 22nd July 1958", + "Judge Name": "WYNN-PARRY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "BULLOCK\nvs\nUNIT CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 43 = 1960 SLD 43 = 1960 PTD 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Nature of Compensation for Termination of Employment\nTaxability of Compensation Payment\n•\nConclusion:\nCompensation paid for termination of employment, even when combined with restrictions on the assessee’s future activities, is in the nature of capital and not taxable as salary. The payment of Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee was made solely as compensation for loss of employment and not as remuneration for past services, thereby exempt under Explanation 2 to Section 7 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe termination of employment was executed under a settlement agreement following disputes between the employer and the assessee.\no\nCompensation was for loss of employment and included a non-compete clause for one year.\no\nThe payment does not constitute salary or profits in lieu of salary.\n•\nReferences:\nGuff v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1957) 31 ITR 826; Khosla, in re (1945) 13 ITR 436.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,Expl.2 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 55 of 1958, decision dated: 26th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala and R. J. Kolah for the Assessee. G. N. Joshi and, R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "R. N. AGRAWALA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 44 = 1960 SLD 44 = 1960 PTD 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Loss vs. Capital Gains\nSet-off of Payment as Capital Loss\n•\nConclusion:\nThe payment made by the assessee to avoid completing a property purchase was not considered a capital loss under Section 12B, as it was not connected to the transfer of a capital asset. The loss of Rs. 55,000 was deemed a non-capital expenditure and could not be set off against capital gains.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe assessee entered into an agreement to purchase property but later avoided the transaction by facilitating a third-party purchase.\no\nThe payment made to the vendor was for avoiding contractual obligations, not for a transfer or relinquishment of a capital asset.\no\nLosses unrelated to a transfer of capital assets do not qualify under capital gains provisions.\n•\nReferences:\nSections 2(4A), 12B, and 24(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 66 of 1958, decision dated: 30th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Samarth and P. R. Gandhi for the Assessee. G. N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RATANCHAND HIRACHAND\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 45 = 1960 SLD 45 = 1960 PTD 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Succession of Partnership Interest\nInheritance of Partnership Losses\n•\nConclusion:\nThe widow of a deceased partner, who succeeded to his partnership interest by inheritance, was entitled to set off her late husband's share of partnership losses against her share of profits under Section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Tribunal found that the widow inherited her husband’s partnership share and carried on the business in partnership with the surviving partner.\no\nThe set-off was allowed for losses incurred during her husband's lifetime.\no\nThe conclusion was based on the factual relationship and evidence of succession.\n•\nReferences:\nSection 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 67 of 1958, decision dated: 30th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner. S. P. Mehta with Hemendra Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY\nvs\nBAI MANIBEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 46 = 1960 SLD 46 = 1960 PTD 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rental Income from Building and Fixtures\nTax Treatment of Composite Lease\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome derived from the letting of a building and furniture was taxable under separate heads: building income under Section 9 and furniture income under Section 12. The lease was not inseparable, and Section 12(4) did not apply.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe lease agreement specified separate rents for the building and furniture.\no\nThe building's primary letting purpose was distinct from the furniture and fixtures.\no\nProvisions for business income under Section 10 were not applicable.\n•\nReferences:\nSections 9, 10, 12(3), and 12(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,10,12(3),(4),12(4) ", + "Case #": "I. T. Reference 69 of 1958, decision dated: July, 2, 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala with Kolah for the Assessee. G. N. Goshi with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SULTAN BROTHERS (PRIVATE) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II" + }, + { + "Case No.": "389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 47 = 1960 SLD 47 = 1960 PTD 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 22, 34, (1) (a) (before and after Amendment in 1956) Reassessment Notice under S. 34 (1) (a) Limitation Starting point Contents of notice.\n \nThe starting point of limitation so far as it relates to a matter falling under section 34 (1) (a) of the Income tax Act (for the service of notice of reassessment proceedings) is the end of the accounting year for which the return has to be made under section 22. The words any year occurring in section 34 refer to the previous year and not to the assessment year. No change has been effected by the amendment in 1956 of section 34 as to the point from which the computation of the eight years mentioned in the section has to start. The position is exactly the same after as it was before the amendment in 1956.\n \nClause (b) of subsection (1) of section 34 of the Income tax Act deals with a matter different from what is contained in clause (b) and the provisions of clause (b) cannot have a bearing on the interpretation of clause (a).\n \nThe notice under section 34 (1) (a) of the Income tax Act need not contain any statement that the assessee did not disclose all facts fully and truly necessary for his assessment for the relevant year.", + "Court Name:": "Mysore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,34,(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 144 of 1957, decision dated: 1st October, 1958", + "Judge Name": "S. R. DAS GUPTA, C, J., AND NARAYANA PAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Krishnamurthy for Petitioner. D. M. Chandrasekhar (Government Pleader)", + "Party Name:": "H. N. S. IYENGAR\nvs\nFIRST ADDITIONAL Income Tax OFFICER, MYSORE CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 48 = 1960 SLD 48 = 1960 PTD 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Taxability of Royalties Post-Author’s Death\nIncome from Profession Post-Discontinuation\n•\nConclusion:\nRoyalties paid after the death of an author remain non-taxable as they are considered the fruit or aftermath of the professional activity undertaken during the author’s lifetime. These royalties, even when arising posthumously, retain their character as professional income and do not transform into assessable income under general provisions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe executor of the deceased author received royalties under contracts executed during the author's lifetime.\no\nThe Crown argued for taxation of royalties posthumously, but the court ruled otherwise.\no\nPayments are directly linked to the profession and cease to be taxable upon its discontinuance (i.e., the author’s death).\n•\nReferences:\nStainer's Executors v. Purchase (1952) AC 280.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44 ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal, decision dated: 27th, 28th October ; 25-11-1958", + "Judge Name": "VISCOUNT SIMONDS, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON, LORD REID, LORD TUCKER AND LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "CARSON (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nCHEYNEYS EXECUTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 49 = 1960 SLD 49 = 1960 PTD 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Recovery of Arrears from a Partner of a Dissolved Firm\nLiability for Tax Arrears in Dissolved Partnerships\n•\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner could not be held liable for the tax arrears of another partner after the dissolution of the partnership, as no firm-level assessment existed either before or after the firm's dissolution. Section 44 of the Income-tax Act (pre-1958 amendment) was deemed inapplicable.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe firm was registered, and taxes were assessed at the individual partner level.\no\nThe petitioner discharged his tax liability, but the Income Tax Officer demanded payment of another partner’s dues.\no\nThe court quashed the demand, as the firm itself was not assessed for tax liability under Section 44.\n•\nReferences:\nChengalvaroya Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1937) 5 ITR 70.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A,44,46 ", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 536 of 1958, decision dated: 23rd March, 1959", + "Judge Name": "KUMARA PILLAI AND M. S. MENON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. L. Viswanatha Iyer for Petitioner. G. Rama Iyer.", + "Party Name:": "VELU GOPALAN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 50 = 1960 SLD 50 = 1960 PTD 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legitimacy of Transfers to Non-Wedded Partners and Illegitimate Children\nTaxability of Income from Transferred Assets\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome from assets transferred to an individual who is not a legally wedded spouse and their illegitimate children cannot be taxed in the transferor's income under Section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe assessee transferred assets to a Nair woman (not legally his wife) and their children.\no\nThe court held that wife and child in Section 16(3) refer to legally recognized relations under Hindu law.\no\nAs the transfers did not involve legal spouses or legitimate children, the income derived from these assets could not be included in the assessee's total income.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Rajasundaram (1950) 18 ITR 145; Makem v. Makem (1955) 1 All ER 57", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. Referred Case No. 12 of 1958, decision dated: 9-12-1959", + "Judge Name": "M.A. ANSARI AND VELU PILLAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. N. Subramania Iyer for Applcants. G. Rama Iyer for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF T. V. KRISHNAIYER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 51 = 1960 SLD 51 = 1960 PTD 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Rejection of Accounts and Business Expenditure Allowance\nTopic 1: Justification for Rejecting Accounts\n•\nConclusion:\nLow profits and the absence of a stock register are insufficient grounds to reject accounts maintained in a consistent accounting method unless the income cannot be properly deduced.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe assessee's accounts lacked a variety-wise stock register, but other accounting records were maintained regularly.\no\nThe court ruled that accounts could not be rejected solely on low profit margins or missing stock details.\no\nIncome-tax authorities must demonstrate that income cannot be properly deduced from the accounts before rejecting them.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182.\nTopic 2: Allowance of Salaries Paid as Business Expenditure\n•\nConclusion:\nThe disallowance of salaries paid to employees must be based on evidence of non-business motives. Commercial expediency and bona fide payment are the primary tests for salary deductions under Section 10(2)(xv).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Income Tax Officer allowed only a portion of salaries paid to the general manager and a branch manager, citing excessiveness.\no\nThe court held that commercial expediency, not the reasonableness of the amount, should govern salary deductions.\no\nThere was no evidence of extra-business considerations influencing the salary payments.\n•\nReferences:\nPandit Bros. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 159; Newtone Studios Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955) 28 ITR 378.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(x),(xv),13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1956, decision dated: 3rd December 1958", + "Judge Name": "KUMARA PILLAI AND, JOSEPH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Govindan Nair, G. B. Pai, K V. R. Shenoi and P. K. Kurien for the Assessee. G. Rama Iyer for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S. VEERIAH REDDIAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, TRAVANCORE COCHIN, BANGALORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 52 = 1960 SLD 52 = 1960 PTD 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions to Income – Suspense Account and Business Profits\nDouble Additions for Undisclosed Income and Business Profits\n•\nConclusion:\nAdditions can be made to income from both business profits and unexplained credits in the suspense account if they are independent and unconnected. Double taxation does not arise if these are treated as separate sources of income.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe assessee’s unexplained credit in the suspense account was treated as income from undisclosed sources.\no\nSeparate additions to business profits were upheld as unconnected to the suspense account.\n•\nReferences:\nChenna Basappa v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1958) 34 ITR 576; Auddy & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955) 28 ITR 713.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 207 of 1956, decision dated: 2-07-1959", + "Judge Name": "BHUTT, C, J., AND SHRIVASTAVA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "H. M. Thakhar and A. L. Halve for the Assessee. M. Adhikari for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RATANCHAND DIPCHAND\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M. P. & BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 53 = 1960 SLD 53 = 1960 PTD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Setoff of Speculative Losses\nInterpretation of Section 24(1) – Speculative Losses and Business Profits\n•\nConclusion:\nLosses from speculative transactions cannot be set off against profits from other business activities within the same head of income. The proviso to Section 24(1) modifies the method of computation under Section 10.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSpeculative losses are treated distinctly and cannot offset non-speculative business income.\no\nA proviso may extend its operation beyond the main section in exceptional cases.\n•\nReferences:\nKeshavlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1957) 31 ITR 7; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. (1959) 36 ITR 1.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,24(1) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 218 of 1957, decision dated: 7th September 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHRIVASTAVA AND SHARMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Adhikari for Commissioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR AND BHANDARA\nvs\nRAMGOPAL KANIYALAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 54 = 1960 SLD 54 = 1960 PTD 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax from Unregistered Firm’s Partner\nLiability and Recovery Without Notice\n•\nConclusion:\nTax recovery proceedings against a partner of an unregistered firm without a separate notice of demand are invalid, even under Section 44. The firm, treated as a separate entity, must be assessed and noticed first.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nNo direct notice to the partner was issued; hence, proceedings under Section 46 were quashed.\no\nThe firm’s unregistered status does not bypass the requirement for separate notice.\n•\nReferences:\nKumaraswami Chettiar v. Additional Income Tax Officer (1957) 31 ITR 457; Ravulu Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1956) 30 ITR 163.", + "Court Name:": "Mysore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(2),3,29,44,45,46(2) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXIr.50. ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 36 of 1957, decision dated: 5th December 1958", + "Judge Name": "S. R. DAS GUPTA, C.J, AND NARAYANA PAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan for Petitioner. D. M. Chandrasekhar (Government Pleader)", + "Party Name:": "T. GOVINDASWAMY\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, SPECIAL SURVEY CIRCLE, BANGALORE, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 55 = 1960 SLD 55 = 1960 PTD 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fresh Notice Requirement After Tax Reduction\nRecovery Proceedings Post Appeal\n•\nConclusion:\nWhen tax liability is reduced on appeal, a fresh notice of demand must be served. Recovery proceedings based on the original certificate are invalid without issuing a revised demand notice.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the tax liability.\no\nContinuation of recovery based on the original notice violated procedural requirements.\n•\nReferences:\nMetropolitan Structural Works Ltd. v. Union of India (1955) 28 ITR 432.", + "Court Name:": "Mysore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45,46 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 138 and 139 of 1956, decision dated: 16th April 1959", + "Judge Name": "HOMBE GOWDA AND AHMED ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan for Petitioner. D. M. Chandrasekhar (Government Pleader)s", + "Party Name:": "SEGHU BUCHIAH SETTY\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, KOLAR CIRCLE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 56 = 1960 SLD 56 = 1960 PTD 556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Termination of Distribution Agreement\nTaxability of Compensation as Business Income\n•\nConclusion:\nCompensation paid for terminating a monopoly distribution agreement was deemed taxable as it did not extinguish a trading asset or affect the core business.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe firm continued its business of electrical goods post-termination.\no\nThe payment was classified as a business receipt, taxable under Section 10.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Vazir Sultan & Sons (1959) 36 ITR 175; Van Den Berghs Ltd. v. Clark (1935) 19 Tax Cas. 390.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,(3)(vii),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 51 of 1958, decision dated: 23rd June 1959", + "Judge Name": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala with S. P. Mehta and B. A. Palkhivala for the Assessee. G. N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "P. H. DIVECHA, AND ANOTHER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 57 = 1960 SLD 57 = 1960 PTD 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Business Profits Tax Assessments\nPeriod of Limitation under Sections 11 and 14\n•\nConclusion:\nSection 11 of the Business Profits Tax Act is subject to the limitation period prescribed under Section 14. Unlimited assessment periods under Section 11 would contradict legislative intent.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nStatutory provisions must be reconciled for consistent interpretation.\no\nSection 14’s four-year limit applies to assessments under Section 11.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Narsee Nagsee & Co. (1957) 31 ITR 164.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=11,14 ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 11 of 1959, decision dated: 27th August 1959", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMED, C, J. AND KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with A. M. Khan Chowdury for Applicant. Asrarul Hossain with Md. Nurul Huq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA \nvs\nMESSRS HOOSEN KASAM DADA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 58 = 1960 SLD 58 = 1960 PTD 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies\nInvoking High Court’s Special Jurisdiction\n•\nConclusion:\nHigh Court writs cannot be invoked when statutory remedies are available unless jurisdiction is absent, exceeded, or alternative remedies are burdensome.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nStatutory appeal must be utilized before seeking writ jurisdiction.\no\nErrors requiring further evidence are unsuitable for writ petitions.\n•\nReferences:\nTariq Transport Co. v. Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service PLD 1958 SC 437", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=170 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 86 of 1959, decision dated: 15th January 1960", + "Judge Name": "AKBAR AND ASIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. M. Abdullah and Abdul Rab for Petitioners. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhurys", + "Party Name:": "CHAND MIAH AND ANOTHERS\nvs\nIncome Tax AND SALES TAX OFFICER II, NARAYANGANJ CIRCLE AND another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 59 = 1960 SLD 59 = 1960 PTD 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Payments for Reminiscences\nServices vs. Sale of Intellectual Property\n•\nConclusion:\nPayment to a jockey for providing his life reminiscences was taxable as income from services under Schedule D. The agreement primarily required services, not a sale of property.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe articles were largely written by a journalist, with minimal input from the jockey.\no\nThe agreement emphasized service provision over transfer of intellectual property.\n•\nReferences:\nBradbury v. Arnold (1957) 37 Tax Cas. 665.", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "1959 W. L. R. I decided on 18-11-1958", + "Judge Name": "HARMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Alan Orr for the Crown. G. B. Graham for the Taxpayer. Solicitors . Solicitor, Inland Revenue . Delme, Radclife Brunskill, Devizes.", + "Party Name:": "HOUSDEN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nMARSHALL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 60 = 1960 SLD 60 = 1960 PTD 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income and Interest on Securities\nInclusion of Interest in Business Income\n•\nConclusion:\nInterest on securities held as stock-in-trade forms part of business income and qualifies for relief under Section 25(3) upon discontinuance of the business.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe securities were integral to the business operations.\no\nInterest was treated as part of business revenue, not a separate income head.\n•\nReferences:\nAmbalal Himatlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1951) 20 ITR 280.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=8,10,25(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 27/X of 1954, decision dated: 18th December 1958", + "Judge Name": "TENDOLKAR AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. N. Joshi with Sunkersett for the Commissioner. N. A. Palkhivala with Jamshedji Kanga and B. A. Palkhivala for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I\nvs\nCHUGANDAS & CO. (SECURITIES)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 61 = 1960 SLD 61 = 1960 PTD 699", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment and Disclosure of Materials\nDisclosure of Materials for Re-assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer's reason to believe that income escaped assessment is justiciable. The materials on which this belief is based should be disclosed to the Court, but not necessarily to the assessee at the initiation stage, to protect the integrity of proceedings.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Income Tax Officer must demonstrate reasonable grounds for re-assessment.\no\nDisclosure to the assessee can be deferred until later stages.\n•\nReferences:\nBeatson v. Skene (1860) 8 W R 544; Bhimraj Panna Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1957) 32 ITR 289.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1A) ", + "Case #": "Matter No. 139 of 1958 decided on 21st May, 1959", + "Judge Name": "SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "DAULATRAM RAWATMAL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VI, CALCUTTA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 62 = 1960 SLD 62 = 1960 PTD 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)\nMother's Role as Manager in HUF Assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nA mother can represent an HUF as a manager for income tax purposes if there is no male karta. Delay or acquiescence in raising objections may lead the Court to refuse intervention.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nHUF is distinct from a Hindu coparcenary under income tax law.\no\nEquity principles guide the Court in deciding writ applications.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas (1948) 16 ITR 313.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3 ", + "Case #": "Matter No. 216 of 1958, decision dated: 11-06-1959", + "Judge Name": "D. N. SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Mitra and Barun Chakravarthy for Petitioner. E. R. Meyer and B. L. Pals", + "Party Name:": "SUSHILA DEVI RAMPURIA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, DIST. I (1) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 63 = 1960 SLD 63 = 1960 PTD 727 = (1960) 2 TAX 474 = 1960 PLD 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Judgment Assessment Without Notice\nValidity of Best Judgment Assessments\n•\nConclusion:\nFailure to issue notice under Section 23(2) before making a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4) renders the assessment invalid.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nEven incomplete returns must be addressed with notice to the assessee.\no\nThe process emphasizes giving the assessee a chance to present evidence.\n•\nReferences:\nGopinath Biswambar Roy v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1950) 18 ITR 976.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(4),22(2) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 39 of 1959, answered on 15th February 1960. dates of hearing: 2nd and 4th February 1960", + "Judge Name": "AKBAR AND ASIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din for A. Matin Khan Chowdhury for Applicant. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN \nvs\nMESSRS AIZUDDIN GAZI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 64 = 1960 SLD 64 = 1960 PTD 733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenses and Reasonableness\nCommercial Justification of Expenses\n•\nConclusion:\nExpenses claimed under Section 10(xvi) must be wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Tribunal findings on this matter are treated as questions of fact unless based on misapplication of law.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nExcessive payments driven by family interests were reduced.\no\nDisallowed interest payments not justified by commercial reasons can be challenged as questions of law.\n•\nReferences:\nEastern Investments Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1951) AIR SC 278.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(xvi),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 56 of 1952, decision dated: 5th November 1956", + "Judge Name": "CONSTANTINE AND WAHIDUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dingomal N. for Applicants. Aziz for Opponent", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS EASTERN SILK STORES\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 65 = 1960 SLD 65 = 1960 PTD 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Wholly and In That Year \nTemporal Scope in Taxing Statutes\n•\nConclusion:\nThe term in that year in Section 4-A(c) of the Income Tax Act refers to any time during the year, not the entirety of it. Ambiguities in taxing statutes are resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe statute prioritizes clear language but resolves doubts favorably for the subject.\no\nThe definition of British India was clarified for post-partition assessments.\n•\nReferences:\nSt. Auburn v. Attorney General (1951) 2 AER 473.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4A(c)(a) ", + "Case #": "Reference No. 36 of 1951, answered on 7th January 1957", + "Judge Name": "CONSTANTINE AND WAHIDUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Aziz for Applicant. Dingomal Surridge and Bechano", + "Party Name:": "vs\nTHE IMPERIAL TOBACCO Co. OF INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 66 = 1960 SLD 66 = 1960 PTD 758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pension Fund Contributions for Foreign Employees\nApplicability of Tax on Pension Contributions\n•\nConclusion:\nPension fund contributions maintained abroad for foreign employees are allowed as deductions if payments are not taxable in Pakistan, under the principle cessante ratione legis, ipsa lex cessat.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe prohibition under Section 10(4)(c) does not apply when tax liability is improbable.\no\nTerritorial connections determine the allowance for interest payments.\n•\nReferences:\nPorbandar State Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1948) 18 ITR 134.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv)and10(4)(c),18(3A) ", + "Case #": "Reference No. 167 of 1954, decision dated: 20th November 1956", + "Judge Name": "CONSTANTINE AND WAHIDUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Aziz for Applicant. M. A. Rizvi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI, SIND AND BALUCHISTAN \nvs\nTHE NETHERLANDS TRADING SOCIETY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 67 = 1960 SLD 67 = 1960 PTD 780", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Flat Rate Application\nDiscretion in Rejecting Accounts\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome Tax Officers may reject accounts and apply a flat rate if the accounting method fails to properly deduce income. Such discretion is a factual determination, not a legal question.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nHigh profit rates alone do not warrant legal review.\no\nFindings under Section 13 are treated as factual determinations.\n•\nReferences:\nFeroz Shah v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1933) AIR PC 198.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66 ", + "Case #": "References Nos. 1 and 4 of 1948, decision dated: 23rd August 1956", + "Judge Name": "CONSTANTINE AND WAHIDUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Parmanand for Petitioner. A. Aziz", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS POKARDAS DWARKADAS OF KARACHI s\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIND AND BALUCHISTAN HAVING HIS OFFICE AT KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 68 = 1960 SLD 68 = 1960 PTD 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income Accrual Through Book Adjustments\nIncome Accrual and Control\n•\nConclusion:\nAmounts deducted via book adjustments are treated as income received, even if physically uncollected. This includes cases where obligations are met through internal adjustments.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nIncome accrues once the assessee exercises control over funds.\no\nCommission income was deemed to accrue at the time of realization, not account settlement.\n•\nReferences:\nThe Ramkola Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955) PLD FC 418.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66,4(1)(a),14(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "References Nos. 2 and 3 of 1948 and Reference No. 69 of 1947, decision dated: 13-09-1956", + "Judge Name": "CONSTANTINE AND WAHIDUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Parmanand for Petitioner. Abdul Azizs", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS POKARDAS DWARKADAS OF KARACHI \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIND AND BALUCHISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 69 = 1960 SLD 69 = 1960 PTD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices\nValidity of Notice Service on Unauthorized Agents\n•\nConclusion:\nNotices served on employees not authorized in writing to accept service are invalid under the Income Tax Act and CPC provisions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nWritten authorization is mandatory for accepting notice service.\no\nUnauthorized acceptance and subsequent appearance do not validate improper service.\n•\nReferences:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Shamsher Printing Press (1953) 23 ITR 363.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=63(1),66(1) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,r.12] ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 5 of 1952, decision dated: 2nd May 1960, hearing DATE : 21st March 1960", + "Judge Name": "B. Z. KAIKAUS AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Sohail and H. A. Taib. Abdul Haque", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS IDREES BARRY & Co.-\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 70 = 1960 SLD 70 = 1960 PTD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Compulsory Relocation\nRevenue vs. Capital Receipt\n•\nConclusion:\nCompensation for loss of profits due to relocation is a taxable revenue receipt, not exempt as a capital or casual receipt.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe payment was for operational disruption, not capital injury.\no\nSection 4(3)(vii) does not apply to trading receipts.\n•\nReferences:\nVan den Berghs Ltd. v. Clark (1935) AC 431.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1955, decision dated: 8-03-1960", + "Judge Name": "KAPUR, SARKAR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. N. Sanyal (Additional Solicitor General of India) and K. N. Rajagopal Sastri, (D. Gupta with them). N. A. Palkhivala, Sarab N. Vakil, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY CITY\nvs\nSHAMSHER PRINTING PRESS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 71 = 1960 SLD 71 = 1960 PTD 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Institution Income Exemption\nConditions for Tax Exemption\n•\nConclusion:\nFor income to qualify as exempt, it must be the income of the charitable institution itself, not an executor or intermediary.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCharitable income must flow directly to the exempt entity.\no\nExecutor-held income remains taxable.\n•\nReferences:\nCanadian Income Tax Act Section 4(e).", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 52 of 1947, decision dated: 28th February 1950. dates of hearing : 23rd, 24th and 25th January 1950", + "Judge Name": "LORD GREENE, LORD SIMONDS, LORD NORMAND, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON AND LORD RADCLIFFE", + "Lawyer Name": "H. G. Nolan K. C. and S. G. Dixon K. C.s. Solicitors . Lawrence Jones & Co\nMorrison K. C. and B. MacKenna. Solicitors . Charles Russell & Co", + "Party Name:": "THE EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF THE HONOURABLE PATRICK BURNS, DECEASED AND OTHERS \nvs\nTHE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 72 = 1960 SLD 72 = 1960 PTD 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Appeal Settlements\nBoard Approval of Settlements\n•\nConclusion:\nSettlements in income tax disputes are valid only if consistent with applicable laws and factual circumstances", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 29 of 1947, decision dated: 28-02-1949, from British Honduras", + "Judge Name": "LORD PORTER, LORD MACDERMOTT, SIR MADHAVAN MAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX-\nvs\nHENRY IGNATIUS MELHADO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 73 = 1960 SLD 73 = 1960 PTD 827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment by Guesswork\nEvidence in Assessments\n•\nConclusion:\nAssessments must rely on evidence or material beyond mere suspicion. Arbitrary or unsupported assessments are invalid.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nArticle 136 power is sparingly exercised to ensure justice.\no\nAssessments require factual basis.\n•\nReferences:\nSeth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1944) 12 ITR 393.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3) Constitution of India=136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 217 of 1953, decision dated: 29th October 1954", + "Judge Name": "MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, C, J., S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. C. Chatterjee and Veda Vyas, (S. K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai, with them). C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India (G. N. Joshi, with him)", + "Party Name:": "DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS, LTD. \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 74 = 1960 SLD 74 = 1960 PTD 835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Business of Banking \nMixed Question of Law and Fact\n•\nConclusion:\nThe determination of whether a branch carried on the business of banking involves a mixed question of law and fact. The test requires evaluating if the branch's principal business was accepting deposits subject to withdrawal by instruments like cheques or drafts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe definition of banking depends on the context of local customs and legal standards at the time.\no\nThe analysis includes examining operational practices and the principal nature of activities.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 77 of 1946, decision dated: 6-04-1948. dates of hearing : 25th and 26-02-1948", + "Judge Name": "LORD SIMONDS, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR", + "Lawyer Name": "Cyril King K. C. and S. Chapman. Solicitors . Parley Cumberland & Co. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe K. C. and R. P. Hills. Solicitors . Burchells", + "Party Name:": "THE BANK OF CHETTINAD, LTD., OF COLOMBO\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COLOMBO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 75 = 1960 SLD 75 = 1960 PTD 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Zamindari Sources\nTaxability of Forest and Other Produce\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome derived from the sale of forest produce (e.g., wood, bark, leaves) and license fees by a Zamindar is taxable and not exempt under the Madras Regulation (XXV of 1802).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe income is classified as other sources under Sections 6(vi) and 12(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nPermanently settled Zamindaris are not exempt merely due to their historical status.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=6(vi),12(i) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 15 of 1948, decision dated: 14-06-1949, from Madras. dates of hearing : 26th and 27th April 1949", + "Judge Name": "LORD OAKSEY, LORD REID, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR, SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT AND SIR MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN", + "Lawyer Name": "Cyril King K. C. and Jayakars. Solicitors . Chapman Walkers. Tucker K. C. and Subba Row. Solicitor . Solicitor High Commissioner for India", + "Party Name:": "SRI RAJAH RAVU VENKATA MAHIPATHI GANGADHARA RAMA RAO BAHADUR, YUVARAJAH OF PITHAPURAM AND ANOTHER\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 76 = 1960 SLD 76 = 1960 PTD 846", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure in Bidi Manufacturing\nTreatment of Expenditure on Tendu Leaves\n•\nConclusion:\nExpenditure incurred to acquire tendu leaves for bidi manufacturing is treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. It qualifies for exemption from income tax.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe expense relates to acquiring raw materials for ongoing production, not creating a lasting capital asset.\no\nOverruled earlier case law (AIR 1946 Nag. 241).", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xii) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 10 of 1948, decision dated: 28-07-1949, from Nagpur. dates of hearing : 22nd and 23rd June, 1949", + "Judge Name": "LORD GREENE, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "Sir Roland Burrows K. C., Handoo and T. P. Naiks. Solicitors. Hy. S. L. Polak of Co. Millard Tuker K. C. and Subba Row. Solicitor. Solicitor High Commissioner for India", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS. MOHANLAL HARGOVIND OF JUBBULPORE \nVs \nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 77 = 1960 SLD 77 = 1960 PTD 849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Apportionment of Profits in Manufacturing and Sales\nAllocation of Profits Across Jurisdictions\n•\nConclusion:\nProfits from sales processed in Manitoba, derived from goods manufactured in Ontario, must account for a manufacturing profit in Ontario for taxation purposes.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nApportionment is necessary when manufacturing and sales occur in different regions.\no\nThe principle aligns with international tax practices for determining taxable profits in multiple jurisdictions.\n•\nReferences:\nInternational Harvester Company of Canada Ltd. v. Provincial Tax Commission (1949) AC 36.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(3) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 46 of 1948, decision dated: 12-10-1949, from Canada. dates of hearing : 25th, 27th and 28-07-1949", + "Judge Name": "LORD GREENE, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON, LORD MAC DERMOTT, LORD REID AND LORD RADCLIFFE", + "Lawyer Name": "Glynn Cossley K. C. and Gahan. Solicitors. Blake and Reddun. E. Bristol K. C. and S. Chapman. Solicitors. Lee & Pembertons", + "Party Name:": "THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF MANITOBA\nvs\nWM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 78 = 1960 SLD 78 = 1960 PTD 855 = 1960 SCC 87 = 1960 PLD 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Investment in Tax Computation\nComputation of Capital Under Business Profits Tax Act\n•\nConclusion:\nMoney spent by a company to set up a new unit for profit enhancement is not considered an investment and is not deductible from the capital for computing admissible abatement.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCapital expenditure differs from investment for tax purposes.\no\nExpenditure outside taxable territories is irrelevant to the classification under fiscal provisions.\no\nMixed questions of law and fact arise in such classifications.\n•\nReferences:\nVallambrose Rubber Company (5 TC 529); British Insulated and Halsby Cables Limited (1926 AC 205).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=Sch.II,r.2(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 8-D of 1960, decision dated: 10th June 1960. dates of hearing : 31st May 1960 and 2nd June 1960", + "Judge Name": "A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by A. M. Khan Chowdhury, Attorney. S. C. Basu, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by B. C. Panday, Attorneys", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA \nVS\nLUXMI NARAYAN COTTON MILLS LTD., DACCA -" + }, + { + "Case No.": "421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 79 = 1960 SLD 79 = 1960 PTD 861", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Bad Debt\nAllowability of Bad Debt Deductions\n•\nConclusion:\nThe write-off of Rs. 6,125, representing a scaled-down portion of a debt rendered irrecoverable due to a fresh agreement under the Madras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, qualifies as a bad debt deduction under Section 10(2)(xi).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe bad debt arose from a legislative scaling-down process.\no\nThe Tribunal's rejection based on the argument of extinguishment rather than irrecoverability was overruled.\n•\nReferences:\no\nMadras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, Section 9A.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 28 of 1955, decision dated: 8th February 1960", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMCHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Swaminathan for the Assessee. C. S. Rama Rao Sahib and S. Ramanathan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "R. K. KAMAKSHI CHETTIAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 80 = 1960 SLD 80 = 1960 PTD 864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Invalidity\nValidity of Reassessment Proceedings\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 34 for a year when a return has been filed but no assessment was made. The original return remains undisposed, making reassessment invalid.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23,34 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 44 of 1955 decided on 8th February 1960", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan for the Assessee. C. S. Rama Rao Sahib and S. Ranganathan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S. M. MUTHIAH THEVAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 81 = 1960 SLD 81 = 1960 PTD 870", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Section 33 and Trust Assessments\nScope of Section 33 Relief\n•\nConclusion:\nSection 33 does not confer general relief for the assessee when subsequent assessments adhere to a High Court decision later reversed by the Privy Council. Assessments based on the High Court decision are valid and not nullities.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nAIR 1944 Lah. 445 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,66(2),33,6 ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No 83 of 1946, decision dated: 14th October 1947. dates of hearing : 22nd and 23rd July 1947", + "Judge Name": "LORD SIMONDS, LORD NORMAND AND LORD MACDERMOTT", + "Lawyer Name": "Tucker K. C. and B. Sen. Solicitors . The Solicitor, India Office. Cyril King K. C. Handoo and Tek Chand. Solicitors . Douglas Grant and Dold", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST PUNJAB, NORTH WEST FRONTIER AND DELHI PPOVINCES, LAHORE \nvs\nTHE TRIBUNE TRUST LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 82 = 1960 SLD 82 = 1960 PTD 881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Interest Paid by Partner\nDeductibility of Interest on Borrowed Money\n•\nConclusion:\nInterest paid by a partner on money borrowed for an unregistered firm's business is not deductible under Section 10(2)(iii) because the firm's profits are assessed and taxed at the firm level, not individually.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nShantikumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955) 27 ITR 69.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 104 of 1959, decision dated: 19th January 1960", + "Judge Name": "DIXIT, C, J. AND PANDEY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Adhikari, Advocate-General for Commissioner. R. S. Dabir, V. S. Dabir and R. P. Sinha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, M. P. & BHOPAL\nvs\nSORABJIFRAMJI KERAWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 83 = 1960 SLD 83 = 1960 PTD 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Registration Post-Death\nRegistration with Minor's Guardian as Partner\n•\nConclusion:\nA partnership can include a widow representing minor sons as a partner. The partnership deed does not suffer from defects under Section 26-A.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nDwarkadas Khetan & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1956) 29 ITR 903.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 9 and 11 of 1954, decision dated: 24th September 1958", + "Judge Name": "CHAGLA, C, J., AND S. T. DESAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhiwala with Kaka for the Assessee. G. N. Joshi with P. R. Shankershet for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MANVI BROTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY SOUTH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 84 = 1960 SLD 84 = 1960 PTD 892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partial Partition of Hindu Undivided Family\nEffect on Managing Agency Commission\n•\nConclusion:\nPartial partition of a Hindu Undivided Family effectively divides income from managing agency commission. Post-partition, such income is no longer treated as belonging to the undivided family.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCharandas Haridas v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955) 27 ITR 691 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1957, decided 15-03-1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. V. Viswanatha Sastri (B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff with him)s. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and K. N. Rajagopal Sastri (D. Gupta with them)s.", + "Party Name:": "CHARANDAS HARIDAS AND ANOTHER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY NORTH, KUTCH AND SAURASHTRA, AHMEDABAD, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 85 = 1960 SLD 85 = 1960 PTD 899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Under Section 33-B\nNotice to All Members of HUF\n•\nConclusion:\nFor revising an order recording partition under Section 33-B, notice must be given to all members of the Hindu Undivided Family. Notice to only one member renders the revision invalid.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nTuljansa Janardhansa Pawar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1950) 18 ITR 648.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25A,26A,33B,63 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 745-B 5/2 of 1956 and income-tax Petitions Nos. 283 to 286 of 1956, decision dated: 6th March 1959", + "Judge Name": "QAMAR HASSAN AND, JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. Rangachar and S. Ranganadham for the Assessee. C. Kondaiah for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "T. G. SULAKHE\nvs \nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, HYDERABAD AND AN OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 86 = 1960 SLD 86 = 1960 PTD 917", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Signing Capacity\nAppeal by HUF or Firm\n•\nConclusion:\nAn appeal signed by an individual as a partner of a firm rather than as Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family is valid if the individual is competent in either capacity. Misdescription does not invalidate the appeal", + "Court Name:": "Punjab High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1954, decision dated: 23rd December, 1959", + "Judge Name": "KHOSLA, C, J. AND TEK CHAND, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C. L. Aggarwal for the Assessment. S. M. Sikri, (Advocate-General) with H. R. Mahajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GIAN CHAND VIR BRAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, SIMLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 87 = 1960 SLD 87 = 1960 PTD 919", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Reassessment Notices\nFresh Proceedings Pending Earlier Reassessment\n•\nConclusion:\nSection 34(1) imposes no limit on the number of reassessment notices or proceedings, provided they are within the prescribed time.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Jagan Nath Maheshwary (1957) 32 ITR 418.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax No. 18 of 1956, decision dated: 17-02-1960", + "Judge Name": "FALSHAW AND CHOPRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. L. Sayal for the Assessee. Hardyal Hardy and D. K. Kapur for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ATMA RAM BINDRA BAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHI, AJMER, RAJASTHAN. AND MADHYA BHARAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 88 = 1960 SLD 88 = 1960 PTD 922", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Renewal of Registration and Non-Compliance\nRefusal of Firm’s Registration\n•\nConclusion:\nThe refusal to renew a firm's registration due to non-compliance under Section 23(2) is valid without additional notice. The principles of natural justice are satisfied during appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(2),(4),26A ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 544 of 1958, decision dated: 25-04-1960", + "Judge Name": "RAMASWAMI, C, J. AND CHOUDHARY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. N. Datta, V. D. Narayan and B. P. Rajgaria for the Assessee. R. J. Bahadur for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MAHABIR GLASS MANUFACTURING, Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PATNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 89 = 1960 SLD 89 = 1960 PTD 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Debentures\nDeductibility of Interest\n•\nConclusion:\nInterest on bearer debentures deposited as security for overdrafts does not qualify as deductible mortgage interest.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nRegents Canal Iron Works Co. (1876) Ch. D 43.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9(1)(iv) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 69 of 1945, decision dated: 22nd April 1947, from Calcutta", + "Judge Name": "LORDS THANKERTON, UTHWATT, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Millard Tucker and J. Megaws. Solicitor . Solicitor, India Office.W. W. K. Page and T. B.W. Ramsay. Solicitors . Giles and Hunter", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGAL\nvs\nCHOWRINGHEE PROPERTIES, LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 90 = 1960 SLD 90 = 1960 PTD 930", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income and Section 42\nTaxability of Foreign Income\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome accrued outside British India to a company resident in British India is not taxable under Section 42.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42,4 ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 73 of 1947, decision dated: 21st October, 1948, from Bombay. dates of hearing: 30-06-1948 ; 1st and 2nd July 1948", + "Judge Name": "LORDS SIMONDS, OAKSEY, MACDERMOTT, SIR MADHARAN NAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "Millard Tucker K. C. and Subba Row. Solicitor. Solicitor High Commissioner for India. Mustoes. Solicitor. Douglas Grant & Co", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY MOFUSSIL \nvs\nTHE WESTERN INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., SATARA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 91 = 1960 SLD 91 = 1960 PTD 934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Resident’s Foreign Income\nConstitutionality and Assessment Place\n•\nConclusion:\nTaxing foreign income of residents is constitutional. Sleeping partners can be assessed at the partnership business location", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1)(b)(ii),4A(c),64(1) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 65 of 1945, decision dated: 17th February 1948, from the Federal Court of India. dates of hearing : 13th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 24th and 25th November 1947", + "Judge Name": "LORDS UTHWATT, DU PARCQ, NORMAND, OAKSEY AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR", + "Lawyer Name": "Sir David Maxwell Fype K. C., Joseph Nissim and J. H. Barringtons. Solicitors. Johnson Jecks and Colclough. Tucker K C. and B MacKennas. Solicitors . High Commissioner for India\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, BOMBAY CITY AND BOMBAY SUBURBAN DISTRICT----Respondent", + "Party Name:": "WALLACE BROTHERS AND Co. LTD.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY AND BOMBAY SUBURBAN DISTRICT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 92 = 1960 SLD 92 = 1960 PTD 940", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income Definition\nExemption Criteria\n•\nConclusion:\nSale of naturally growing forest produce without human cultivation does not qualify as agricultural income.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Maharajah of Darbhanga, 62 IA 215.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(1),4(3)(viii) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 33 of 1947, decision dated: 12th July 1948, from Lucknow. dates of hearing; 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th June 1948", + "Judge Name": "LORDS SIMONDS, NORMAND, OAKSEY, MACDERMOTT AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR", + "Lawyer Name": "Sir R. Burrows K. C. and Jopline. Solicitor. Hy. S. L. Polak & Co. Tucker K. C. and Jayakar. Solicitor. Solicitor High Commissioner for India", + "Party Name:": "Raja MUSTAFA ALI KHAN, THROUGH SPECIAL MANAGER, COURT OF WARDS, UTRAULA, DISTRICT GONDA \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax UNITED PROVINCES, AJMER AND AJMER MERWARA (and other appeals)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 93 = 1960 SLD 93 = 1960 PTD 948", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Life Insurance Profit Calculation\nBritish Indian Branches\n•\nConclusion:\nProfits of non-resident life insurance companies operating in British India must be computed using reliable data under Rule 8.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=First Schedule,8,2 ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 54 of 1947, decision dated: 14th October 1948, from Bombay", + "Judge Name": "LORDS SIMONDS, OAKSEY, MACDERMOTT, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR ANAL SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY \nvs\nTHE GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 94 = 1960 SLD 94 = 1960 PTD 957", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Agricultural Income Exemption\nSource and Character\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome derived from non-agricultural sources, even if calculated based on agricultural income, is not exempt.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nGopal Saran Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 62 IA 207.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(1),4(3)(viii) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No, 41 of 1947, decision dated: 28-06-1948, from Bombay. dates of hearing : 25th and 26th May 1948", + "Judge Name": "LORDS SIMONDS, OAKSEY AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "Sir C. Radcliffe K. C. and R. P. Hills. Solicitors . Sanderson Lee & Co. Millard Tucker K. C. and Handoo. Solicitors . Solicitor High Commissioner for India", + "Party Name:": "THE PREMIER CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 95 = 1960 SLD 95 = 1960 PTD 961", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintenance Payments and Exemption\nWidow’s Maintenance\n•\nConclusion:\nA widow’s maintenance payments under a family arrangement are exempt from income tax.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=14(1) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 86 of 1944: Allahabad Appeal No. 3 of 1941, decision dated: 15th April 1947, from Allahabad", + "Judge Name": "LORDS WRIGHT, DU PARCQ, NORMAND, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Millard Tucker, W. Wallach and R. Parikh. Solicitor . Solicitor, India Office. Sir Herbert Cunliffe and J. M. R. Jayakar. Solicitors. Chapman Walkers", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL AND UNITED PROVINCES-\nvs\nMst. BHAGWATI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 96 = 1960 SLD 96 = 1960 PTD 968", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partners’ Foreign Profits\nExclusion for Non-Residents\n•\nConclusion:\nNon-resident or not-ordinarily-resident partners cannot exclude their share of foreign profits apportioned in a firm’s total income", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1)(b),23(5)(a) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 87 of 1947, decision dated: 20th December 1948, from Nagpur. dates of hearing, : 11th and 15th November 1948", + "Judge Name": "LORDS UTHWATT, MORTON OF HENRYTON, REID, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "Sir Roland Burrows K. C. and R. P. Hills,s. Solicitor. Hy S. L. Polak & Co. Millard Tucker K. C. and B. Sen. Solicitor. Solicitor High Commissioner for India", + "Party Name:": "Seth BADRIDAS DAGA AND ANOTHER \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL AND UNITED PROVINCES, LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 97 = 1960 SLD 97 = 1960 PTD 972", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Approximate Returns and Penalty\nValidity of Return and Penalty\n•\nConclusion:\nAn approximate income return can be accepted, but penalties for incorrect returns are valid under Sections 23(3) and 28(1).", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22(2),23(1),23(3)28(1) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 100 of 1945, decision dated: 17th June 1947 from Peshawar", + "Judge Name": "LORDS SIMONDS, UTHWATT AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "C. Bagram and J. M. R. Jayakar. Solicitors . Hy. S. L. Polak & Co. J. Millard Tucker and A. A. Mocatta for J. Megaw. Solicitor . Solicitor, India Office. Malik DAMSAZ KHAN Appellant", + "Party Name:": "C. Bagram and J. M. R. Jayakar for . Solicitors Hy. S. L. Polak & Co. J. Millard Tucker and A. A. Mocatta for J. Megaw for . Solicitor Solicitor, India Office. Malik DAMSAZ KHAN \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N. W.F. PROVINCES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 98 = 1960 SLD 98 = 1960 PTD 976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Interest on Rent Arrears\nTaxability of Interest\n•\nConclusion:\nInterest on rent arrears for land used in agriculture is taxable and not agricultural income.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nSarju Bai v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1947) 15 ITR 137.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(1),4(3) ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 26 of 1947, decision dated: 6th July 1948, from Patna. dates of hearing : 11th, 12th and 13th May 1948", + "Judge Name": "LORDS UTHWATT, MORTON OF HENRYTON, MACDERMOTT, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "Millard Tucker K. C. and Handoo. Pritt K. C., Sir Roland Burrows K. C., Colombos and Prem Lall", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA \nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 99 = 1960 SLD 99 = 1960 PTD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ultra Vires Assessment\nSuit for Declaration\n•\nConclusion:\nA suit questioning an assessment under an ultra vires provision effectively seeks to modify the assessment and is barred under Section 67.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nSecretary of State v. Meyappa Chettiar AIR 1937 Mad. 241.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=67,45 ", + "Case #": "Privy Council Appeal No. 63 of 1945, decision dated: 19th February 1947, from Federal Court", + "Judge Name": "LORDS WRIGHT, PORTER, UTHWATT, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR, JOHN BEAUMONT", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Millard Tucker and B. MacKenna. Solicitors . Solicitor India Office. Watching . Johnson Jacks & Colclough", + "Party Name:": "RALEIGH INVESTMENT Co., LTD. \nvs\nTHE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 100 = 1960 SLD 100 = 1960 PTD 987", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Powers of High Court\nScope of High Court Jurisdiction\n•\nConclusion:\nThe High Court’s role in a reference is limited to answering legal questions arising from the Tribunal's statement of the case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,8,10,12,4, ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 4 of 1951, decision dated: 3rd March, 1954", + "Judge Name": "B. Z. KAIKAUS AND AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Anwar, M. A. Rahman and Fazal Din. Malik Muhammad Husain", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL EXCHANGE BANK LTD., LAHORE \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 101 = 1960 SLD 101 = 1960 PTD 992", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration with Tampered Deed\nValidity of Registration under Section 26A\n•\nConclusion:\nRegistration under Section 26A cannot be granted if the partnership deed is found to be tampered with or faked. Proper and untampered documentation is mandatory for registration.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No. 5 of 1956, decision dated: 2-01-1957", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMAD, C, J. AND CHAKRABORTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Asrarul Hussain with Kamal-ud-Din Husain. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with Abdul Matin Khan Choudhry", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 102 = 1960 SLD 102 = 1960 PTD 994 = 1955 SCC 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Set-Off Against Debt\nTaxability of Dividend Income in British India\n•\nConclusion:\n(Akram and Sharif, JJ.): Dividend income accrued outside British India and set off against a debt owed by the British Indian company to a foreign company is considered received in British India under Sections 4(1) and 14(2)(c).\n(Cornelius, J.): Dissenting opinion held that no tangible remittance occurred to constitute receipt in British India.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nTrinidad Lake Asphalt Operating Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax Trinidad (1945 AC 1) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Court, Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1),14(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1954, decision dated: 20-04-1955, hearing DATE : 30th March 1955", + "Judge Name": "AKRAM, CORNELIUS AND SHARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmad, Senior Advocate Federal Court (Abdul Rashid, A. F. C. with him) instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney. Malik Muhammad Hussain, Senior Advocate Federal Court (Abdul Aziz, A. F. C. with him) instructed by Nazir ud Din", + "Party Name:": "RAMKOLA SUGAR MILLS & Co., LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N.W. F. PROVINCES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 434 = 1990 SLD 434 = (1990) 186 ITR 736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Agricultural Land\nTaxability of Capital Gains on Agricultural Lands in Notified Areas\n•\nConclusion:\nCapital gains arising from the sale of agricultural lands located in notified areas are taxable. The 1989 amendment to the Income Tax Act clarified this retrospectively.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCIT v. T.K. Sarala Devi (1987) 167 ITR 136 (Ker.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 61 OF 1987 AND 11 OF 1988, JUNE 18, 1990", + "Judge Name": "K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND D.J, JAGANNADHA RAJU, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nGeorge Varghese*" + }, + { + "Case No.": "446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 103 = 1960 SLD 103 = 1960 PTD 1008", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Business and Personal Use\nInitial Depreciation on Dual-Use Assets\n•\nConclusion:\nInitial depreciation for assets used for both business and private purposes is limited to a fair proportion reflecting business use, as per Section 10(3). The Tribunal’s allowance of full depreciation was erroneous.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi)(3) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 543 of 1958, decision dated: 18-04-1960", + "Judge Name": "RAMASWAMI, C, J., AND CHOUDHARY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Bahadur for the Commissioner. Narain Parsad and Harilal Agrawal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA\nvs\nSOBHARAM JOKHIRAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 104 = 1960 SLD 104 = 1960 PTD 1011", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty on Dissolved Partnership\nLiability for Penalty After Dissolution\n•\nConclusion:\n(i) Penalty imposed after the firm’s dissolution is illegal but enforceable until set aside.\n(ii) A partner taking over the business bears liabilities unless expressly excluded by dissolution agreements.\n(iii) Partners involved in willful wrongdoing cannot claim contribution for penalties from other partners.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nYegnanarayana v. Yagannadha Rao (1931) 34 LW 618 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 158 of 1956, decision dated: 24-09-1959", + "Judge Name": "SUBRAHMANYAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Sethuraman, S. Padmanabhan and K. R. Ramani. T. R. Srinivasan", + "Party Name:": "M. VEDACHALA MUDALIAR AND ANOTHER\nvs\nS. RANGARAJU NAIDU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 105 = 1960 SLD 105 = 1960 PTD 1036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Profits from Inter-Dominion Trade\nProfits from Purchase in Pakistan and Sale in India\n•\nConclusion:\n(i) Income from pre-partition purchase operations in Pakistan is assessable in Pakistan as a successor state to British India.\n(ii) Purchasing raw materials is integral to business operations, and profits attributable to this activity are taxable under Section 42(3).\n(iii) Clause 7(a) of the Inter-Dominion Agreement does not apply to goods subjected to a manufacturing process.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nChas J. Webbsons & Co. Inc., Philadelphia v. CIT, East Punjab (1950) 18 ITR 33", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,42(3) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 27 of 1953, decision dated: 17th June 1954", + "Judge Name": "AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Radhikaranjan Guha with A. Ahad for Petitioner. K. B. Muhammad Ismail with Ruhul Amin for Opposite Party", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 106 = 1960 SLD 106 = 1960 PTD 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Post-Firm Dissolution\nValidity of Reopened Assessment Under Section 34\n•\nConclusion:\nOnce an Income Tax Officer has completed an assessment and becomes functus officio, reopening the assessment is only valid under Section 34. If Section 34 applies, proper notice is mandatory. Assessing dissolved firms without adhering to these principles is invalid.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nSir Rajendranath Mukerjee v. CIT (1934) 1 ITR 71.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 10 of 1947, decision dated: 23rd May 1951", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., AND KAYANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Fazal Din Muhammad Hasan", + "Party Name:": "ESTATE OF R. B. L. JAIKISHAN DAS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 107 = 1960 SLD 107 = 1960 PTD 1045", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to Refer by Tribunal\nLimitation for High Court Application\n•\nConclusion:\n(a) When the Tribunal refuses to refer a question of law to the High Court, the limitation period for applying to the High Court begins from the assessee’s knowledge of the refusal, provided the notice of refusal was not served according to law.\n(b) Whether an assessee visiting British India for supervising property construction qualifies as resident is a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),4A(b),4B(e) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 1950, decision dated: 27th January 1951", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Fazal Din and Abdul Hamid Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Sheikh Allah Bakhsh", + "Party Name:": "BADSHAH MUHAMMAD€¢SARDAR MUHAMMAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 108 = 1960 SLD 108 = 1960 PTD 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income\nLeasing Wasteland for Refugee Housing\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome from leasing wasteland for housing refugees, including salami and rent, is not agricultural income. Such receipts are taxable as income, not exempt under agricultural provisions.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nMustafa Ali Khan v. CIT, 1960 PTD 940 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(1),4(3)(viii) ", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "AKRAM, C, J. AND AMIR UD DIN AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashraf ud Din Chawdhury, Advocate General for Applicant. A. K. Fazlul Haq and A. M. Sayem", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGAL MUFASSIL\nvs\nBURDHAN KUTI WARDS ESTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 109 = 1960 SLD 109 = 1960 PTD 1052", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Government Disputes\nIncome Tax and Federal/Provincial Disputes\n•\nConclusion:\n(a) Disputes involving the Federation and a Province on tax liability fall exclusively under the Federal Court's jurisdiction, overriding the Income-tax Act.\n(b) A Provincial Government is not an association of persons under the Income-tax Act and cannot be taxed unless specific legislation allows it.\n(c) Section 67 of the Income-tax Act does not bar a civil suit when there is complete absence of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Court, Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=67 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9,14 Government of India Act, 1935=204 ", + "Case #": "Original Suit No. 2 of 1952, decision dated: 8th November 1955", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., AKRAM, SHAHABUDDIN, CORNELIUS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. R. Changez, Advocate General of West Pakistan (Mushtaq Husain Khan with him) instructed by Zia-ud-Din, Attorney for Plaintiff. Faiyaz Ali, Advocate General of Pakistan (Abdul Aziz with him) instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney for Defendant", + "Party Name:": "THE PUNJAB PROVINCE\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 110 = 1960 SLD 110 = 1960 PTD 1064 = 1960 SCC 93 = 1960 PLD 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Managing Agency Remuneration\nTaxability of Remuneration Accruing in Pakistan\n•\nConclusion:\nManaging agency remuneration is taxable where the business operations occur, even if income accounting is done outside Pakistan. The connection between the managing agent and the businesses constitutes a business connection under Section 42(1).\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nSteel Brothers’ Case, 19 ITR 435 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(1),49AA,66(1),66A(1),66(1),4A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5 D and 6 D of 1960, decision dated: 31st May 1960", + "Judge Name": "A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. S. Suhrawardy, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Meser Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Nurul Haq, Attorney. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. M. Khan Chowdhury, Attorneys", + "Party Name:": "OCTAVIUS STEEL & COMPANY, LTD.\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 111 = 1960 SLD 111 = 1960 PTD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Approval by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner\nAuthority to Modify Penalty\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has authority to approve, modify, or enhance a penalty recommendation made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28(6). No illegality arises from such modifications.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28(6) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Case No. 9 of 1958, decision dated: 18th December 1958", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMED, C, J. AND CHAKRABORTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and A. M. Khan Chowdhury for Applicant. M. H. Khandkar and Dalil-ud-Din Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA\nvs\nSATISH CHANDRA BHOWMIK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 112 = 1960 SLD 112 = 1960 PTD 1079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Invalid Returns\nReturn Without Financial Statements\n•\nConclusion:\nFiling an incomplete return (e.g., without a profit and loss account) does not invalidate the return. The Income-tax Officer must issue a notice under Section 23(2) before making a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4).", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22(2),23(2),23(4),66 ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 2 of 1949, decision dated: 16th March 1950", + "Judge Name": "AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND IBRAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. K. Fazlul Haq and Shams-ud-Din Ahmad for the Assessee. Radhika Ranjan Guha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GOPINATH BISWAMBAR ROY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 113 = 1960 SLD 113 = 1960 PTD 1086", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax in Liquidation\nJurisdiction of Liquidation Court\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome-tax claims against a company in liquidation must follow the procedures outlined in the Income-tax Act. The liquidation court cannot go behind valid assessments by tax authorities.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nRaleigh Investment Co. v. Governor-General-in-Council (AIR 1947 PC 78) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,29,67 Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=218,228 ", + "Case #": "Civil Original Cases Nos. 17 and 19 of 1952 and 11 of 1953, Reference answered on 5-06-1954", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. R. KAYANI, SHABIR AHMAD AND M.A. SOOFI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "(1) RAVI PAINT COLOUR & VARNISH WORKS LTD.\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Commissioner of Income Tax LahorE\nCivil Original Cases Nos. 19 of 1952 and 11 of 1953\n(2) THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, PINDIKASHMIR TRANSPORT Co., LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 114 = 1960 SLD 114 = 1960 PTD 1103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Priority of Tax Claims\nTax Claims in Company Liquidation\n•\nConclusion:\nTax claims assessed after a company enters liquidation are not granted priority under Section 230 of the Companies Act. Only pre-winding-up liabilities are prioritized.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nDurga Parsad Chamaria (AIR 1945 PC 62) rel", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=29,45 Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=230 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 1949, decision dated: 25th/30th September 1953", + "Judge Name": "INAMULLAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "W. Lobo for the Creditors. A. Aziz for the Income tax Department", + "Party Name:": "W. Lobo for the Creditors. A. Aziz for the Income Tax Department\nEXCHANGE BANK OF INDIA & AFRICA LTD., In re" + }, + { + "Case No.": "458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 115 = 1960 SLD 115 = 1960 PTD 1107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims Post-Succession\nLimitation for Refund Claims\n•\nConclusion:\nRefund claims under Section 25(4) must be filed within one year of succession to business. The Income-tax Act’s specific time limits override general provisions.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nMeyappa Chettiar v. CIT, 11 ITR 247 dist.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25(4)(5),48(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No. 9 of 1948, decision dated: 11th June 1951", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J. AND M. R. KAYANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Hussain. Nemo for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "THAKAR DASCHELA RAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N. W. F. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 116 = 1960 SLD 116 = 1960 PTD 1116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Income\nTaxability of Charitable Accounts\n•\nConclusion:\nPlacing amounts in an account labeled as charity, without defining its nature, trustee, or beneficiary, does not establish a charitable trust. Income from such accounts is taxable.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nRanchordas v. Parvatibai (7 Sar. 543 PC) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(i) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 110 of 1944, decision dated: 15th January 1948", + "Judge Name": "O SULLIVAN AND THADANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKALECHAND MOTI RAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 117 = 1960 SLD 117 = 1960 PTD 1119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice to Surviving Partner\nService of Notice Post-Partner’s Death\n•\nConclusion:\nIf a partnership dissolves upon a partner’s death and no provision allows the surviving partner to continue the business, serving a notice on the surviving partner does not constitute valid service for the dissolved partnership.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No. 6 of 1956, decision dated: 20-03-1957", + "Judge Name": "AMIN AHMAD, C, J. AND CHAKRABORTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with Abdul Matin Khan Chaudhury for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 118 = 1960 SLD 118 = 1960 PTD 1121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Currency Devaluation Loss\nDeduction for Devaluation Loss\n•\nConclusion:\nLosses from currency devaluation are not deductible unless there is a legal obligation to pay liabilities in the devalued currency. Section 10(2) allows only statutory deductions, unlike the broader English Income-tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi),10(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Cases Nos. 4 and 5 of 1960, decision dated: 9-05-1960. dates of hearing 27th and 28th April 1960", + "Judge Name": "AKBAR AND SIDDIKY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "E. F. Aragon with S. M. Hussain for Applicant. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and Abdul Matin Khan Choudhury", + "Party Name:": "THE RAJNAGAR TEA Co., LTD., CALCUTTA\nvs\nTHE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nAND\nTHE NEW SAMANBAGH TEA Co., LTD., CALCUTTA\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 119 = 1960 SLD 119 = 1960 PTD 1022", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Relinquishment of Partnership Rights\nIncome vs. Capital\n•\nConclusion:\nCompensation received by a partner for relinquishing all rights in a partnership is considered a loss of a capital asset, not a trading receipt.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nRangaswami Naidu v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 711 rel.\n•\nQuestion Referred:\n Whether the sum of Rs. 31,000 received by the assessee represents profit or capital gain? ", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Referred Case No. 38 of 1955, decision dated: 23rd February, 1960", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Sharf-ud-Din for the Assessee. C. S. Rama Rao Sahib and S. Ranganathan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "A. K. SHARFUDDIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 120 = 1960 SLD 120 = 1960 PTD 1125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Un-appropriated Profits as Reserve\nBusiness Profits Tax Act – Reserve\n•\nConclusion:\nUn-appropriated profit balances carried forward in the profit and loss account do not qualify as reserve under Schedule II of the Business Profits Tax Act unless specifically set apart for a purpose by the authorized body of the company.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCIT v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=Sch.II,r.2(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 21 of 1953, decision dated: 2nd August 1954", + "Judge Name": "AHMAD AND RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. R. Banerjee with Pankaj Coomar Ghosh. K. B. Muhammad Ismail with Ruhul Islam", + "Party Name:": "Reference Case No. 21 of 1953, decided on 2nd August 1954\nR. SIM & Co. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 121 = 1960 SLD 121 = 1960 PTD 1128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal on Tribunal Refusal to State a Case\nHigh Court and Federal Court Appeals\n•\nConclusion:\nAn order by the High Court refusing to direct the Tribunal to state a case under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act is appealable to a higher court. This ensures that errors of law in such refusals can be reviewed.\n•\nKey Observations:\no\nPer Kaikaus, J.: The absence of express exclusion of appeals in Section 66-A suggests appeal rights remain intact.\no\nPer Akhlaque Husain, J.: Refusal by the High Court under Section 66(2) constitutes a final order, appealable under general provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),66A(2) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=109,110,O.XLV,r.2. ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 19C to 22C of 1954, decision dated: 2nd July 1954", + "Judge Name": "B. Z. KAIKAUS AND AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Allah Din Malik. Muhammad Husain Malik", + "Party Name:": "KHUSHABNOWSHERA BUS SERVICE LTD., KHUSHAB\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N.W. F. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 122 = 1960 SLD 122 = 1960 PTD 1147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Residence\nControl and Management of Affairs\n•\nConclusion:\nAn HUF is not considered resident in British India merely because its members are partners in businesses operating within the taxable territories. For residence, the control and management of the HUF's affairs must de facto occur within the taxable territories.\n•\nJudgment Split:\no\nMajority (S.K. Das and Kapur, JJ.): The businesses were partnerships managed individually, not affairs of the HUF.\no\nDissent (Hidayatullah, J.): Partnership activities by HUF members were inherently connected to HUF affairs, constituting control and management.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4A(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 788 of 1957, decision dated: 21st April 1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS, KAPUT AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (R. Ganapathy Iyer and D. Gupta with him). R. J. Kolah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY\nvs\nNANDLAL GANDALAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 123 = 1960 SLD 123 = 1960 PTD 1161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bank Treasurer’s Income\nSalary vs. Business Income\n•\nConclusion:\nThe income received by a bank treasurer, who is under significant control and supervision by the bank, is classified as salary under Section 7, not business income. Additionally, it is treated as personal income and not HUF income unless tied to family contributions.\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nDharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (1957) applied.\no\nPiyarelal Adishwarlal v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 394 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1957, decision dated: 26th April 1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. V. Viswanatha Sastri (S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra with him). C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (R. Ganapathy Iyer and D. Gupta with him)", + "Party Name:": "PIYARE LAL ADISHWAR LAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 124 = 1960 SLD 124 = 1960 PTD 1169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Successor’s Tax Liability\nSuccession, Assessment, and Re-assessment\n•\nConclusions:\n1.\nAssessment of a dissolved company is invalid if the entity ceases to exist prior to the assessment.\n2.\nThe successor can be assessed for the predecessor’s profits but not for capital gains unless specifically allowed.\n3.\nSale proceeds from liquidation are treated as a closing-down sale, not ongoing business income.\n4.\nCapital gains are distinct from profits and gains of business and cannot be taxed under Section 26(2).\n•\nKey Case Law:\no\nCIT v. Ramaswamy Ayyangar (1943) 11 ITR 610 rel.\no\nLiquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 265 rel.\no\nMannalal Modi v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 30 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii),12B,23,26(2),34,22(2) ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 11 of 1955, decision dated: 1st March 1960", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. S. Rama Rao Sahib and S. Ranganathan for the Commissioner. R. Venkataraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS/BOMBAY\nvs\nEXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 125 = 1960 SLD 125 = 1960 PTD 1194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership and Benami Transactions\n(a) Partnership - Real vs. Sham Partnership\n•\nConclusion:\nPartnerships must be assessed based on the real relationship created by the initial agreement, not subsequent events. A partnership created solely to avoid income tax is not considered genuine.\n•\nKey Section: Partnership Act, Sections 4 & 6.\n(b–k) Benami Transactions\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe burden of proof lies on the party asserting a benami transaction.\no\nThe source of the purchase money, motives, and possession are relevant but not conclusive tests.\no\nDoctrine of advancement does not apply in Pakistan; purchases by a husband in a wife's name may create a resulting trust unless contrary intent is proven.\no\nSubsequent possession or documents held by the wife are insufficient evidence to prove a gift.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Partnership Act, 1932=4,6 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 365 of 1956, decision dated: 3rd June 1960. dates of hearing : 18th February 1960; 14th & 22nd April 1960", + "Judge Name": "A. S. FARUQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sharif-ud-Din for Plaintiff. Fakhr-ud-Din for Defendant", + "Party Name:": "ISMAIL DADA ADAM SOOMAR--Plaintiff\nvs\nSHORAT BANOO--Defendant" + }, + { + "Case No.": "469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 126 = 1960 SLD 126 = 1960 PTD 1217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Discretion\n(a) Similarity of Sections Across Acts\n•\nConclusion:\nThe language of Sections 27 and 33(2-A) of the Income-tax Act is similar to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Decisions regarding sufficient cause for delay involve judicial discretion but must adhere to established principles of law.\n(b) Discretion and Delay\n•\nConclusion:\nInstructions from superior officers to delay appeal filing are not sufficient explanations. Each day of delay beyond limitation must be explained.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 5 of 1949, decision dated: 14th June 1951", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J AND M. R. KAYANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Akbar Ali for Petitioners. Muhammad Hussain", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BOMBAY CLOTH HOUSE LAHORE\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 127 = 1960 SLD 127 = 1960 PTD 1235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Apportionment of Profits\n(a) Income Tax Act, Section 42(3)\n•\nConclusion:\nProfits from goods manufactured outside British India and sold within must be apportioned if the sales are conducted through a business connection in British India.\n(b–d) Excess Profits Tax Act and Questions of Law\n•\nConclusion:\no\nWhether profits are received in British India is a question of law, particularly if the Tribunal's findings lack supporting material.\no\nExcess Profits Tax Act only applies to profits accruing in British India.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1)(c),42(3),66(1) Excess Profits Tax Act, (XV of 1940)=5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 8 of 1948, decision dated: 19-06-1951", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J. AND M. R. KAYANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. C. David for Petitioner. Muhammad Hussain", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SIR WILLIAM ROBERTS TIMBER Co. LTD, BARAMULA KASHMIR STATE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N.W.F.P ROVINCES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 128 = 1960 SLD 128 = 1960 PTD 1250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Time-Limited Applications\n(a) Tribunal's Jurisdiction\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal can only refer questions raised during its proceedings.\n(b) High Court and Tribunal's Authority\n•\nConclusion:\nNeither the Tribunal nor the High Court has the authority to condone delays in reference applications under Section 66(1).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,33(4),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 581 of 1946, decision dated: 27th June 1950", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J. AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Yaqub Ali Khan for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Hussain", + "Party Name:": "R. S. Munshi GULAB SINGH & SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 129 = 1960 SLD 129 = 1960 PTD 1253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay\n(a) Delay in Applications to the Tribunal\n•\nConclusion:\nDelay in filing applications under Section 66(1) cannot be condoned. However, a rebuttable presumption exists under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act regarding notice receipt. In this case, delay caused by improper receipt of notice was condoned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) General Clauses Act, 1897=27 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 363 of 1953, decision dated: 18th February 1955", + "Judge Name": "AKHLAQUE HUSAIN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. D. Malik for Petitioners. Malik Muhammad Hussain", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH & SONS, LAHOREs\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 130 = 1960 SLD 130 = 1960 PTD 1256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business vs. Capital Expenditure\n(a) Deduction of Lease Payments\n•\nConclusion:\nPayments for long-term rights to extract resources are capital expenditures, not revenue expenses, and hence not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1955, decision dated: 26-04-1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala (R. Ganapathy Iyer with him). H. N. Sanyal Additional Solicitor General of India (H. J. Umrigar D. Gupta with him)", + "Party Name:": "PINGLE INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 131 = 1960 SLD 131 = 1960 PTD 1279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applications by Post\n(a) Limitation for Reference Applications\n•\nConclusion:\nApplications sent by post and received after the deadline are barred under mandatory provisions of Rule 7(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) ", + "Case #": "S. J. C. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1956, decision dated: 11-04-1960", + "Judge Name": "NARASIMHAM, C, J., BARMAN AND MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. Bhuyan for Petitioner. R. N. Misra for Opposite Party", + "Party Name:": "GOVINDA CHOWDHURY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 132 = 1960 SLD 132 = 1960 PTD 1290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Profits and Losses Across Jurisdictions\n(a) Business Profits Tax Act, Section 5\n•\nConclusion:\nLosses incurred in non-taxable jurisdictions (e.g., princely states) must be considered in computing profits under the Business Profits Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=5,3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal. No. 304 of 1958, decision dated: 28th April 1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. K. Daphtary (Solicitor General of India) and K. N. Rajago al Sastri (D. Gupta with them). N. A. Palkhiwala (S. N. Andley with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD\nvs\nKARAMCHAND PREMCHAND, LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 133 = 1960 SLD 133 = 1960 PTD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income\n(a) Commission and Accrual\n•\nConclusion:\nIncome from managing agency commission accrues only at the end of the accounting year when the accounts are approved. Income does not accrue at the time of individual sales transactions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1959, decision dated: 3rd May, 1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Kolah, Dwarkadas, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri (D. Gupta with him)", + "Party Name:": "COTTON AGENTS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 134 = 1960 SLD 134 = 1960 PTD 1322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment Based on Supreme Court Rulings\n(a) Supreme Court Decisions as Information\n•\nConclusion:\nA Supreme Court ruling overruling a prior High Court decision constitutes information justifying re-assessment under Section 34(1)(b).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Matter No. 228 of 1958, decision dated: 26th November 1959", + "Judge Name": "SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MOOLJEE SICKA & Co\nvs\nSECOND ADDITIONAL Income Tax OFFICER, V(I) AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 135 = 1960 SLD 135 = 1960 PTD 1328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Successor Officer’s Authority\n(a) Penalty Proceedings by Successor Officers\n•\nConclusion:\nSuccessor officers may pass penalty orders, but they must provide fresh opportunities for hearings to ensure compliance with Section 28(3).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=5(7C),28(1)(c),(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 50 of 1956, decision dated: 18th February 1960", + "Judge Name": "LAHIRI, C, J AND BACHAWAT, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nirmal Kumar Mukherjea and Atindra Kumar Mitter for the Assessee. E. R. Meyer with Balai L. Pal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CALCUTTA TANNERIES (1944) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 136 = 1960 SLD 136 = 1960 PTD 1333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dissolved Partnerships\n(a) Assessment of Dissolved Firms\n•\nConclusion:\nAssessments can be made on dissolved partnerships under Section 44 (pre-1958 amendment), provided notices are addressed to former partners.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44,34 ", + "Case #": "Matter No. 190 of 1958, decision dated: 27th April 1959", + "Judge Name": "D. N. SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SHIVRAM PODDAR\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CALCUTTA, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 137 = 1960 SLD 137 = 1960 PTD 1340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undistributed Profits and Re-assessment\n(a) Time Limit for Re-assessment\n•\nConclusion:\nRe-assessment notices issued beyond four years from the relevant assessment year are invalid, even if triggered by a Section 23-A order.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A,34(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 886 of 1957, decision dated: 16-03-1960", + "Judge Name": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Venkatram and S. Ramamurthi for Petitioner. C. S. Rama Rao Sahib and S. Ranganathan", + "Party Name:": "S. SEETHAI ACHI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COIMBATORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 138 = 1960 SLD 138 = 1960 PTD 1344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Settlement and Transfer of Assets\nKey Issue:\nUnder Section 16(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, whether income from assets transferred by a settlor to a trust for the benefit of his wife, children, and mother should be included in his income.\nConclusion:\nOnly the portion of income reserved for the wife and minor children from the transferred assets is includable in the settlor’s income. In this case, three-fourths of the trust income reserved for the wife and children was includable.\nCase Referred: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohamed Yusuf Ismail (1944).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 14 of 1957, decision dated: 8th February 1960", + "Judge Name": "LAHIRI C, J. AND MITTER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "BAIDYA NATH DE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 139 = 1960 SLD 139 = 1960 PTD 1347 = (1961) 3 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Notices\n(a) Delayed Service of Notices\n•\nConclusion:\nNotices drafted before the end of the assessment year but served after its expiry are valid.\n(b) Service on an Employee\n•\nConclusion:\nService of notice under Section 34 on an employee is ineffective unless the employee is authorized to receive it. The fact that the notice eventually reached the authorized recipient does not cure the defect.\nCase Referred: Muhammad Idrees Barry & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,63(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 190 of 1957, decision dated: 13th October 1960, hearing DATE : 5-10-1960", + "Judge Name": "QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, AND I. B. KHAMISANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dingomal N. Ramchandani. A. Aziz", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS S. H. MAHMOOD & Co.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 140 = 1960 SLD 140 = 1960 PTD 1357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax on Excess Dividend\nKey Issue:\nValidity of additional tax on dividends distributed in excess of limits specified under the Finance Act, 1951.\nConclusion:\nThe additional tax is invalid as it was not properly laid on the total income of the previous year, violating Section 3 of the Income-tax Act.\nCase Referred: Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1958, decision dated: 4-05-1960", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DAS, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Rajagopal Sastri (D. Gupta with him). N. A. Palkhiwala (S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY CITY I\nvs\nKHATAU MAKANJI SPINNING AND WEAVING Co., LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 141 = 1960 SLD 141 = 1960 PTD 1362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Interest Paid by Partners\nKey Issue:\nWhether partners can deduct interest on capital borrowed for partnership business from their share of profits.\nConclusion:\nPartners can claim such deductions under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.\nCase Referred: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chitnavis (1932).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),23(5) ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 26 of 1958, decision dated: 18-02-1960", + "Judge Name": "CHANDRA REDDY, C, J., AND NARASIMHAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C. Kundaiah for the Commissioner. Advocate General and M. J. Swamy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH\nvs\nPARVATHANENI CHANDRASEKHARA RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 142 = 1960 SLD 142 = 1960 PTD 1366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers and Writ Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nThe nature of orders under Section 33-A of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nService of notice by affixture.\n•\nDiscretion in tax collection during appeal.\nConclusions:\n1.\nOrders under Section 33-A are administrative, not judicial, and cannot be quashed by writs of certiorari.\n2.\nSubstituted service by affixture is valid.\n3.\nOfficers must exercise discretion in tax collection reasonably during appeals.\nCases Referred: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust (1948).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=29,33A,45,63 ", + "Case #": "W. A. Nos. 100 to 103 of 1958, decision dated: 24-02-1960", + "Judge Name": "CHANDRA REDDY, C, J. AND NARASIMHAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C. Kondaiahs. A. Bhujanga Rao and R. Ramalinga Reddy", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL Income Tax OFFICER, CUDDAPAH AND ANOTHER\nvs\nCUDDAPAH STAR TRANSPORT Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 143 = 1960 SLD 143 = 1960 PTD 1375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss from Embezzlement\nKey Issue:\nTiming of loss recognition for embezzlement.\nConclusion:\nLosses from embezzlement are deductible only when they are actual and irrecoverable, determined by case-specific facts.\nCase Referred: Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 72 of 1957, decision dated: 22nd April 1960", + "Judge Name": "S. T. DESAI AND V. S. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Kolah with D. H. Dwarkadas for the Assessee. G. N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED BANKING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITYI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 144 = 1960 SLD 144 = 1960 PTD 1385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutionality and Reassessment\nKey Issues:\n•\nConstitutionality of Section 34(1-A) for past income reassessment.\n•\nApplicability of appeal and reference provisions.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSection 34(1-A) does not violate Article 14 as it serves a specific purpose with reasonable classification.\n2.\nReassessment proceedings comply with principles of natural justice.\nCase Referred: Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Viswanatha Sastri (1954).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23,31,33,34(1),(1A),37,66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writs Nos. 397 and 469 of 1955, decision dated: 15th May 1959", + "Judge Name": "BHARGAVA, CHATURVEDI AND UPADHYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Pathak, G. P. Tandon and R. S. Pathak for Petitioner. J. Swarup and Gopal Behari for Opposite Parties", + "Party Name:": "JAI KISHAN SRIVASTAVA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, KANPUR, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 1 = 1982 SLD 1 = 1982 PTD 1 = (1982) 45 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "False Declarations and Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nImpact of declarations under MLR 32 on pending departmental appeals.\n•\nHigh Court’s obligation in references under the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusions:\n1.\nAppeals dismissed due to declarations under MLR 32 are justified.\n2.\nThe High Court can only answer questions explicitly referred by the Tribunal.\nCases Referred: Messrs Perfume Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,66 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 35 of 1970 and S. T. C. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1971, decision dated: 23rd April 1981", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND G. M. KOUREJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nCRESCENT PAK SOAP & OILS MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 2 = 1982 SLD 2 = 1982 PTD 5 = (1982) 45 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Statutory Interpretation\nKey Issue:\nReconciliation of Sections 15AA and 16 regarding income exemptions.\nConclusion:\nExemptions under Section 15AA apply to both income tax and super tax. The total income includes exempt investments but excludes them when calculating taxable amounts.\nCase Referred: Messrs Perfume Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15A,16 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1626, 1627 and 1628 of 1979 80, decision dated: 28-07-1981, hearing DATE : 6-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. E. Naeem. Humayun Akhtar D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 3 = 1982 SLD 3 = 1982 PTD 6 = (1982) 45 TAX 2", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Technical Errors\nKey Issues:\n•\nScrutiny of cases under the self-assessment scheme.\n•\nImpact of technical errors in issuing notices.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDetailed scrutiny by the Central Board of Revenue does not require definite information. \n2.\nTechnical errors in notices do not invalidate proceedings if corrected appropriately.\nCase Referred: Tariq Transport Company Lahore v. The Sargodha Bhera Bus Service.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),61,65(1)(c),65(1)(c)(2),65(1)(c)(4),155 Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)=9 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2835 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1981, decision dated: 8-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: M. Lateef Shahid\nRespondent(s) by: Syed Iftekhar Ahmad Deputy Attorney General", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MERAJ SONS CONTRACTORS\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CONTRACTOR CIRCLE II ZONE A, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 4 = 1982 SLD 4 = 1982 PTD 10 = (1982) 46 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Reserve as Admissible Allowance\nKey Issue:\nWhether creating a reserve for future gratuity payments qualifies as admissible expenditure under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nConclusion:\nA provision for future gratuity payments does not qualify as incurred expenditure under Section 10 since the creation of such a reserve is not mandated by law and the funds remain under the employer's control. Expenditure must be actually paid or incurred.\nCases Referred: M. M. S. M. (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 609 and 610/KB of 1976-77, decision dated: 18-01-1978", + "Judge Name": "A. A. DARESHANI. PRESIDENT, MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Khan D. R.. I N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 5 = 1982 SLD 5 = 1982 PTD 35 = (1982) 45 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Enhanced Self-Assessment\nKey Issue:\nWhether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) acted correctly in enhancing an assessee’s self-assessment without issuing the required notice.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal rightly directed the ITO to reassess under Section 23(1) instead of Section 23(3), as no notice was issued under Rule 46 for correcting mistakes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1)(3),46 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 11 of 1973, decision dated: 24-06-1980", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA\nvs\nALAUDDIN & BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 6 = 1982 SLD 6 = 1982 PTD 36 = (1982) 45 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reassessment of Rental Income\nKey Issue:\nLegality of Inspecting Joint Commissioner (IJC) ordering reassessment due to suspected subletting arrangements involving a third-party firm.\nConclusion:\nThe IJC acted within his authority to direct reassessment, doubting the genuineness of subletting arrangements. His wide powers justified fresh assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34A ", + "Case #": "Application No. 28 of 1978, decision dated: 4-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Hossain with A. M. Mahmudur Rahman. Habibul Islam Bhuiyan,", + "Party Name:": "MRS. ZEBUNESSA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES, DACCA ZONE, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 7 = 1982 SLD 7 = 1982 PTD 37 = (1982) 45 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Subsequent Information\nKey Issue:\nReopening assessments where deductions for grants were previously allowed without proper scrutiny.\nConclusion:\nThe reassessment was valid as the Income-tax Officer acted on new information and not a mere change of opinion.\nCases Referred: Alleppy Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 26 of 1977, decision dated: 6-06-1978", + "Judge Name": "V. P. GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, C, J. AND M. P. MENON, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner. K. P. Radhakrishna Menon for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nvs\nKERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 8 = 1982 SLD 8 = 1982 PTD 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Speculative Cotton Transactions\nKey Issue:\nWhether profits from speculative cotton transactions qualify as taxable business income.\nConclusion:\nSuch transactions are taxable as they constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The income is neither casual nor non-recurring.\nCases Referred: (1939) 7 ITR 470.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii),2(4) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 378 of 1976-77", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Muhammad Hafeez. Ali Raza Masood Qazalbash, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 9 = 1982 SLD 9 = 1982 PTD 43 = (1981) 44 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Written Down Value\nKey Issue:\nApplicability of depreciation on assets acquired before the previous year.\nConclusion:\nDepreciation should be based on written-down value, which is the actual cost less all depreciation allowed previously.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi),10(5) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A.s Nos. 1537; KB and 1538/KB, 1431/KB and 1432/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 16-07-1981. DATE of bearing ; 19-04-1981", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Hahib Ahmad. Yousuf Shraih D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 10 = 1982 SLD 10 = 1982 PTD 46 = (1982) 45 TAX 263 = 1990 PTCL 954 = 1982 PLD 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Income-Tax Act in Tribal Areas\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether the Income-tax Act applies to Tribal Areas like Swat during specific assessment years.\n2.\nTaxability of income from Tribal Areas.\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Act did not apply to Swat during the relevant years as no directive was issued by the Governor.\n2.\nResidents of taxable areas are liable for income accruing from Tribal Areas, but non-residents are exempt.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=1(2),4,4B Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=223,242 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Cases Nos. 68 and 69 of 1971, 782 of 1972 and 162 of 1974, decision dated: 23rd December, 1981, hearing DATE : 10-12-1981", + "Judge Name": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Haji IBRAHIM ISHAQ JOHRI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 11 = 1982 SLD 11 = 1982 PTD 47 = (1982) 46 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers of Commissioner\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether the Commissioner can revise orders under appeal.\n2.\nEstoppel in revising sales estimates.\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Commissioner cannot revise orders under appeal, whether filed by the assessee or the Department.\n2.\nThe Department waived its right to contest sales estimates by not appealing.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33A(2),(c),33(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1979 80, decision dated: 27th May 1981, hearing DATE : 26-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Humayun Akhtar. Ilyas Zafar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 12 = 1982 SLD 12 = 1982 PTD 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Add-Backs and Penalty Orders\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAdd-backs for salary expenses.\n2.\nPenalty orders after appellate set-aside.\n3.\nShort notice for assessment.\nConclusions:\n1.\nManagement decisions on business operations cannot be dictated by the ITO.\n2.\nPenalty orders cannot survive appellate set-aside.\n3.\nNotice with inadequate time is invalid.\nCases Referred: (1963) 7 Taxation 110.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(4),23(2),23(3) ", + "Case #": "I: T. As. Nos. 1669 and 1670 of ,1969 70, decision dated: 11-11-1970", + "Judge Name": "M. TSIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND SALAHUDDIN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Fakhar ul Islam, P. T. S., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 13 = 1982 SLD 13 = 1982 PTD 52 = (1982) 46 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax Provisions in Estate Duty\nKey Issue:\nWhether provisions of the Gift Tax Act can influence assessments under the Estate Duty Act.\nConclusion:\nGift Tax provisions cannot apply under the Estate Duty Act. Tax imposition requires clear statutory language.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=4 ", + "Case #": "E. D. A. No. 5/KB of 1979 80, decision dated: 21st August, 1980, hearing DATE : 17-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Said-ud-Din. Shaukat Zaidi, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 14 = 1982 SLD 14 = 1982 PTD 53 = (1982) 45 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers of Commissioner\nKey Issue:\nCan a Commissioner grant relief during revision proceedings for claims not raised in initial assessment?\nConclusion:\nThe Commissioner can grant relief if evidence supporting the claim exists in the records.\nCase Referred: Ascharajlal Ram Parkash v. C.I.T. (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 39 of 1978, decision dated: 6-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "SATISH CHANDRA, C, J. AND H. N. SETH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SUBHASH CHANDRA SARVESH KUMAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 15 = 1982 SLD 15 = 1982 PTD 54 = (1982) 45 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Peak Credit Addition and Penalty\nKey Issue:\nAddition of peak credits and disallowance of related interest claims.\nConclusion:\nThe ITO was justified in adding peak credit amounts and disallowing interest claims due to incomplete proof.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "S. J. Cs. Nos. 112 and 113 of 1977, decision dated: 21st April, 1981", + "Judge Name": "R. N. MISRA, C, J. AND, J. K. MOHANTY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Pasayat for the Assessee. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SAHU & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 16 = 1982 SLD 16 = 1982 PTD 56 = (1982) 45 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Deduction for Co-Owned Property\nKey Issue:\nDeductibility of interest on individual loans for jointly owned property.\nConclusion:\nInterest on individual loans is deductible from the respective co-owner’s share of property income.\nCases Referred: C.I.T. v. Nauser K. Kanga (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 94 of 1:971, decision dated: 7-04-1981", + "Judge Name": "CHANDURKAR AND SAWANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with the V. C. Kotwal for the Commissioner. S. E. Dastur", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY\nvs\nABDULLAHBHAI M. MOONIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 17 = 1982 SLD 17 = 1982 PTD 58 = (1982) 46 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge Calculation\nKey Issue:\nMethod of calculating surcharge.\nConclusion:\nSurcharge is 10% of the income tax on the balance income after deducting amounts retained for working capital or capitalization.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1576/KB of 1979 80, decision dated: 25-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmed, D. R.. A. A. Gangat, C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 18 = 1982 SLD 18 = 1982 PTD 59 = (1982) 45 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Alimony\nKey Issue:\nLegality of reassessment proceedings on alimony disclosed during original assessment.\nConclusion:\nReassessment is invalid when complete details were disclosed during original assessment.\nCases Referred: Bankipur Club Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 46 and 47 of 1971, decision dated: 13th November 1979", + "Judge Name": "RANGANATHAN AND D. R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. L. Verma for Applicant. Balram Sangal with N. K. Rastogi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI\nvs\nM. K. Smt. PRATAP KUMARI OF ALWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 19 = 1982 SLD 19 = 1982 PTD 60 = (1982) 46 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreement in Assessment Proceedings\nKey Issues:\nValidity of an agreement between an assessee’s representative and the ITO.\nConclusion:\nAgreements by representatives without specific authority are invalid. Orders based on such agreements are without jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 438 and 439 of 1980 81, decision dated: 23rd June, 1982, hearing DATE : 13-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H, Razvi. Khalid Mahmood, A C, D R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 20 = 1982 SLD 20 = 1982 PTD 63 = (1982) 45 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest as Income\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of interest income after becoming a subsidiary of the debtor company.\nConclusion:\nInterest income remains taxable despite changes in corporate relationships.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 30 of 1971, decision dated: 12-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND D. R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. N. Kirpal and M. L. Verma for Petitioner. P. N. Monga", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI\nvs\nPUNJAB ELECTRICS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 21 = 1982 SLD 21 = 1982 PTD 66 = (1982) 45 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Personal Borrowings\nKey Issue:\nDeductibility of interest on loans for personal expenses.\nConclusion:\nSuch interest is not a business expense and cannot be deducted.\nCases Referred: Madhav Prasad Jatia v. C.I.T. (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 73 to 75 of 1974 and 62 of 1975, decision dated: 10-09-1979", + "Judge Name": "B. S. DHILLON AND, J. V. GUPTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. N. Awasthy with B. K. Jhingan for Applicant. H. L. Sibal with S. C. Sibal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AMRITSAR\nvs\nOM PARKASH BEHL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 22 = 1982 SLD 22 = 1982 PTD 67 = (1982) 46 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Undistributed Income\nKey Issue:\nApplicability of Section 23A after its repeal.\nConclusion:\nSection 23A remains applicable for assessment year 1971-72 despite its repeal. Tax on undistributed income requires explicit statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A,2(6c),2(15),3 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 772/KB of 1978 79, decision dated: 4-04-1982, hearing DATE : 11-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT, GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousaf Sharih, D. R.. I. N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 23 = 1982 SLD 23 = 1982 PTD 71 = (1982) 45 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment\nKey Issue:\nLevy of penalty for alleged concealment of purchase details.\nConclusion:\nPenalty is invalid when concealment is not proven, and no evidence of inflated expenses exists.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 110 of 1972, decision dated: 2-04-1980", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND MRS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. L. Verma with S. Mukherjee for the Commissioner. A. K. Srivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI II\nvs\nMEDIRATTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 24 = 1982 SLD 24 = 1982 PTD 73 = (1982) 45 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Limitation\nKey Issue:\nStart of limitation period for filing appeals to the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nThe limitation period starts from the date of notice served on the correct person", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5228 of 1978, decision dated: 20-06-1979", + "Judge Name": "C. KONDAIAH, C, J. AND P. A. CHOUDHRY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Y. B. Tata Rao for Petitioner.. Rama Raos", + "Party Name:": "JAYALAKSHMI CLOTH STORES\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, GUDIVADA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 25 = 1982 SLD 25 = 1982 PTD 77 = (1982) 45 TAX 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Sale Proclamation\nKey Issue:\nValidity of sale proclamation not in the district’s language.\nConclusion:\nSale proclamations must be in the district’s language; otherwise, they are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5435 of 1975, decision dated: 1st July, 1980", + "Judge Name": "K. A. SWAMI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. S. Padmarajaiah for Petitioner. S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy No. 3", + "Party Name:": "S. S. NAVALGI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 26 = 1982 SLD 26 = 1982 PTD 78 = (1982) 45 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Findings\nKey Issue:\nWhether Tribunal findings on excessive remuneration are questions of law or fact.\nConclusion:\nTribunal findings based on factual inferences are not questions of law.\nCases Referred: Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1957).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Cases Nos. 45, 46 and 47 of 1976, decision dated: 18-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "B. S. DHILLON AND M. R. SHARMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashok Bhan for the Assessee. DN Awasthy with B. K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AUTO PISTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 27 = 1982 SLD 27 = 1982 PTD 80 = (1982) 45 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure for Inquiry Expenses\nKey Issue:\nWhether expenses incurred in connection with a commission of inquiry into a company's administration are deductible as business expenditure.\nConclusion:\nExpenses incurred to protect the business and assets are deductible as business expenditure under Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nCases Referred: C.I.T. v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971), Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1967).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 69 of 1972, decision dated: 18-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. RANAGANATHAN AND MRS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bishambar Lal with D. N. Banerjee. P. N. Misra", + "Party Name:": "SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI (CENTRAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 28 = 1982 SLD 28 = 1982 PTD 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Receipts\nKey Issue:\nWhether the nature of a receipt, rather than its entry in books, determines its classification for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\nThe nature of a receipt as a trading receipt prevails over how it is recorded in the books.\nCases Referred: Chowringhee Sales Bureau (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 43 and 18 of 1976, decision dated: 5-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. P. GOYAL AND, J. V. GUPTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. P. Sawhney for the Assessee. D. N. Awasthy with B. K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KUNJPURA KILN Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 29 = 1982 SLD 29 = 1982 PTD 86 = (1982) 45 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Valuation Expenditure as Deduction\nKey Issue:\nWhether expenses incurred to revalue assets for improved financial presentation are deductible.\nConclusion:\nExpenses for revaluing existing assets are revenue in nature and deductible as they aim to enhance operational efficiency.\nCases Referred: India Cements Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1966).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 476 of 1972, decision dated: 21st July, 1980", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Bagchi with B. K. Naha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL\nvs\nASIATIC OXYGEN & ACETYLENE Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 30 = 1982 SLD 30 = 1982 PTD 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Information\nKey Issue:\nValidity of reassessment based on new information where an earlier claim was allowed routinely.\nConclusion:\nReassessment was valid as the subsequent officer acted on information obtained from appeal outcomes, justifying the reassessment.\nCases Referred: Alleppy Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 26 of 1977, decision dated: 6-06-1978", + "Judge Name": "V. P. GOPALAN NAMBIYAR C, J. AND M. P. MENON, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner. K P. Radhakrishna Menon for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 31 = 1982 SLD 31 = 1982 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Correction\nKey Issue:\nLegality of enhancing income without notifying the assessee.\nConclusion:\nEnhancement without issuing a notice is invalid; the original return should be accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1)(3) Income Tax Rules, 1922=46 ", + "Case #": "Application No. 11 of 1973, decision dated: 24-06-1980", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND SULTAN HUSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA\nvs\nALAUDDIN & BROS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 32 = 1982 SLD 32 = 1982 PTD 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wide Powers of Inspecting Joint Commissioner\nKey Issue:\nScope of powers to order reassessment and enhancement of income.\nConclusion:\nThe IJC possesses wide powers to pass orders, including directing reassessment when subletting arrangements appear questionable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34A ", + "Case #": "Application No. 28 of 1978, decision dated: 4-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND SULTAN HUSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A S. M. Hossain with A. M. Mahmudur Rahman for Applicant. Habibul Islam Bhuiyan", + "Party Name:": "MRS. ZEBUNESSA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES, DACCA ZONE, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 33 = 1982 SLD 33 = 1982 PTD 105 = (1982) 45 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Findings on Sufficient Material\nKey Issue:\nWhether a Tribunal’s finding on the sufficiency of material for reassessment raises a question of law.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s finding is a question of fact and conclusive, not subject to legal review.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Application No. 5 of 1977, decision dated: 22-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, CHITTAGONG ZONE, CHITTAGONG\nvs\nA. G. TRADING Co., LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 34 = 1982 SLD 34 = 1982 PTD 106 = (1982) 45 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income from Horse Racing\nKey Issue:\nWhether unsubstantiated horse racing income can be taxed as undisclosed income.\nConclusion:\nUnverified claims and discrepancies in records justified treating the income as undisclosed.\nCases Referred: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. C.I.T. (1959).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4),3 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 99 of 1978, decision dated: 4-03-1981", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal, Pranab Kumar Pal, Manas Banerjee and Sidhartha Chattarjee,. Suhas Sen and Prabir Majumdar", + "Party Name:": "V. P. SAMTANI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 35 = 1982 SLD 35 = 1982 PTD 112 = (1982) 45 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Land Development as Business Venture\nKey Issue:\nWhether land development and resale constitute a business venture.\nConclusion:\nDeveloping and selling land indicates a business venture or adventure in trade.\nCases Referred: Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. C.I.T. (1961).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 87 of 1976 and 56 and 57 of 1978, decision dated: 2-03-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. P. GOYAL AND, J. V. GUPTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. C. Sharma with D. V. Sehgal, D. K. Gupta and E. D. Helms. D. N. Awasthy with B. K. Jhingan", + "Party Name:": "HARBANS SINGH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 36 = 1982 SLD 36 = 1982 PTD 116 = (1982) 46 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Ship\nKey Issue:\nDepreciation claim on a ship where seaworthiness is disputed.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision to deny depreciation based on lack of evidence was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),10(2)(iv),(v) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Application No. 67 of 1971, decision dated: 30th May 1981. dates of hearing : 30-04-7th and 14th May 1981", + "Judge Name": "G. M. KOUREJO AND MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar.Mansoor Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP Co. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 37 = 1982 SLD 37 = 1982 PTD 159 = (1982) 45 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Substituted Notice\nKey Issue:\nLegality of notice served by affixture after refusal to accept.\nConclusion:\nSubstituted service on firm premises was valid, even after reconstitution of the firm.\nCases Referred: C.I.T. v. Daulat Ram Khanna (1967).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,34(1)(a),63 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,r.20. ", + "Case #": "D. B. Income Tax Cases Nos. 12, 13, 25 and 31 of 1970, decision dated: 8-01-1980", + "Judge Name": "DWARKA PRASAD AND M. L. SHRIMAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Mehta for the Commissioner. Dr. M.M. Tiwari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nTIWARI JHUMAR LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 38 = 1982 SLD 38 = 1982 PTD 169 = (1982) 45 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Receipt from Non-Compete Compensation\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of compensation for agreeing not to engage in competitive business.\nConclusion:\nSuch compensation is a capital receipt and not liable to tax.\nCases Referred: C.I.T. v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 248 of 1975 (Reference No. 206 of 1975), decision dated: 3rd July, 1979", + "Judge Name": "SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner. M. Uttam Reddy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSARASWATHI PUBLICITIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 39 = 1982 SLD 39 = 1982 PTD 175 = (1982) 45 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in Nature of Trade\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of profits from land transactions by a company with diverse objectives.\nConclusion:\nFrequent sales of land indicated a trade venture, making the profits taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 76 of 1969, decision dated: 8-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGNATHAN AND MRS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Santosh Jain for the Assessee. P. N. Misra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JOINT FINANCIERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 40 = 1982 SLD 40 = 1982 PTD 177 = (1982) 45 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Firm’s Income\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of reassessment based on partners’ deposits.\n2.\nFiling of separate appeals by partners.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment based on deposits was valid.\n2.\nSeparate appeals by partners were impermissible.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,66,30 ", + "Case #": "Application No. 5 of 1974, decision dated: 16-06-1930", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HUSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Abdur Rouf for Applicant. H. I. Bhuiyan", + "Party Name:": "MD. LOCKMAN AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 41 = 1982 SLD 41 = 1982 PTD 179 = (1982) 45 TAX 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Set-Off for Same Business\nKey Issue:\nCarry-forward and set-off of losses in the same business across different management structures.\nConclusion:\nLosses can be set off if the business remains unchanged despite managerial changes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Applications Nos. 144 to 149 of 1972, decision dated: 2-06-1980", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HUSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan for Applicant. Rafiqul Huq with T. Islam and F. Huq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHITTAGONG ZONE\nvs\nSTERLING PLYWOOD PRODUCTS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 42 = 1982 SLD 42 = 1982 PTD 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounting Method\nKey Issues:\n1.\nChange in accounting method for specific items.\n2.\nBusiness profits assessable under Section 10.\nConclusions:\n1.\nChange in method for certain items was not allowed.\n2.\nStatutory corporations operating on business principles are assessable under Section 10.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(1),13,6, ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 12 of 1977, decision dated: 8-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Hossain with A. M. Mahmudur Rahman for Applicant. Habibul Islam Bhuiyan", + "Party Name:": "HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, DACCA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 43 = 1982 SLD 43 = 1982 PTD 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Cancellation\nKey Issue:\nPenalty imposition after assessment is reduced or annulled.\nConclusion:\nPenalties based on annulled or modified assessments cannot stand.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=29,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 178 of 1971, decision dated: 13-11-1975, hearing DATE : 4-07-1975", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Applicant. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nZAMIR & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 44 = 1982 SLD 44 = 1982 PTD 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Account Books\nKey Issue:\nAuthority to reject incomplete or unreliable accounts.\nConclusion:\nThe ITO can reject unreliable accounts under Section 13 and its proviso.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,13(3) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. Nos. 4 to 11 of 1973, decision dated: 26-02-1974", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND M. S. H. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javid Hashmi for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "NAZIR & COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 45 = 1982 SLD 45 = 1982 PTD 193 = (1982) 46 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excessive Assessment and Penalty\nKey Issue:\nValidity of penalty based on excessive assessments later modified by the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nOriginal demand modified by the Tribunal cannot form the basis for penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 94 and 95 of 1972, decision dated: 25-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMED SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUE AND G. M. KOUREJO, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Hyder Ali Pirzada for Applicant. Iqbal Pashas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nFATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 46 = 1982 SLD 46 = 1982 PTD 194 = (1982) 46 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Set-Off from Banking Business\nKey Issue:\nSet-off of losses from banking business against income from shares.\nConclusion:\nIncome from shares as trading assets qualifies for loss set-off.\nCases Referred: C.I.T. v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (1965).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 55 of 1971, decision dated: 10-02-1982", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasarullah Awan for Applicant.. Muhammad Hanif Khans", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS EASTERN BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 47 = 1982 SLD 47 = 1982 PTD 199 = (1982) 45 TAX 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change of Accounting Period\nKey Issue:\nAssessment of income for a period exceeding 12 months after a change in accounting period.\nConclusion:\nChange in accounting period without approval is invalid, and assessment cannot exceed 12 months.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(11)(m)(a) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 12 of 1978, decision dated: 29-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abu Taher Chowdhury for Applicants.Habibul Islam Bhuiyan", + "Party Name:": "ROUSHAN ARA BEGUM AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 48 = 1982 SLD 48 = 1982 PTD 200 = (1982) 46 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Business Reserves\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of reserves for unexpired risks.\n2.\nBinding force of CBR circulars.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReserves for unexpired risks cannot be treated as expenditure.\n2.\nCirculars not framed under statutory rules lack binding authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),(7),6(1),59(4),(5) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 22 of 1972, decision dated: 24-02-1982, hearing DATE : 4th February 1982", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant. Ali Athars", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 49 = 1982 SLD 49 = 1982 PTD 206 = (1982) 46 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firm and Academic Nature of Questions\nKey Issue:\nWhether a question on the genuineness of a firm should be entertained if the findings are concurrent and academic in nature.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court is not required to opine on academic questions when the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal have all concurred that the firm is not genuine.\nCases Referred:\nSir Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. CIT (1940), Messrs Odeon Cinema v. CIT (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),26A ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 22 of 1972, decision dated: 3rd March, 1982", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rochi Ram for Applicants. Khawaja Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SHAMBHUMAL HIRANAND & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 50 = 1982 SLD 50 = 1982 PTD 211 = (1982) 45 TAX 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospectivity of Finance Ordinance (1972)\nKey Issue:\nValidity of retrospective provisions inserted by a lapsed Finance Ordinance and the President's powers under the Interim Constitution.\nConclusion:\nSubsection (4AA) of Section 15BB could not be applied retrospectively to periods prior to December 20, 1971. The President's Order (P.O. 5 of 1972) could not validate provisions exceeding its retrospective limits.\nCases Referred:\nMst. Saeeda Begum v. GOP (1977), Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kruddsons Ltd. (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,15BB(4AA),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference/Income tax Cases Nos. 51, 55, etc. of 1972, decision dated: 25-1-1982. dates of hearing : 24th and 26-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND G. M. KOUREJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Munshi, Dy. A. G. and Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant. Ali Athar, Naseem Ahmed Khan, Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Muzaffar Hussain, Hyder Raza Naqvi, Mohsin Tayyabali, Naimur Rehman, Shah Hamid Sulaiman and Sirajul Haqs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nEBRAHIM D. AHMED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 51 = 1982 SLD 51 = 1982 PTD 235 = (1982) 45 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Invalid Notice for Reassessment\nKey Issue:\nLegality of reassessment notice issued without material evidence.\nConclusion:\nA notice for reopening assessment is invalid if the assessing officer lacks concrete material to believe that income escaped assessment.\nCases Referred:\nITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1974, decision dated: 22-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI AND S. B. WAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with D. K. Jain, Anoop Sharma and Madahar Rahendra for Petitioner. S. Mukherjees", + "Party Name:": "ASOKE KUMAR SEN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE V, NEW DELHI, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 52 = 1982 SLD 52 = 1982 PTD 238 = (1982) 45 TAX 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debts and Mercantile System of Accounting\nKey Issue:\nAssessability of bad debts under the mercantile system.\nConclusion:\nTribunal's finding that a loan was irrecoverable and interest had not accrued was justified, based on the evidence and financial state of the debtor.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Motor Credit Co. (1981), Soli Pestonji Majoo v. Gangadhar Khemka (1969).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 66 of 1978, decision dated: 28th July 1981", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND C. K BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Balm Pal with Prabir Majumdar for Petitioner. N. K. Poddar with R. N. Saha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL\nvs\nRAIGHARH JUTE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 53 = 1982 SLD 53 = 1982 PTD 241 = (1982) 45 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time of Income Accrual in Land Transactions\nKey Issue:\nWhether earnest money and part payments constitute taxable income before the sale deed is registered.\nConclusion:\nIncome accrues only upon the completion of the transaction and transfer of title, not at the time of receipt of earnest money or part payments.\nCases Referred:\nCalcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959), CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co. (1982).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 377 of 1977, decision dated: 21st and 22-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "M. P. THAKKAR AND R. C. MANKAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. N. Shelat with R. P. Bhatt of Messrs Bhatt & Co.. K. C. Patel", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nASHALAND CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 54 = 1982 SLD 54 = 1982 PTD 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospectivity and Dividend Exemptions\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLegislative power to retrospectively amend tax provisions.\n2.\nApplicability of amended Section 15BB to past cases.\nConclusion:\nAmendments cannot have retrospective effect before December 20, 1971, under Article 279 of the Interim Constitution. Dividends from companies enjoying Section 15BB exemptions remain non-taxable.\nCases Referred:\nMrs. Bacha F. Gazdar v. CIT (1955), Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed Khan (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,15BB(4AA),66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=94 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 55 of 1978, decision dated: 25-01-1982. dates of hearing : 24th and 26th Novembers 1981", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND G. M. KOUREJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Munshi, Dy. Attorney General and Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicants.Ali Athar, Naseem Ahmed Khan, Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Muzaffar Hussain, Hyder Raza Naqvi, Mohsin Tayyabali, Naimur Rehman, Shah Hamid Sulaiman and Sirajul Haqs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (EAST)\nvs\nYASIN ALI AKBAR H. IBRAHIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 55 = 1982 SLD 55 = 1982 PTD 274 = (1983) 47 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Profits Tax and Income-tax Act\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of Business Profits Tax to entities enjoying Section 15B benefits.\n2.\nConsequences of setting aside an order under Section 33A.\nConclusion:\nEntities enjoying Section 15B benefits are exempt from Business Profits Tax. Setting aside an order under Section 33A necessitates reopening related consequential orders.\nCases Referred:\nIndore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1959).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33A(2),15B Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=4,17(2) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 96 of 1972, decision dated: 1st April, 1980", + "Judge Name": "FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND TANZILUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohomed Fazlur Rahman for Petitioner. Iqbal Kazis", + "Party Name:": "SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 56 = 1982 SLD 56 = 1982 PTD 277 = (1982) 46 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Gratuity Liability\nKey Issue:\nAdmissibility of gratuity liability under a retrospective agreement as a deductible expense.\nConclusion:\nGratuity liability determined under a retrospective agreement with labor unions is admissible as a deduction.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Andhra Prabha Ltd. (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 307 of 1976, decision dated: 14-11-1979", + "Judge Name": "SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSRI RANILAKSHMI GINNING, SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 57 = 1982 SLD 57 = 1982 PTD 282 = (1982) 46 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Forfeited Security Deposits as Income\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of forfeited deposits from business transactions.\n2.\nTribunal’s powers to admit additional grounds in appeals.\nConclusion:\n1.\nForfeited deposits are taxable income.\n2.\nTribunals have the discretion to allow additional grounds to ensure substantial justice.\nCases Referred:\nAtlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 47 of 1976, decision dated: 27-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "B. S. DHILLON AND M. R. SHARMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. N. Monga with R. P. Sahney and Rajiv Mehra. D. N. Awasthy with e. K. Jhingan", + "Party Name:": "ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRILS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 58 = 1982 SLD 58 = 1982 PTD 287 = (1982) 46 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Jurisdiction on Fact-Based Questions\nKey Issue:\nWhether the High Court can overturn factual findings of the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court cannot re-examine factual findings or insufficiencies in statements of facts.\nCases Referred:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Zamindara Flour Mills (1970).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 37 of 1972, decision dated: 31st March, 1982", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasarullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Athars", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION)\nvs\nMESSRS JAN MUHAMMAD & BROS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 59 = 1982 SLD 59 = 1982 PTD 294 = (1983) 47 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Set-Off and Change in Residential Status\nKey Issue:\nSet-off of foreign losses upon a change in residential status.\nConclusion:\nForeign losses incurred during a resident period cannot be set off in subsequent years when the assessee becomes a non-resident.\nCases Referred:\nMalwa United Mills v. CIT (1972).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=48(a),(1)(b),24(2) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 157 of 1973, decision dated: 10th August 1981. dates of hearing : 5th, 12th and 19-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "K. A. GHANI AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS GRINDLAYS BANK LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 60 = 1982 SLD 60 = 1982 PTD 301 = (1982) 46 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Share Trading as Business Income\nKey Issue:\nClassification of income from inter-company share transactions.\nConclusion:\nTransactions in shares of interconnected companies amount to business income, not income from other sources.\nCases Referred:\nLoka Shikshana Trust v. CIT (1975).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 63 of 1971, decision dated: 19-12-1979", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND D. R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. C. Sharma with Bishamber Lal and D. N. Bannerji. M. L. Verma", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT DEVELOPMENT (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 61 = 1982 SLD 61 = 1982 PTD 305 = (1982) 46 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Taxability of Settlement Payments in Share Transactions\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of settlement payments in incomplete share transactions.\nConclusion:\nDifference received upon settlement of an incomplete share sale is taxable as business income.\nCases Referred:\nSeth R. Dalmia v. CIT (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 64 of 1971, decision dated: 18-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "RAJINDAR SACHAR AND M. L, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. K. Wadhera and P. N. Misra. Bishamber Lal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBHARAT NIDHI LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 62 = 1982 SLD 62 = 1982 PTD 311 = (1982) 46 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Concealment of Income and Penalty\nKey Issue:\nLevy of penalty for partial disclosure of income.\nConclusion:\nPenalty is justified for undisclosed interests in firms even if partial disclosure is made.\nCases Referred:\nMansukhlal & Brothers v. CIT (1969).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 775 of 1974, decision dated: 13-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "C. S. P. SINGH AND R. R. RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Gulatt. M. Katju", + "Party Name:": "GAJANAND SUTWALA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 63 = 1982 SLD 63 = 1982 PTD 314 = (1982) 46 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Res Judicata and Relief for Industrial Undertakings\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of res judicata in tax proceedings.\n2.\nContinuity of relief granted to industrial undertakings in subsequent years.\nConclusion:\n1.\nRes judicata does not bar assessment reassessment.\n2.\nRelief granted in earlier years should be continued unless shown to be erroneous.\nCases Referred:\nTextile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 59 of 1979, decision dated: 16-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND FAIZANUDDIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. S. Khirwadkar. C. J. ,Thakar and P. D. Thakar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBHILAI ENGINEERING CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 64 = 1982 SLD 64 = 1982 PTD 315 = (1982) 46 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reimbursement of Subsidiary Losses\nKey Issue:\nWhether reimbursement of a subsidiary's losses by a holding company affects the subsidiary's computation of loss.\nConclusion:\nReimbursement by a holding company does not erase the subsidiary’s loss and is not included in its income computation.\nLet me know if further details are required!", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 17 and 94 of 1974, decision dated: 16-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND MRS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. C. Lalwani and Madan Lokur. Bishamber Lal", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHANDICRAFTS AND HANDLOOM EXPORT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 65 = 1982 SLD 65 = 1982 PTD 320 = (1982) 46 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Partner's Tax Evasion\nKey Issue:\nLegality of reassessment based on information about a partner's tax evasion.\nConclusion:\nReassessment of a partner in a firm is valid if it is based on credible information regarding tax evasion by the partner.\nCases Referred:\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979), CIT v. Raman & Co. (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 41 of 1979, decision dated: 5-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "G. G. SOHANI AND R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. M. Chaphekar. S. C. Bagadia", + "Party Name:": "JAMNALAL NATHANI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 66 = 1982 SLD 66 = 1982 PTD 322 = (1983) 47 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Notices and Reassessment of Assets\nKey Issues:\n1.\nIssuance of a second notice under tax law.\n2.\nReopening assessment due to new material evidence.\nConclusion:\n1.\nMultiple notices are permissible unless explicitly prohibited by law.\n2.\nReassessment is valid if it is based on discovery of new facts rather than a mere change of opinion.\nCases Referred:\nJagmohan Goenka v. K.D. Banerjee (1954), Dr. H.K. Mahtab v. ITO (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166(2)(c)(ii),13(1)(e),62,65 Income Tax Act, 1922=34, General Clauses Act, 1897=14(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5389 of 1981, decision dated: 24-01-1982. dates of hearing: 22nd, 23rd November, 21st December, 1981, 18th and 19-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 67 = 1982 SLD 67 = 1982 PTD 326 = (1982) 46 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Penalty for Belated Filing of Returns\nKey Issue:\nWhether the Appellate Tribunal can remit penalties based on explanations provided during appeals.\nConclusion:\nTribunals can evaluate new explanations for delays in filing returns and remit penalties based on reasonable cause. High Courts cannot interfere with such findings of fact.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1194 of 1977, decision dated: 21st October, 1981", + "Judge Name": "BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND PADMANABHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram. S. V. Subramaniam and P. P. S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS. K. SANJAN CHETTIAR & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 68 = 1982 SLD 68 = 1982 PTD 329 = (1982) 46 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Denial of Fire Loss Claim\nKey Issue:\nAllowability of a loss claim due to fire in the absence of evidence.\nConclusion:\nLoss claims are inadmissible if there is no evidence of destruction of goods or account books. Mention in FIR or corroborative evidence is necessary.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Nathmal Tolaram (1973), Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 317 of 1977, decision dated: 15-01-1981", + "Judge Name": ", J. M. L. SINHA AND M. P. MEHROTRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. C. Chaturvedi and Shakil Ahmed. R. K. Gulati", + "Party Name:": "Haji LAL MUHAMMAD BIRI WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 69 = 1982 SLD 69 = 1982 PTD 333 = (1982) 46 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court on Questions of Law\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of referring questions not raised before the Tribunal.\n2.\nRole of guesswork in best judgment assessments.\nConclusion:\n1.\nHigh Courts cannot entertain questions not raised or considered by the Tribunal.\n2.\nBest judgment assessments require honest, not arbitrary, guesswork.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Smt. Anusuya Devi (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 151 of 1978, decision dated: 16-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "G. G. SOHANI AND R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. M. Chaphekar. S. C. Bagadia", + "Party Name:": "MOHANLAL MAHRIBAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 70 = 1982 SLD 70 = 1982 PTD 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Limitation and Condonation\nKey Issue:\nCondonation of delay caused by misinformation in a demand notice.\nConclusion:\nDelays due to errors in official notices, such as directing appeals to the wrong authority, should be condoned to ensure justice.\nCases Referred:\nConcord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 57 of 1971, decision dated: 14-11-1979", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND D. R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. M. L. Verma", + "Party Name:": "AVTAR KRISHAN DASS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 71 = 1982 SLD 71 = 1982 PTD 339 = (1982) 46 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Repairs as Business Expenditure\nKey Issues:\n1.\nHigh Court's scope in examining facts found by the Tribunal.\n2.\nDistinction between current repairs and capital expenditure. \nConclusion:\n1.\nHigh Courts cannot question factual findings by the Tribunal.\n2.\nExtensive repairs that enhance functionality qualify as business expenditure, not current repairs.\nCases Referred:\nAbdul Kayoom v. CIT (1962), Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1972).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,10(2)(v),(xv) ", + "Case #": "D. B. Civil Income tax Reference No. 46 of 1969, decision dated: 12-09-1979", + "Judge Name": "DWARKA PRASAD AND N. M. KASLIWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Mehta. V. K. Singhal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS. ZORASTER & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 72 = 1982 SLD 72 = 1982 PTD 354 = (1983) 47 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividends and Shareholder Relationships\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDefinition of dividend and its tax implications.\n2.\nWhether fixed returns on investments constitute interest or dividends.\nConclusion:\n1.\nDividends represent a share of profits and are distinct from interest.\n2.\nPayments to shareholders from profits, regardless of guarantees, are dividends, not interest.\nCases Referred:\nKantilal Manilal v. CIT (1956), Pennington's Company Law.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6A) Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=95,98,99,101 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 136 of 1972, decision dated: 12-09-1982. dates of hearing : 17th and 18-05-1982", + "Judge Name": "ALLAH BAKHSH KHAN AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN KAIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Amirzada Khan, A.A.G.", + "Party Name:": "SIEMENS A. G\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 73 = 1982 SLD 73 = 1982 PTD 361 = (1983) 47 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reopening of Assessments and Writ Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n1.\nBar on reopening assessments due to time limits and lack of ownership claims.\n2.\nHigh Court's writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies are inadequate.\nConclusion:\n1.\nReopening assessments is barred if beyond statutory time limits or lacking cause.\n2.\nHigh Courts can grant relief under writ jurisdiction in cases of mala fide or unjust actions by tax authorities.\nCases Referred:\nNawabzada Muhammad Ali Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (1961), East & West Steamship Co. v. Pakistan (1958).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 2210 of 1979, decision dated: 5-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND M.A. KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awans", + "Party Name:": "KASSAM HAJI ABBAS PATEL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CONTRACTORS CIRCLE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 74 = 1982 SLD 74 = 1982 PTD 368 = (1983) 47 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt Allowance for Bank\nKey Issue:\nClaim for bad debt allowance by a bank for losses incurred due to borrower’s default.\nConclusion:\nThe borrower’s pending suit against the bank for selling goods below market price has no bearing on the bank's claim for bad debt.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 25 of 1972, decision dated: 3rd May 1982", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 75 = 1982 SLD 75 = 1982 PTD 370 = (1983) 47 TAX 155 = 1983 PTCL 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Unappropriated Profits as Free Reserve for Purposes of Super Tax — Applicability to Assessment Year 1967–68\nDetails:\nThis application was filed by Pakistan Gum Industries Limited under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Initially, two questions were referred, but with the consent of both counsels, they were reframed into a single question:\nWhether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that unappropriated profits of the assessee for the assessment year 1967–68 were free reserves and liable to super tax?\nThe Income Tax Officer treated unappropriated profits for the assessment year 1967–68 as free reserves and subjected them to super tax. Appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. The applicant then moved the High Court through this reference.\nThe key issue was whether unappropriated profits could be considered free reserves in the absence of a statutory definition during the relevant assessment year. The Finance Act, 1967 introduced taxation on free reserves but did not define the term. The Finance Act, 1968 inserted Clause (6BB) into Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, defining free reserves to include any unappropriated profits. \nThe applicant argued (relying on CIT v. Lyallpur Cotton Mills PLD 1960 SC 48) that before the 1968 amendment, reserve or free reserve in its ordinary meaning did not include unappropriated profits, and that the 1968 definition could not apply retrospectively to the 1967–68 assessment year.\nThe Court agreed, holding that unless profits were specifically allocated for a purpose by a competent authority under the company's articles, they would not amount to a reserve. \nHeld:\nThe Court held:\nThe definition of free reserve introduced by the Finance Act, 1968 does not have retrospective effect.\nFor the assessment year 1967–68, the term free reserve must be given its ordinary meaning, which does not include unappropriated profits.\nThus, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the unappropriated profits as free reserves liable to super tax.\nThe reframed question was answered in the negative.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Lyallpur Cotton Mills PLD 1960 SC 48", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6BB),6BB,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Application No. 82 of 1972, decision dated: 8-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. \nNasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "M/S PAKISTAN GUM INDUSTRIES LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 76 = 1982 SLD 76 = 1982 PTD 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay Order and Balance of Convenience\nKey Issue:\nPrinciples for granting interim injunctions or stay orders.\nConclusion:\nInterim injunctions or stay orders should not be issued based solely on principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in cases lacking merit.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C. M. P. Nos. 485 and 359 of 1981 in C. P. No. 682 of 1981, decision dated: 18-05-1982", + "Judge Name": "ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M. S. H. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "(For suspension of the operation of the judgment dated 29 3 1981 of the in Writ Petition No. 5039 of I.980. For vacation of stay order dated 10 6 1981, granted by the Supreme Court in C. M. P. No. 485 of 1981 in C. P. No. 682 of 1981)\nZia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, dvocate on-Record for Petitioners. Ata Ullah Sajjad and Aftab Ahmad Khan; Advocate Supreme Court and M. D. Chaudhary, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 7 OTHERS \nvs\nSyed JAMAT ALI SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 77 = 1982 SLD 77 = 1982 PTD 389 = (1982) 46 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment of Income and Penalty\nKey Issue:\nPenalty for failing to disclose spouse’s and minor children’s income in the return.\nConclusion:\nFailure to declare such income amounts to concealment, even if the prescribed form lacks a specific column. Penalty is exigible.\nCases Referred:\nV.D.M.R.M. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 1973, decision dated: 23rd September, 1980", + "Judge Name": "P. N. BHAGWATI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with him. K. T. Harindranath, Senior Advocate and T. T. Kunikannan, Advocate with him", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSmt. P. K. KOCHAMMU AMMA, PEROKE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 78 = 1982 SLD 78 = 1982 PTD 394 = (1982) 46 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nKey Issue:\nRectification of errors in tax assessment forms.\nConclusion:\nThe form appended to an assessment order is not a part of the order. Mistakes in the form cannot be rectified by the Income Tax Officer.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 233 of 1977, decision dated: 5-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "K. N. SETH AND R. R. RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Katju. R. K. Gulati", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHIMALAYA DRUG Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 79 = 1982 SLD 79 = 1982 PTD 396 = (1982) 46 TAX 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure in Amalgamation\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of legal expenses incurred during amalgamation as capital or revenue expenditure.\nConclusion:\nLegal expenses related to amalgamation are permissible as business expenditures.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. India Cements Ltd. (1966), CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 637 of 1977, decision dated: 21st October, 1981", + "Judge Name": "V. BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND S. PADMANABHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman. S. V. Subramanlam", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBUSH BOAKE ALLEN (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 1 = 1983 SLD 1 = 1983 PTD 1 = (1982) 46 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income from Undisclosed Sources\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of casual receipts claimed as exempt from tax.\nConclusion:\nIn the absence of cogent evidence, receipts claimed as casual are treated as income from undisclosed sources.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 216 of 1976; decided on 12th September 1980", + "Judge Name": "DEPAK KUMAR SEN AND C. K. BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Subrata Roy Chowdhury with S. Bhattacharjee and Mim Aparna Datta for the Assessee. B. L. Pal with Ajit K Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "B.C. PAUL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 2 = 1983 SLD 2 = 1983 PTD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-off of Losses\nKey Issue:\nRight to carry forward and set off losses against future profits.\nConclusion:\nFailure to appeal assessment orders renders them final. Claims for carry-forward of losses cannot be entertained retrospectively.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 118 of 1974, decision dated: 5-07-1982, hearing DATE : 13th April 1, 1982", + "Judge Name": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Hyder Ali Pirzada", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL) KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 3 = 1983 SLD 3 = 1983 PTD 17 = (1982) 46 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund Rebate\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of payments to the Workers’ Welfare Fund in income tax assessments.\nConclusion:\nPayments to the Workers’ Welfare Fund should be treated as expenditures or rebates but cannot be deducted from net profits to reduce taxable income.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(15),10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1635 (KB) to 1637 (KB) of 1979-80, decision dated: 13-03-1980, hearing DATE : 9-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousuf Sharih, D. R... R. Diwan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 4 = 1983 SLD 4 = 1983 PTD 20 = (1982) 46 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutionality of Section 35\nKey Issue:\nValidity of rectification and reassessment provisions under Section 35.\nConclusion:\nSection 35 is constitutional and applies under specific circumstances. It does not violate constitutional rights.\nCases Referred:\nSivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons v. ITO (1955), Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. Visvanatha Sastri (1954).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "Writ Appeal No. 510 of 1974, decision dated: 23rd June, 1980", + "Judge Name": "M. K. SRINIVASA IYENGAR AND M. RAMA, JOIS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. R. Rajasakhara Murthy. K. Srinivasan", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE, BANGALORE\nvs\nMARGARINE & REFINED OIL Go. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 5 = 1983 SLD 5 = 1983 PTD 30 = (1983) 47 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Computation of Profits\nKey Issue:\nConditions for including amounts in profits under Section 10(2-A).\nConclusion:\nAmounts not claimed as loss, expenditure, or trading liabilities in prior years cannot be treated as profits in subsequent years.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A) ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 15-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah A wan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL)\nvs\nMESSRS Haji JETHAAHOI GOKUL & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 6 = 1983 SLD 6 = 1983 PTD 41 = (1983) 47 TAX 158 = 1983 PTCL 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "In this case, the petitioners challenged the levy of additional surcharges under section 45-A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, and 1970-71. The surcharges were imposed due to the petitioners' failure to purchase bonds within the specified period, as required under section 3-A of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners argued that the penalty provisions under section 45-A were not applicable to the refundable surcharge under section 3-A.\nThe respondents contended that the petitioners should have awaited the decision of their appeal with the Assistant Inspecting Commissioner and that the provisions of the Act related to the recovery of income-tax, including penalties under section 45-A, applied to the refundable surcharge.\nThe court analyzed the matter, focusing on two key issues: (1) whether the petitioners could file the petition without waiting for the appeal decision, and (2) whether the penalty provisions under section 45-A could apply to the refundable surcharge. The court ruled that the right to appeal was excluded under section 3-A(2), making the petition valid. Furthermore, it concluded that while the recovery procedures for refundable surcharges are similar to income-tax, section 45-A's penalty provisions did not apply to the surcharge in question, as no express provision for penalties under section 3-A existed.\nThe court allowed the petition, declaring the additional surcharge levies as illegal, but no costs were awarded due to the circumstances.\nKey Points:\nThe court ruled against the imposition of additional surcharges under section 45-A for the delayed purchase of bonds.\nIt clarified that while recovery procedures for refundable surcharge are similar to income-tax, penalties under section 45-A are not applicable unless explicitly provided for.\nThe petition was allowed, and the surcharge amounts were declared unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3-A,3-A(2),30,33,33A,45-A,66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 580 of 1974, decision dated: 13-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. \nNasrullah Awans", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SOUVENIR TOBACCO Co. LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE XIII, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 7 = 1983 SLD 7 = 1983 PTD 46 = (1983) 47 TAX 169 = 1983 PTCL 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 51(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nAppellant: Hakimullah, Proprietor of Messrs Home Hearth, Karachi.\nOriginal Conviction:\nConvicted by Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, on 11th March, 1976.\nSentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and fined Rs. 5,000, with 1 year additional R.I. in default.\nAllegations:\nConcealment of income during the assessment year 1971-72.\nMaintenance of two sets of books (fair and rough) and suppression of actual sales and purchases.\nDefense:\nGoods kept by third parties for sale were not entered in the books as they were not owned by appellant.\nAlleged bias from an Income-tax Officer due to personal disputes.\nAccounts books could only be corroborative, not substantive evidence without scribe testimony.\nLegal Arguments:\nNo direct evidence of concealed income.\nNon-disclosure of certain sales/purchases doesn’t automatically mean concealed profits.\nNo prescribed accounting method under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for private individuals.\nCases cited:\n1969 SCMR 898\nPLD 1967 Dacca 1049\nPLD 1968 Karachi 36\n1971 PTD 457\n1970 PTD 576\nHeld:\nAppeal Allowed.\nConviction and sentence set aside.\nAppellant acquitted and bail bonds discharged.\nKey Reasoning:\nProsecution failed to establish actual income concealed.\nMere rejection of books or absence of entries without direct proof is insufficient under Section 51(2).\nFollowing principles laid down in earlier cases (1971 PTD 457 and 1970 PTD 576).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,51(2) Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=34 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1976, decision dated: 24-11-1982, hearing date: 18-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "Z. C. VALIANI, JUSITCE", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Petitioner. Niaz Ahmad for the State", + "Party Name:": "HAKIMULLAH\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 8 = 1983 SLD 8 = 1983 PTD 49 = (1983) 47 TAX 177 = 1983 PTCL 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Entitlement to 10% Rebate on Super-Tax — Distinction between Processing and Manufacturing \nDetails:\nAssessment Year: 1965-66\nApplicant’s Business: Manufacture of starch, cattle-feed, and corn-oil from maize.\nClaim: Applicant sought a 10% rebate on super-tax under clause A-1(v), Part II, Schedule IV of the Finance Act, 1965, read with section 10(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nProvision Involved: Rebate was available for income derived from processing, freezing, preserving and canning of food, vegetables, fruit, grain, fish, and poultry.\nRevenue’s Position: The applicant was manufacturing, not merely processing, and thus not entitled to the rebate.\nTribunal’s Finding:\nManufacture vs Processing: Tribunal held that manufacturing involves creating a new, marketable product, whereas processing implies operations where the original identity of goods remains intact.\nSince maize was converted into different, marketable products (starch, cattle-feed, corn-oil), it was manufacturing and not mere processing. \nReformulated Question Before the Court: Whether the Tribunal was justified in denying the rebate based on the ground that the applicant was manufacturing, not processing, (a) starch; (b) cattle-feed; and (c) corn-oil.\nHeld:\nOn distinction between 'manufacture' and 'process':\nCourt held that the Tribunal wrongly distinguished between processing and manufacturing ; both terms can overlap, and manufacturing does not necessarily mean loss of raw material identity.\nOn entitlement to rebate:\nDespite the error in Tribunal's reasoning, the applicant was still not entitled to the rebate.\nThe statutory language ( processing, freezing, preserving, canning ) implied that the identity of the original material must remain intact for rebate eligibility.\nSince maize was transformed into completely new products, the rebate was not available.\nFinal Outcome:\nReformulated question answered in the negative (Tribunal not justified solely on ground of manufacture vs. processing).\nOriginal question answered in the affirmative (Applicant not entitled to rebate).\nCitations:\nPakistan v. Muhammad Aqil (PLD 1960 SC 4)\nColony Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1980 PTD 201)\nState of Travancore-Cochin v. S.V.C. Factory (AIR 1956 SC 333)\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Locomotive Engineering Co. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 325", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(9),68 Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944)=3 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Application No. 35 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd September, 1982, hearing date: 9-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 9 = 1983 SLD 9 = 1983 PTD 55 = (1983) 47 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Director’s Remuneration\nKey Issue:\nReasonableness of remuneration paid to directors after retirement of one director.\nConclusion:\nDisallowance of remuneration is not valid if the remaining director undertakes the responsibilities of both directors.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Edward Keventer (F.) Ltd. (1972).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 128 of 1978, decision dated: 17-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND C. K. BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kalyan Roy with R. A. Dutta. B. K. Bagchi with A. N. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "EASTERN SCALES (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 10 = 1983 SLD 10 = 1983 PTD 58 = (1983) 47 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss from Forfeiture of Security Deposit\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of forfeited security deposit as a business loss.\nConclusion:\nThe forfeited deposit, arising from the non-fulfillment of terms in a business contract, is a business loss as the contract was a venture within the scope of the existing business, not a new venture.\nCases Referred:\nNarandas Mathuradas & Co. v. CIT (1959), Jwala Prasad Radha Krishna v. CIT (1971), CIT v. Sugar Dealers (1975).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 219 of 1977, decision dated: 28-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "G. P. SINGH, C, J, AND FAIZANUDDIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C.J. Thakar and P. D. Thakar for the Assessee. P. S. Khirwadkar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "THACKERS H. P. & COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER, IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 11 = 1983 SLD 11 = 1983 PTD 59 = (1983) 47 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provident Fund Liability\nKey Issue:\nRecognition of statutory liability to contribute to the employees' provident fund.\nConclusion:\nLiability accrues in the year it is enforced, even if it pertains to earlier years, as clarified by the statute. Earlier rulings that liability accrues in the original year of applicability were dissented from.\nCases Referred:\nKedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971), L.J. Patel & Co. v. CIT (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 219 of 1976, decision dated: 19th February 1981", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Pal with P. Majumdar for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nORIENT SUPPLY SYNDICATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 12 = 1983 SLD 12 = 1983 PTD 63 = (1983) 47 TAX 148 = 1983 PTCL 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Addition to Gross Profit under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act\nDetails:\nThe applicant/assessee, during the assessment year 1964-65, declared a total sales amount of Rs. 27,18,094 and a gross profit of Rs. 4,21,809, resulting in a gross profit percentage of 15.7%. This was lower than the 21.3% declared in the previous assessment year. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) raised concerns regarding the decrease in gross profit and added Rs. 1,25,000 to the declared gross profit, questioning the validity of the accounts under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act. The applicant argued that the fall in the gross profit percentage was due to reduced recovery from dyeing, twisting, and finishing activities (operating only for 7 months in the current year, compared to 12 months in the previous year) and an increase in raw material costs. The ITO rejected these explanations, adding Rs. 1,25,000 to gross profit.\nBoth the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner and the Income-tax Tribunal upheld the addition, with the Tribunal stating that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence or separated trading accounts for manufactured goods and others.\nHeld:\nThe court concluded that the addition of Rs. 1,25,000 to the gross profit was unjustified. It was found that the Tribunal’s reasoning was based on conjecture, not on established facts or evidence. The court ruled that the method of accounting employed by the applicant had been consistent with previous years, and there was no justification for rejecting the accounts under Section 13. The addition made by the ITO was thus not warranted, and the reference was answered in the negative.\nCitations: Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,30,12 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 113 of 1972, decision dated: 26-10-1982. dates of hearing: 25th and 26-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. \nNasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "M/S ROSHAN CLOTH HOUSE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 13 = 1983 SLD 13 = 1983 PTD 67 = (1983) 47 TAX 139 = 1986 PTCL 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Whether the Income Tax Tribunal had valid grounds to disregard the Department's earlier acceptance of the transfer of East Pakistan business assets to Mrs. Captain and treat the income as belonging solely to Mr. Captain for assessment years 1960–61 to 1966–67.\nKey Facts\nAssessee: Mr. Captain, proprietor of Farrukh Chemical Industries (FCI), a chemical manufacturing business with operations in West and East Pakistan.\nTransfer Claim: On 1-1-1958, FCI’s East Pakistan assets were transferred to Mrs. Captain in lieu of her capital investment.\nDepartment’s Initial Acceptance: For A.Y. 1959–60, the Department:\nAssessed West Pakistan operations as Mr. Captain’s proprietary concern.\nAssessed East Pakistan operations as Mrs. Captain’s proprietary concern.\nSubsequent Reversal: For A.Y. 1960–61 onwards, the Department rejected the transfer, treating all income as Mr. Captain’s, alleging the transfer was sham. \nTribunal’s Finding: Upheld the Department’s reversal, citing:\nNo documentary proof of transfer.\nInadequate consideration.\nIdentical business names, shared bankers, and staff.\nMinimal involvement of Mrs. Captain.\nSupreme Court’s Ruling\nNo New Material Justified Reversal:\nAll facts cited by the Tribunal (e.g., lack of documents, shared infrastructure) existed when the 1959–60 assessment was finalized.\nThe Department’s earlier acceptance after proper enquiry (A.Y. 1959–60) could not be overturned without new evidence or changed circumstances.\nFinality in Tax Assessments:\nWhile strict res judicata does not apply, tax authorities cannot arbitrarily revisit settled assessments.\nReversal permissible only if:\nEarlier decision was not based on proper enquiry, or\nNew material evidence emerges (e.g., fraud, fresh facts).\nNeither condition met here.\nProcessing Authority’s Order (MLR 43) Irrelevant:\nThe 1959 order under Martial Law Regulation 43 (treating Mr. & Mrs. Captain’s declarations jointly) was known to the Assessing Officer during 1959–60 assessments but did not alter the outcome.\nTribunal’s Finding Based on Suspicion:\nThe Tribunal’s conclusion was unsupported by evidence and relied on mere suspicions, surmises, and conjectures. \nOutcome\nQuestion Answered: Tribunal’s finding that the transfer did not occur is unsustainable.\nConsequence: Assessments for A.Y. 1960–61 to 1966–67 must recognize the bifurcation accepted in A.Y. 1959–60.\nKey Legal Principles\nFinality in Tax Proceedings:\nTax authorities cannot capriciously depart from earlier decisions without new material (per CIT v. Wahiduzzaman, 1965 PTD 283).\nBurden of Proof:\nDepartment must substantiate allegations of sham transactions with evidence, not conjecture.\nReassessment Threshold:\nReversal of a settled assessment basis requires cogent new facts, not reinterpretation of existing material.\nSignificance: Reinforces stability in tax administration and prevents harassment of taxpayers through arbitrary reassessments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=115 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11 ", + "Case #": "Civil References Nos. 16 of 1967 ; 28, 81 of 1972 ; 724 to 727 and 811 of 1982, decision dated: 11-10-1982, hearing DATE : 15-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Hyder Ali Pirzada", + "Party Name:": "M/S FARRUKH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (SOUTH ZONE), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 14 = 1983 SLD 14 = 1983 PTD 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Newly Acquired Assets\nKey Issue:\nEligibility for additional depreciation under specific rules.\nConclusion:\nRules allowing additional depreciation for assets acquired during a specified period are not ultra vires. Depreciation depends on the asset’s acquisition date, not its installation or use.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi) Income Tax Rules, 1922=9(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil appeals Nos. l29 and 130 of 1980, decision dated: 11-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "KEMALUDDIN HOSSAIN, C, J., FAZLE MUNIM, BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY AND SHAHABUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate, Muhammad Hussain, Advocate instructed F.S. M. Hag, Advocate-on-Record. Mahmudur ahman, Advocate instructed by Md. Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EVERETT ORIENT LINES INC\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CHITTAGONG ZONE, CHITTAGONG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 15 = 1983 SLD 15 = 1983 PTD 83 = (1983) 47 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Revenue Expenditure by Partner Company\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of compensation paid to a managed company as revenue expenditure.\nConclusion:\nThe amount paid by the partner company to cover a third-party default is revenue expenditure, as it relates to the business's operational obligations.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 1974, decision dated: 12-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "R. S. PATHAK ARID E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Manchanda. Senior Advocate (J. Ramamurihy and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him). S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Bishambar Lal, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nDELHI SAFE DEPOSIT Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 16 = 1983 SLD 16 = 1983 PTD 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Trading Account\nKey Issues:\n1.\nGrounds for rejecting trading accounts.\n2.\nEstimation of income.\nConclusion:\nAccounts can be rejected if they do not reflect true income. However, mere low profits or minor defects in books are insufficient grounds. Findings must be based on material evidence.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 34 and 50 of 1981, decision dated: 19-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "F. K. M.A. MUNIM, RAUHUL ISLAM, BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY AND SHAHABUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhulyan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (in C. A. No. 34 of 1981).\nA. M Mahmudur rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (in C. A. No. 50 of 1981).\nS. R. Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. C. Das, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Aminul Haq, Advocate-on-Record r Respondent (in C. A. No. 34 of 1981).\nC. R. Ali. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record (in C. A. No. 50 of 1981).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, A-RANGE, CHITTAGONG\nvs\nHARENDRA KUMAR SII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 17 = 1983 SLD 17 = 1983 PTD 93 = (1983) 47 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Civil Courts\nKey Issue:\nBar on civil courts from interfering in income tax matters.\nConclusion:\nCivil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge bona fide income tax assessments, as the Income Tax Act provides exclusive remedies.\nCases Referred:\nRaleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. G.-G.-in-Council (1947).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=67,23,3,30,33,33A,35,67,10(2)(vii) Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=191,228 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1978, decision dated: 14-08-1978", + "Judge Name": "KEMALUDDIN HOSSAIN, C, J., FAZLE MUNLM AND BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. K. M. Mozammel Huq Bhuiyan, Advocate with Rabia Bhuiyan, Advocate instructed by S. S. Hoda, Advocate-on-Record. C. R. Ali, Advocate instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCh. RAMZAN ALI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 18 = 1983 SLD 18 = 1983 PTD 100 = (1983) 47 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Asset Transfer\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of gains from transferring firm assets to a private company.\nConclusion:\nTransfer of assets to a company formed by firm partners is treated as a sale, and profits from such transactions are taxable.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. A.K. Plywood Co. (1980), CIT v. Public Industries (1969) (dissented).", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2(vii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 111 of 1971, decision dated: 6-11-1982, hearing DATE : 31st August, 1982", + "Judge Name": "ABDUR REHMAN KHAN KAIF AND ALLAH BAKHSH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amirzada Khan Assist. A. G.. Haji Maqsood Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMESSRS KARIM] INDUSTRIES, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 19 = 1983 SLD 19 = 1983 PTD 105 = (1983) 47 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Penalty for Concealment of Income\nKey Issue:\nLevying penalties for concealment of income.\nConclusion:\nPenalty is invalid if there is no evidence of deliberate concealment, even if additions to income were justified.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 289 of 1969, decision dated: 19-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUBAS CHANDRA SEN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajit Sengupta with Sunit Mukherjee for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCLIVE MILLS Co. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 20 = 1983 SLD 20 = 1983 PTD 106 = (1983) 47 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Expenditure for Business Operations\nKey Issue:\nAllowability of business-related expenses.\nConclusion:\nExpenses incurred in operating a guest house or pursuing business claims are allowable as business expenses. Findings of the Tribunal cannot be reappraised by the High Court.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Damodaran (1980), CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 92 of 1972, decision dated: 10-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. K. DESAI D. M. REGE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Jeshi with S. V. Naik and L. K Chatterjee. 1. M. Megrim with S. J.. Mehta", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nRAVALGAON SUGAR FARM LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 21 = 1983 SLD 21 = 1983 PTD 111 = (1983) 47 TAX 222 = 1983 PTCL 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Net Loss in Speculation Business for Set Off in Subsequent Years\nDetails:\nThe question was referred by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, regarding the treatment of a net loss suffered in a speculation business. The issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that instead of distributing the net loss among partners, it should be carried forward to be set off against future income from the same business.\nThe controversy centers around the interpretation of the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, particularly its application to losses from speculative businesses. The department argued that the second proviso, which deals with the apportionment of losses in registered and unregistered firms, should also include losses from speculation businesses. In contrast, the assessee contended that the net loss from speculative business should be carried forward, as per the first proviso to section 24(1).\nThe case referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Kantilal Nathuchand Sami (1967), which clarified that the loss from speculative businesses should not be included in the loss referred to in the second proviso of section 24(1). The court emphasized that losses from speculative businesses are to be treated separately and carried forward for set off against future income from the same business, in line with the first proviso to section 24(1).\nHeld:\nThe court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the net loss from the speculation business should not be distributed among the partners but carried forward for set off against future income from the same business. The second proviso to section 24(1) does not include losses from speculation business, and therefore the loss should be carried forward as per the first proviso. The reference was answered in the affirmative.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kantilal Nathuchand Sami (1967), Haji Ferozuddin (PLD 1967 Kar. 812), Haji Mushtaq Ahmad v. Commissioner of Income-tax (PLD 1978 Kar. 414).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 117 of 1972, decision dated: 22-11-1982. dates of hearing : 18th November and 22-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND SALLEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHaji GULZAR & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 22 = 1983 SLD 22 = 1983 PTD 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Know-How Royalty\nKey Issue:\nTreatment of royalties paid under a know-how agreement.\nConclusion:\nRoyalties based on production under a licensing agreement are revenue expenditures.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968), Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 143 of 1974, decision dated: 23rd April, 1982", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND MS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Wazir Singh and Anoop Sharma for the Commissioner. C. S. Aggarwal and Messrs Merra Bhatia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSHAMA ENGINE VALVES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 23 = 1983 SLD 23 = 1983 PTD 126 = (1983) 47 TAX 214 = 1986 PTCL 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Confiscation Case\n(Zaffar Hussian Mirza, J.)\nIssue: Validity of foreign currency confiscation from an Afghan transit passenger.\nRuling:\nImporting currency was legal (no restrictions per State Bank Notification, 1978).\nBoarding a domestic flight (Peshawar→Karachi) was preparation, not attempt to smuggle (requires proximate acts like boarding an international flight).\nOutcome: Confiscation quashed; currency ordered returned.\nKey Principle: Distinction between preparation (non-punishable) and attempt (requires steps directly leading to crime completion).\n2. Tax Exemption for Management Association\n(Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.)\nIssue: Whether Pakistan Management Association qualifies as a charitable institution under Section 4(3)(i), Income Tax Act, 1922.\nRuling:\nObjects (management education, research, professional standards) serve general public utility (benefits economy/businesses).\nMembership open widely (students/professionals eligible) satisfies section of public requirement.\nAncillary income (seminars, publications) is incidental to charitable purposes.\nOutcome: Income exempt from tax for A.Y. 1969–72.\nKey Principle: Professional associations advancing public knowledge qualify as charitable, even with membership benefits.\n3. Double Taxation on Capital Gains\n(Naimuddin, J.)\nIssue: Taxability of UK company's gains from share sales in Pakistan under the 1962 UK-Pakistan Tax Treaty.\nRuling:\nCapital gains are commercial profits under Article III of the Treaty.\nGains exempt in Pakistan as the company had no permanent establishment there.\nTreaty applies to all forms of income (including capital gains per Section 2(6-C), Income Tax Act).\nOutcome: Surplus (₹83.75 lakh) exempt from Pakistan tax.\nKey Principle: Tax treaties cover all income forms contemplated by domestic law at signing; commercial profits interpreted liberally.\nCommon Themes:\nPurposive Interpretation: Courts prioritized legislative intent over technicalities.\nBenefit of Doubt: Rulings favored citizens/institutions where law was ambiguous (e.g., charity status, attempt vs. preparation).\nTreaty Obligations: International agreements override domestic tax claims when criteria are met.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12-B,17(5),66(1),126 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 26 of 1972, decision dated: 29-04-1982, hearing DATE : 2-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. S. Nasarullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "M/S RALEIGH INVESTMENT Co. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI EAST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 24 = 1983 SLD 24 = 1983 PTD 138 = (1983) 47 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gain vs. Revenue Receipt\nKey Issue:\nCharacterization of surplus from the sale of shares.\nConclusion:\nSurplus from share sales is a capital gain, not revenue receipt, when the firm is not a dealer in shares.\nCases Referred:\nPakistan Industrial Credit Investment Corporation v. CIT (1980", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,2(4) & 4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 9 of 1972, heard on 21st September, 1982", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUNAWWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Nasrullah Arvin", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS ADAMJEE & SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 25 = 1983 SLD 25 = 1983 PTD 140 = (1983) 47 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Diversion by Overriding Title\nKey Issue:\nDeduction of interest payments on inherited liabilities.\nConclusion:\nInterest paid on inherited bank overdrafts constitutes a diversion by overriding title and is deductible.\nCases Referred:\nBejoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT (1933).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 251 of 1975, decision dated: 27-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "B, J. DIVAN C, J. AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. P. Shah for the Assessee. N. U. Raval instructed by R. P. Bhatt of R. P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MATUBHAI C. PATEL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 26 = 1983 SLD 26 = 1983 PTD 148 = (1983) 47 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nKey Issue:\nCriteria for rectifying apparent mistakes.\nConclusion:\nMistakes must be obvious and not debatable or requiring extensive reasoning. High Court decisions are binding on tax authorities.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Kunj Behari Shyam Lal (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 119 of 1976, decision dated: 18-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "C. S. P. SINGH AND R. R. RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Gulati. Markandey Katju", + "Party Name:": "OMEGA SPORTS AND RADIO WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 27 = 1983 SLD 27 = 1983 PTD 152 = (1983) 47 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Cold Storage Valuation\nKey Issue:\nValidity of reassessment based on revised valuation.\nConclusion:\nHigher valuation in a subsequent year does not justify reassessment if the initial valuation was accepted by the ITO without new material facts.\nCases Referred:\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revisions Nos. 2099 (W) and 2494 (W) of 1978, decision dated: 5-05-1980", + "Judge Name": "CHANDAN KUMAR BANERJEE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sanjay Bhattacharjee with Sardar Amjad Ali and Miss Aparna Dutta for Petitioner. B. L. Pal with Samar Banerjee", + "Party Name:": "RASIKLAL JIVANLAL SHAH AND OTHERS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 28 = 1983 SLD 28 = 1983 PTD 166 = (1983) 47 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Allowable Business Expenses\nKey Issue:\nDeductibility of expenses incurred after business transfer.\nConclusion:\nExpenses for maintaining an establishment and retrenchment compensation paid during arbitration for transfer of an electricity supply business are allowable deductions.\nCases Referred:\nModi Electric Supply Co. v. CIT (1980), Fazilka Electric Supply Co. v. CIT (1962).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 92 to 94 of 1976 and Income tax Case No. 27 of 1977, decision dated: 27-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "KULWANT SINGH TIWANA AND AI. AT. PUNCHHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. S. Gupta for the Assessee. D. N. Awasthi, with B. K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AMBALA CANTT. ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 29 = 1983 SLD 29 = 1983 PTD 178 = (1983) 48 TAX 1 = 1983 PTCL 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Surplus from Use of Compensation Claim Books – Whether Capital Gain or Business Income\nDetails:\nThe respondent company, engaged in the hotel business, purchased the premises of Nedous Hotel, Lahore, an evacuee property, for ₹1,21,00,000 through an open auction.\nPayment could be made either in cash or by surrendering compensation claim books.\nThe respondent bought these claim books at a discount (38%-45% of face value) in the open market, paying ₹13,46,015 for a face value of ₹30,89,326 during the relevant year.\nThe resulting surplus of ₹16,74,784 (after adjusting certain expenses) was credited to the capital reserve in their balance sheet.\nThe Income Tax Officer initially missed this in assessment but later sought to tax the surplus under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, treating it as revenue income arising from an adventure in the nature of trade.\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that the purchase and surrender of the claim books was not a trading activity but incidental to the acquisition of a capital asset (the hotel) and thus not taxable.\nThe Department contended that this constituted a business activity akin to trading in compensation claim books and the resulting gain should be taxable income.\nHeld:\nThe High Court emphasized the intention behind the transaction at the time it was initiated.\nIt held that the respondent's intention was solely to acquire a capital asset (the hotel) and not to profit by trading compensation books.\nEven though an elaborate method was used, the purpose was to pay for the property at a lower cost, not to enter a trading venture.\nThe High Court relied primarily on the Supreme Court decision in (1961) 41 ITR 534 (re: purchase of shares at higher price for acquiring managing agency — held as capital expense, not trading loss).\nTherefore, the surplus credited to the capital reserve was not taxable as income under the Income-tax Act.\nCitations:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, Section 66(1), Section 10, Section 34\nSurangmull Punamchand v. CIT (1960) 40 ITR 360 (Assam HC)\nJaldu Manikyala Rao v. CIT (1964) 54 ITR 409 (Andhra Pradesh HC)\nKarwerlal Mancharwal v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 439 (Madras HC)\nDalmia Jain & Co Ltd v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 534 (Supreme Court of India)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii),34,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 27 of 1970, decision dated: 16-12-1981. dates of hearing: 30th April, 7th and 14-05-1981", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JUSTICE AND G. M. KOUREJO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan. \nAli Athar", + "Party Name:": "The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)\nvs\nM/S BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 30 = 1983 SLD 30 = 1983 PTD 184 = (1983) 47 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Heirs and Reassessment\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of reassessment without notice to all legal heirs.\n2.\nPenalty imposed posthumously.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment without notifying all legal heirs is void; consent from one heir cannot confer jurisdiction.\n2.\nPenalty imposed after the assessee's death, without hearing all heirs, is invalid.\nCases Referred:\nAllied v. First Additional ITO (1957).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2),34 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 2505 to 2507 of 1981 82, decision dated: 30-01-1983, hearing DATE : 13-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSAIN NAQVI AND, GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. vakeel Ahmed Khan A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 31 = 1983 SLD 31 = 1983 PTD 188 = (1983) 47 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss and Investment Explanation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAssessee's obligation to justify revised loss figures.\n2.\nInquiry into unexplained investment.\nConclusions:\n1.\nFailure to explain discrepancies in revised returns allows the ITO to reject them as fictitious.\n2.\nA vague response regarding investments places a heavier burden on the assessee to provide clarity.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 1409/KB and 1500/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 2-12-1982, hearing DATE : 5-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI CHAIRMAN AND GHULUM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 32 = 1983 SLD 32 = 1983 PTD 198 = (1983) 47 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change in Accounting Date\nKey Issue:\nDiscretionary powers of the ITO regarding changes in the accounting date.\nConclusion:\nThe ITO has discretion to approve changes with conditions, such as prorating depreciation. Such actions are within legal limits and not deemed unreasonable.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(11),10(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 352/KB, 361/KB and 362/KB of 1980.81, decision dated: 23rd January, 1983, hearing DATE : 9-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "N. M. Rustamjee, C A. Yusuf Sharih, D R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 33 = 1983 SLD 33 = 1983 PTD 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessment and Annual Value\nKey Issues:\n1.\nJurisdiction under Section 34-A.\n2.\nDetermination of annual value for property tax purposes.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSection 34-A requires substantive material for reopening cases; mere observations are insufficient.\n2.\nMunicipal valuation is material evidence for assessing the bona fide annual value. Adjustments for maintenance expenses borne by tenants are justified.\nCases Referred:\n9 ITR 695 (PC), 14 ITR 298 (Bom).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34A,9,3,2(15),9(2),9(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1981, decision dated: 8-07-1982", + "Judge Name": "FAZLE MUNIM, C, J., RUHUL ISLAM, BADRUL HAIDER CHAUDHURY, SHAHABUDDLN AHMED AND CHAUDHURY A. T. M. MASUD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aftab Hussain, Advocate on-Record. Habibul Islam Bhuian, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Sajjadul Haq, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "ZEBUNNESSA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (NORTH ZONE), DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 34 = 1983 SLD 34 = 1983 PTD 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dissolution vs. Reconstitution\nKey Issue:\nDifferentiating dissolution from reconstitution of partnerships for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\nWhether a partnership was dissolved or reconstituted depends on the intention of the parties, evident from agreements and surrounding circumstances. Succession is distinct from a mere change in partnership constitution.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. (1953).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25(4) Partnership Act, 1932=40,43,44 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1553 T of 1973, decision dated: 13-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "V. D. TULZAPURKER. R. S. PATHAK AND AMARENDRA NARH SEER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL III\nvs\nMESSRS PICOT CHAMPAN & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 35 = 1983 SLD 35 = 1983 PTD 226 = (1983) 48 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration\nKey Issue:\nValidity of firm registration based on a signed copy of the partnership deed.\nConclusion:\nIn the absence of the original deed, a signed copy suffices if all partners agree. Registration was justifiably granted.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A Income Tax Rules, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 270 of 1972, decision dated: 2-02-1983", + "Judge Name": "NAIMUDDIN AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrulhah Awan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs KHODROMAL MOHRROMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 36 = 1983 SLD 36 = 1983 PTD 230 = (1983) 47 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad and Doubtful Debts\nKey Issue:\nEligibility for bad debt deduction for banks.\nConclusion:\nBad debt claims were disallowed as the bank neither filed recovery suits nor showed attempts to recover through mortgaged assets, and securities exceeded the borrowed amount.\nCases Referred:\nNational Bank of Pakistan PLD 1976 Kar. 1025.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 1192/KB and 1193/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 2-12-1982, hearing DATE : 16-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din. Abrar Ahmed, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 37 = 1983 SLD 37 = 1983 PTD 243 = (1983) 48 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Undisclosed Income\nKey Issues:\n1.\nReopening assessments for undisclosed income.\n2.\nApplication of Sections 4(2-A) to (2-F).\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment based on discrepancies in wealth statements is valid.\n2.\nSection 4(2-A) does not override Section 12. Additions based on undisclosed sources are valid if adequately supported.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,4(2A)to(2F),12 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1708 of 1980 81, decision dated: 18-10-1982, hearing DATE : 27-10-1981", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sikandar Kaleem, D. R.. Muhammad Amin", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 38 = 1983 SLD 38 = 1983 PTD 246 = (1983) 48 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday and Exemptions\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDividend income from tax-exempt companies.\n2.\nRectification of errors.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDividend income from tax-exempt companies is also exempt for shareholders.\n2.\nThe scope of Section 35 includes rectifying errors apparent in assessment records. However, errors due to taxpayer oversight may not qualify.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Gulzarina (1972), CIT v. Ebrahim D. Ahmed (1982).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,35,66 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLVII,r.1,O.XLVI,r.1 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Cases Nos. 170 to 220 of 1972, decision dated: 25-04-1983, hearing DATE : 30th March 1983", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Hyder Ali Pirzada", + "Party Name:": "KHALID ADAMJEE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 39 = 1983 SLD 39 = 1983 PTD 256 = (1983) 48 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gross Profit Rate and Penalty\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAlteration of gross profit rates.\n2.\nImposition of penalties.\nConclusions:\n1.\nChanges to profit rates require new facts or evidence. Arbitrary changes without notice are invalid.\n2.\nVoluntary revisions without evidence of concealment should not attract penalties.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,111,116,118,119 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 617 to 621 of 1931 82, decision dated: 10-04-1983, hearing DATE : 21st September, 1982", + "Judge Name": "ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Siddique Akhtar Ch., I. T. P.. Vakeel Ahmed, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 40 = 1983 SLD 40 = 1983 PTD 261 = (1983) 47 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Firm Assets\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of asset transfer within a firm upon reconstitution.\nConclusion:\nTransfers between firm partners during reconstitution are not sales and thus not taxable. Transfers to or from companies are taxable.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Abdul Khader Motor Service (1978).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 82 of 1979, decision dated: 5-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND FAIZANUDDIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nRAMCHAND DARYANOMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 41 = 1983 SLD 41 = 1983 PTD 264 = (1983) 47 TAX 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment\nKey Issue:\nLevying penalties for understated income in estimated returns.\nConclusion:\nPenalties for concealment require evidence of fraud or deliberate misstatement. Modest additions to income without such evidence do not justify penalties", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 252 of 1973, decision dated: 13-07-1982", + "Judge Name": "CHANDURKAR AND KANIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. K. Sajnani with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner. Y. J. Pandit for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nB. S. BADVE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 42 = 1983 SLD 42 = 1983 PTD 278 = (1983) 48 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Additions to Income\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAdditions to income without proper approvals or justification.\n2.\nArbitrary additions based on vague or unsupported assumptions.\nConclusions:\n1.\nIncome cannot be taxed in an incorrect assessment year, and additions without prior approval are unjustified.\n2.\nProfessional income additions based on assumptions (e.g., being a barrister) require substantive evidence. Unsupported additions, such as those relying on tenant information without rebuttal, are invalid.\n3.\nCost of construction additions must rely on credible, objective data. Arbitrary bases are unacceptable.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2D) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 38/P. B. to 42/P. B. of 1982 83, decision dated: 22-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ehsanul Haq, I. T. P.. Tariq Aziz, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 43 = 1983 SLD 43 = 1983 PTD 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Annual Property Value\nKey Issue:\nDetermination of annual property value for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\nThe annual value of a property must align with the standard rent under Rent Act provisions, not the actual rent received. This overturns prior rulings that allowed actual rents to dictate property value.\nCases Referred:\nDewan Daulat Ram Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980), Sheila Kaushishi v. CIT (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos, 1179 to 1183 of 1981, decision dated: 19-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "P. N. BHAGWATI AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "AMOLAK RAM KHOSLA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHIIl" + }, + { + "Case No.": "610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 44 = 1983 SLD 44 = 1983 PTD 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Petrochemical Classification\nKey Issue:\nClassification of Nylon 6 as a petrochemical.\nConclusion:\nThe classification of Nylon 6 is a factual determination and not suitable for High Court reference as a legal question.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Nirton Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1520 of 1981, decision dated: 29-04-1981", + "Judge Name": "P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate, S. P. Mehta, H. P. Ranina, Ravindro Narain Mrs. A. K. Verma, Talat Ansari, A. h. Haksar, Ramesh Di wan and Miss Arti Mehra with him. Lal Narayan Sinha, Attorney General for India B. B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini with him", + "Party Name:": "J. K. SYNTHETICS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 45 = 1983 SLD 45 = 1983 PTD 287 = 1984 PTCL 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Wife’s Income in Assessee’s Total Income under Section 16(3)(a)(iii), Income-tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe assessee, Nasir A. Sheikh, filed his return for the assessment year 1960–61, claiming that he had transferred shares worth Rs. 7,32,260 to his wife, Mst. Khurshid Begum, as consideration for an increased mahr (dower). Originally set at Rs. 32,000, the mahr was allegedly increased to Rs. 10 lakhs in 1958, and the wife received Rs. 50,072 as dividend on the transferred shares during the relevant year. The Income-tax Officer held that the transfer was not genuine and invoked Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to include the dividend income in the assessee's total income.\nThe assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which found no contemporaneous or credible evidence to support the claim that the dower had indeed been increased. The only evidence presented was affidavits by the assessee and his wife, which the Tribunal found insufficient.\nThe High Court held that the question referred—whether the Tribunal was justified in including the dividend income in the assessee's income—was predominantly factual. Since the Tribunal’s finding that the increase in dower was not proved was a finding of fact, and there was no misreading or ignoring of evidence, the High Court refused to interfere.\nHeld:\nThe Court answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that:\nThe Tribunal was justified in treating the dividend income of Rs. 50,072 as part of the assessee’s income under Section 16(3)(a)(iii).\nThe question turned on a finding of fact that no valid or proven increase in dower had taken place.\nAbsence of contemporaneous evidence was critical, and affidavits alone were insufficient.\nThe Tribunal had not insisted on documentary evidence alone but required some credible contemporaneous proof, which was lacking.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3)(a)(iii),66 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 22 of 1969, decision dated: 10-03-1976", + "Judge Name": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt and Aman Ullah for Petitioner\nSh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "NASIR A. SHEIKH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 46 = 1983 SLD 46 = 1983 PTD 289 = (1983) 48 TAX 150 = 1984 PTCL 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Validity and Genuineness of a Partnership Firm under Income-tax Law\nDetails:\nThis order governs multiple Income-tax References (I.T.R. Nos. 272–274, 772–774 of 1972, and 11 & 14 of 1975), all concerning Messrs Hussain Corporation, a registered partnership firm operating in Karachi. The assessments under scrutiny span assessment years 1965–66 to 1972–73. The firm’s application for registration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was denied by the Income-tax Officer, who argued that the firm was a tax avoidance scheme operated by the wives and close relatives of directors of Messrs Hussain Textile Mills Ltd.. He claimed the partnership was not genuine, especially since a General Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Dawood Yousuf Gabrani, managed all its affairs.\nHowever, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that a valid and genuine partnership did exist under the partnership deed, and that mere delegation of authority to an attorney did not negate the legal status of the partnership. They overruled the Income-tax Officer’s decision and upheld the registration of the firm.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that:\nThe finding that a valid partnership existed is a finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence.\nIn proceedings under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Court cannot interfere with such findings unless there is a misreading of evidence or perversity, neither of which was present in this case.\nThe first question—whether Hussain Corporation is a partnership within the meaning of Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932—was answered in the affirmative.\nThe second question, regarding genuineness, involved only a question of fact and no legal question was found to arise for the Court’s decision.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),66(2),10,26A Partnership Act, 1932=4 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 272 of 1972, decision dated: 17-03-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant\nAll Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI\nvs\nM/S HUSSAIN CORPORATION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 47 = 1983 SLD 47 = 1983 PTD 291 = (1984) 49 TAX 1 = 1984 PTCL 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Acceptance of Return under Self-Assessment Scheme under the Income-tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nTwo questions were referred under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, concerning whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to accept a return filed under the self-assessment scheme despite:\nRule 16 giving ITO discretion to proceed under normal law, and\nThe assessee not maintaining books of accounts nor complying with Rule 46 which requires a statement of account to accompany the return.\nThe ITO had rejected the assessee's return solely on the ground of non-maintenance of books. The Tribunal reversed this, holding that all requirements of the self-assessment scheme were met.\nA similar issue had previously been settled in CIT v. Khushi Muhammad, I.T.R. No. 314 of 1972 (decided on 31-03-1983), where it was held that if a return satisfies the self-assessment scheme's conditions, it must be accepted unless the ITO finds that the income disclosed is incorrect.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal was justified in its direction. If a return complies with the self-assessment scheme, it cannot be rejected merely for non-maintenance of books unless the ITO finds the income disclosed to be incorrect. Both questions referred were answered in the affirmative.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Khushi Muhammad, I.T.R. No. 314 of 1972, decided on 31-03-1983", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Income Tax Rules, 1922=16,46 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 356 of 1972, decision dated: 26-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMANZOOR HUSSAIN ABDUL KARIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 48 = 1983 SLD 48 = 1983 PTD 292 = (1983) 48 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Registration\nKey Issue:\nRegistration of a firm admitting minors to partnership benefits.\nConclusion:\nRegistration is valid even if guardians’ consent for minors is filed after the accounting period but before registration consideration. Rectifiable procedural defects should not impede registration.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Dwarkadas (P.) & Co. (1971), CIT v. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram (1965).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 536 of 1973, decision dated: 14-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Pal with P. Majumdar. R. N. Bajoria with D. K. Dhar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nASSOCIATE INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 49 = 1983 SLD 49 = 1983 PTD 298 = (1983) 48 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Appeals\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope of rectification for partners’ individual assessments.\n2.\nJurisdictional objections in appeals.\nConclusions:\n1.\nIndividual assessments cannot be rectified solely based on firm assessments.\n2.\nJurisdictional challenges can be raised in appeals even if not objected to before the ITO.\nCases Referred:\nITO v. S.K. Habibullah (1962), CIT v. Ohkarmal Meghraj (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 224 and 225 of 1972, decision dated: 7-04-1981", + "Judge Name": "BAFORE S. RANGANATHAN AND MS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bafore S. Ranganathan and Ms. Leila Seth, JJ\nM. L. Verma for the Assessee. IG IG Wadhera with P. N. Misra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SWAP AN YASH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 50 = 1983 SLD 50 = 1983 PTD 304 = (1983) 48 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital\nKey Issue:\nProportional disallowance of interest on borrowed capital.\nConclusion:\nInterest on borrowed capital cannot be disallowed unless it is demonstrated that borrowed funds were not used for business purposes.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Gopikrishna Muralidhar (1963).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 99 of 1979, decision dated: 6-04-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. S. SHARMA AND K. N. SHUKLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Bagadiya for the Commissioner. G. M. Chaphekar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nALOK PAPER INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 51 = 1983 SLD 51 = 1983 PTD 305 = (1983) 48 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Lease\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of income from a leased factory.\nConclusion:\nIf the lessee retains operational control and the lessor continues to exploit the asset commercially, income from the lease qualifies as business income.\nCases Referred:\nNew Savan Sugar & Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969), CIT v. Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd. (1978).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred Nos. 19 and 115 of 1977, decision dated: 02/07/1982", + "Judge Name": ", JEEVAN REDDY AND MS. AMRESWARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Suryanarayana Murthy for the Commissioner. Y. V. Anjaneyulu for the Assesses", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nARYAN INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 52 = 1983 SLD 52 = 1983 PTD 314 = (1983) 48 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Filing of Consent for Registration\nKey Issue:\nRectification of late filings in partnership registration applications.\nConclusion:\nLate filings of consent by guardians of minors can be rectified if the original application is valid. Registration should not be denied based on correctable procedural defects.\nCases Referred:\nAlankar Jewellers v. CIT (1979), CIT v. Uttam Kumar Promod Kumar (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 238 of 1977, decision dated: 20-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "K. N. SETH AND R. R. RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Katju. R. K. Gulati", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCOMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 53 = 1983 SLD 53 = 1983 PTD 317 = (1983) 48 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Change of Opinion\nKey Issue:\nReopening assessments based on changes in opinion.\nConclusion:\nReopening based on a changed interpretation (e.g., gross vs. net receipts for deductions) is invalid. Original assessments must rely on disclosed facts.\nCases Referred:\nCloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No. 921 of 1978, decision dated: 25-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "M. L. PENDSE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. E. Dastur for Petitioner. P. M. Pradhans", + "Party Name:": "DALAL CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS (P.) LTD.\nvs\nMiss D. V. BAPAT, INC0I.9ETAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 54 = 1983 SLD 54 = 1983 PTD 330 = (1983) 48 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Devaluation Loss and Res Judicata\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of devaluation losses as trading losses.\n2.\nApplicability of res judicata in tax matters.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDevaluation losses are not trading losses unless incurred directly in business operations.\n2.\nPrior tax decisions do not bind subsequent years under res judicata.\nCases Referred:\nSutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Mandamus Appeal No. 218 of 1976, decision dated: 14-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "M. M. DUTT AND A. K. SARKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal and R. Murarka. S. Sen and Ajit Sengupta", + "Party Name:": "NAMDANG TEA Co. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 55 = 1983 SLD 55 = 1983 PTD 339 = (1983) 48 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrenchment Expenses\nKey Issue:\nAllowability of retrenchment expenses as business expenditure.\nConclusion:\nThe question of retrenchment expenses being allowable as business expenditure constitutes a legal question for High Court determination.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 54 of 1977, decision dated: 16th October,1980", + "Judge Name": "G. G. SOHANI AND K. N. SHUKLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. R. Mandevora for the Assessee. S. C. Bagadiya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "FRADEEP PICTURES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 56 = 1983 SLD 56 = 1983 PTD 340 = (1983) 48 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Association of Persons\nKey Issue:\nAssessment of divided HUF members as an Association of Persons (AOP).\nConclusion:\nDivided HUF members cannot be assessed as an AOP unless they explicitly associate to form one.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Balakrishna (1960), G. Murugesan & Bros. v. CIT (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 353 of 1980, decision dated: 14-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "CHANDURKAR AND MOKA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi, A. Shelat and R. G. Deshpande for the Commissioner.. R. Manohar, C. J. Thakar and B. L. Goswami for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nINDRAMOHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 57 = 1983 SLD 57 = 1983 PTD 343 = (1983) 48 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Interest on Borrowed Capital\nKey Issue:\nInterest deduction for a new project linked to existing business activities.\nConclusion:\nThe new project for manufacturing dye intermediates was not independent but connected to the existing business. Interest paid on borrowed capital for the project was allowed as a deductible expense.\nCases Referred:\nCalico Dyeing and Printing Works v. C.I.T. (1958).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 105 of 1972, decision dated: 11-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "S. K DESAI AND D. M. REGE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R A Joshi with S. Y. Naik and L. K. Chattrrjee for the Commissioner. Y H. Paul for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nANILINE DYESTUFFS & PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 58 = 1983 SLD 58 = 1983 PTD 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment and Notice Validity\nKey Issue:\nValidity of notices issued for re-assessment.\nConclusion:\nNotices for re-assessment must be precise. A vague notice initially issued to the individual, instead of the joint family, rendered the subsequent correction invalid.\nCases Referred:\n117 ITR 256 (Cal), 118 ITR 906 (Cal), 82 ITR 821 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 Of 1978, decision dated: 3rd September, 1982", + "Judge Name": "S. N. SETH AND R. R. RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bhoratji Agarwal for Applicant. Standing Counsel for the Opposite-Party", + "Party Name:": "Lala MADAN LAL AGARW AL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 59 = 1983 SLD 59 = 1983 PTD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Transfer of Property\nKey Issue:\nTaxability of compromise payments as capital gains.\nConclusion:\nCompensation received for relinquishing property rights under a compromise was deemed taxable as capital gains.\nCases Referred:\n121 ITR 684 (Mad.), 88 ITR 432.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Reference No. 116 of 1975, decision dated: 17-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "H. W. SETH AND R. R. RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LUCKNOW\nvs\nSmt. VIMLA LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 60 = 1983 SLD 60 = 1983 PTD 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue and Capital Receipts\nKey Issues:\n1.\nClassification of interest as revenue receipt.\n2.\nCharacterization of amounts in compromise decrees.\nConclusions:\n1.\nInterest received, whether statutory or otherwise, is a revenue receipt.\n2.\nAmounts labeled as interest in compromise decrees must reflect their true nature. If not genuinely interest, they are not revenue receipts.\nCases Referred:\nAIR 1964 SC 1878, AIR 1968 SC 129.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Cases Referred Nos. 48 of 1977 and 272 of 1978, decision dated: 11-08-1982", + "Judge Name": ", JEEVAN REDDY AND MRS. AMARESWARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Suryanarayan Murthy for Applicant. Y. V. Anjaneyulu", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD \nvs\nJ. D. ITALIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 61 = 1983 SLD 61 = 1983 PTD 362 = (1983) 47 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Royalty Deduction\nKey Issue:\nDeductibility of royalty payments for using a trademark and technical assistance.\nConclusion:\nRoyalty paid based on net sales under a licensing agreement was deductible as a business expenditure.\nCases Referred:\n1982 TLR 1777, 123 ITR 773.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No, 1143 of 1974, decision dated: 23rd April, 1981", + "Judge Name": "S. RANGANATHAN AND MRS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Wazir Singh with Anoop Sharma for Petitioner. C. S. Aggarwal with Heera Bhatia", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF I.-T., DELHI II\nvs\nMESSERS SHAMA ENGINE VALVES LTD., NEW DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 62 = 1983 SLD 62 = 1983 PTD 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption - Nexus with Business Needs\nKey Issue:\nEligibility for exemptions based on the use of residential property.\nConclusion:\nExemptions require a direct nexus between non-use of the residential property and business needs. Personal convenience, without business necessity, disqualifies exemptions.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 115 of 1977, decision dated: 19-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND FAIZANUDDIN, .J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Nema for Applicant. B. K. Rawat for the Opposite Party", + "Party Name:": "SHIKHARCHAND LAIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADHYA PRADESHII, BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 63 = 1983 SLD 63 = 1983 PTD 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment under Section 23-A\nKey Issue:\nCalculation of commercial profits for additional super-tax under Section 23-A.\nConclusion:\nOnly the tax assessed at the time of the Income-tax Officer’s order can be deducted from commercial profits to calculate distributable surplus. Subsequent reassessments are irrelevant for the earlier decision.\nCases Referred:\nAIR 1965 SC 1977.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 140 of 1969, decision dated: 7-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUBAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Bagchi with A. N. Battacharjee for the Revenue. Dr. D. Pal with Min M. Sea! for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALII, CALCUTTA\nvs\nMESSRS R. Mc. DILL & Co. (PVT.) LTD., CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 64 = 1983 SLD 64 = 1983 PTD 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDeductibility of unpaid sales tax.\n2.\nMethods of accounting.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSales tax realized but unpaid is deductible.\n2.\nTaxpayers may employ different accounting methods for different income sources, and tribunals can review these methods suo motu.\nCases Referred:\nNone cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 3 of 1979, decision dated: 13-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "G. P. SINGH, C. I. AND K. K DUBE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Nema for the Assesses. R. K. Rawat, Standing Council for the Department", + "Party Name:": "MEMS BHAGWANDAS JAGDISH PRASAD & Co., RAIPUR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADHYA PRADESH Il, BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 65 = 1983 SLD 65 = 1983 PTD 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss\nKey Issue:\nClassification of security deposit forfeiture as a business or capital loss.\nConclusion:\nLoss due to the forfeiture of a deposit for non-fulfillment of a contract was deemed a business loss, not a capital loss.\nCases Referred:\n100 ITR 424, 79 ITR 530.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 219 of 1977, decision dated: 28-07-1981", + "Judge Name": "G. P. SINGH, C, J. CAD FAIZUDDIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. D. Thakur with C. J. Thakur for Applicant. P. S. Khirwodkar", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS THACKERS, H. P. & COMPANY, RATPUR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M. P. BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 66 = 1983 SLD 66 = 1983 PTD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Loss\nKey Issue:\nLoss of cash during transit.\nConclusion:\nCash lost while being transported for business purposes was deemed a business loss.\nCases Referred:\n111 ITR 263.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 192 of 1973, decision dated: 27-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "KANIA AND SMT. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with H. K. Sajnani and L. K. Chatterjee for Applicant. I. M. Munim with S. N. Inatndar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, POONA\nvs\nMESSRS P. V. GORE & CO., POONA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 67 = 1983 SLD 67 = 1983 PTD 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake\nKey Issue:\nRectification for computing capital employed.\nConclusion:\nIssues requiring extended reasoning or debate are not eligible for rectification as mistakes apparent from the record. \nCases Referred:\n108 ITR 869.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 154 of 1973, decision dated: 21st April, 1982", + "Judge Name": "KANIA AND SMT. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with H. K. Sqjnani and L. K. Chatterji for Applicant. Subhash S. Shetty with C. Vyas and R. M, Kadams", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITYI, BOMBAY\nvs\nMESSRS INDUSTRIAL PERFUMES LTD., BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 68 = 1983 SLD 68 = 1983 PTD 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment\nKey Issue:\nRight to be heard regarding materials used in assessment.\nConclusion:\nAssessees are not entitled to be heard about materials gathered in inquiries before being used for assessments.\nCases Referred:\n96 ITR 148 (Ker).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 75 of 1976, decision dated: 2-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHF MUKHARJF AND SUHAS CLMDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. K. Sengupta with Sund Mukherjee for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II\nvs\nMessrs KOLBEONG Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 69 = 1983 SLD 69 = 1983 PTD 386 = (1983) 48 TAX 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Explanation 8 to Section 4(1)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of loans for taxation.\n2.\nAllowance of permissible expenses.\nConclusions:\n1.\nExplanation 8 applies regardless of when loans were made.\n2.\nPermissible expenses must be allowed even if income is taxed under Explanation 8.\nCases Referred:\n1899 2 QB 158.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 80-KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 27-11-1980, hearing DATE : 13-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R.. Sirajul Haque", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 70 = 1983 SLD 70 = 1983 PTD 389 = (1983) 48 TAX 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Super-Tax and Rebates\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSuper-tax calculation.\n2.\nApplicability of export rebates.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSuper-tax must be based on the actual tax assessed, excluding subsequent rebates.\n2.\nExport rebates apply to overall tax liability, not specifically to super-tax.\nCases Referred:\nI.T.R. No. 112 of 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(I)(b),55 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 335 of 1972, decision dated: 13-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. Ali Ather", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS YOUNUS BROTHERS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 71 = 1983 SLD 71 = 1983 PTD 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income\nKey Issue:\nIncome from leased factory classified as business income.\nConclusion:\nIncome from leasing a factory for an extended period is taxable as business income, not income from other sources.\nCases Referred:\nAIR 1969 SC 1062.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Cases Referred Nos. 19 and 115 of 1977, decision dated: 27th July 1982", + "Judge Name": ", JEEVAN REDDY AND MRS. AMARESWARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Suryanarayana Murthy, Standing Counsel for the I. T. Department for Applicant. Y.V. Anjamyulu", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ANDHRA PRADESH1, HYDERABAD\nvs\nMESSRS ARYAN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., SECUNDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 72 = 1983 SLD 72 = 1983 PTD 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Dividend\nKey Issue:\nInclusion of depreciation funds in accumulated profits.\nConclusion:\nDepreciation funds cannot be included in accumulated profits for deemed dividend purposes unless misclassified profits are set aside.\nCases Referred:\n105 ITR 642.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 38 of 1977, decision dated: 4-08-1982", + "Judge Name": ", JEEVAN REDDY AND MRS. AMARUWARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Suryanarayana Murthy, Standing Counsel for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH II, HYDERABAD\nvs\nJALADU RAMA RAO, MACHILIPATNAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 73 = 1983 SLD 73 = 1983 PTD 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-off of Losses\nKey Issue:\nEligibility to set off horse-breeding losses.\nConclusion:\nLosses from horse-breeding activities are eligible for set-off against income from other business sources.\nCases Referred:\n129 ITR 115.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 102 of 1974, decision dated: 1st June, 1982", + "Judge Name": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal with Miss M. Seal, and J. Saha for the Assessee. A. C. Maitra with B. K. Naha for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGAL 11, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 74 = 1983 SLD 74 = 1983 PTD 429 = (1983) 48 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDelay in filing appeals due to illness.\n2.\nDepreciation allowance on transferred assets.\nConclusions:\n1.\nIllness of the liquidator justified condonation of a 5-day delay in filing an appeal.\n2.\nAsset transfers between entities do not qualify as sales for depreciation purposes.\nCases Referred:\n1963 7 Tax 57.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 1991 (LB) and 1992 (L B) of 1991 82, decision dated: 25-06-1983, hearing DATE : 13-06-1983", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Faruq Ali, F. C. A.. Arshad Pervaiz and Yosuf Sharih, D. Rs.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 488 = 2000 SLD 488 = 2000 PTD 3653 = (1999) 238 ITR 913", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Interest\nKey Issue:\nCalculation of interest on delayed payment of advance tax.\nConclusion:\nPayments made before the accounting year’s closure must be credited, reducing the amount on which interest is calculated.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.835 of 1987 (Reference No.538 of 1987), decision dated: 18-04-1998", + "Judge Name": ", JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.H. Aravindh Pandian for, Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabltan and Ramamani for the Assessee Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RALASUBRAMANIA MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 489 = 2000 SLD 489 = 2000 PTD 3657 = (1999) 238 ITR 916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Gratuity Liability\nKey Issue:\nDeduction of cumulative gratuity liability already partially allowed in earlier years.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal safeguarded the interest of the assessee by stating that if the High Court did not uphold deductions allowed for earlier years, the set-off in 1975-76 would be deleted. The reference was purely academic and decided against the assessee.\nCases Referred:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 40A(7) & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.694 of 1987 (Reference No.467 of 1987), decision dated: 21st April, 1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PARRY & CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 490 = 2000 SLD 490 = 2000 PTD 3659 = (1999) 238 ITR 918", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Remission of Liability and Reassessment\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTiming of remission of liability for refund of excise duty.\n2.\nLimitation for reassessment due to failure to disclose material facts.\nConclusions:\n1.\nNo remission occurs when appeals against refund orders are pending.\n2.\nDisclosure of facts in the return precludes extended limitation for reassessment.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., 236 ITR 518 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 1686 of 1999, decision dated: 15-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D.A. -Mehta for R.K. Patel, M.K. Patil and B.D. Karia for Petitioner. P.G. Desai for Manish R. Bhatt No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MEGHDOOT LAMINART (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nRAJIV SINHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 491 = 2000 SLD 491 = 2000 PTD 3665 = (1999) 238 ITR 924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Dissolution and Assessment\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of firm after dissolution for tax assessment.\n2.\nValuation of closing stock.\nConclusions:\n1.\nA dissolved firm is deemed to continue for assessment purposes and entitled to liability deductions.\n2.\nClosing stock of a dissolved firm must be valued at market price.\nCases Referred:\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT, 189 ITR 285 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 110 of 1996, decision dated: 29-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.KA. Merton and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. S. Ananthakrishnam for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDIZA ELECTRICALS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 492 = 2000 SLD 492 = 2000 PTD 3669 = (1999) 238 ITR 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Carry Forward and Depreciation\nKey Issue:\nSet-off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources.\nConclusion:\nUnabsorbed depreciation from earlier years can be set off against income from other sources, even if the business has discontinued.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd., 59 ITR 555 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.251 and 252 of 1984, decision dated: 6-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Official Liquidator for the Assessee. Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BARODA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 493 = 2000 SLD 493 = 2000 PTD 3672 = (1999) 238 ITR 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Company and Tax Concessions\nKey Issue:\nEligibility of a cotton ginning and processing company for concessional tax rates.\nConclusion:\nA company processing cotton into bales qualifies as an industrial company entitled to concessional tax rates.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Lakhtar Cotton Press Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., 142 ITR 503 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 120 to 124 of 1997, decided. on 22-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A.R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Manish R. Bhatt for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nFATESINHJI GINNING, PRESSING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 494 = 2000 SLD 494 = 2000 PTD 3674 = (1999) 238 ITR 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance for Hotels\nKey Issue:\nEntitlement of hotels to investment allowance for activities involving food preparation.\nConclusion:\nPreparing food in a hotel does not constitute manufacturing or processing of goods, making hotels ineligible for investment allowance.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Cashing (Pvt.) Ltd., 91 ITR 289 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 161 and 162 of 1995, decision dated: 24-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nvs\nVRINDAVAN HOTELS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 495 = 2000 SLD 495 = 2000 PTD 3688 = (1999) 238 ITR 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Recovery and Private Negotiation\nKey Issue:\nValidity of property sales negotiated privately under Tax Recovery Rules.\nConclusion:\nPrivate sale negotiations authorized by the Tax Recovery Officer are valid, and objections from third parties without locus standi are inadmissible.\nCases Referred:\nBasavarajappa (K.) v. Tax Recovery Commissioner, 223 ITR 297 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 1164 of 1983, decision dated: 25-04-1998", + "Judge Name": "RAVI S. DHAVAN AND V. P. GOEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V.B., Upadhyay; Senior Advocate with V.B. Singh for Petitioner. M. Katjus Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "AMAR CHAND AGRAWAL; and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 496 = 2000 SLD 496 = 2000 PTD 3702 = (1999) 238 ITR 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Compensatory Receipts and Revenue Recognition\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of cash compensatory receipts.\n2.\nRevenue or capital nature of duty drawbacks and import entitlement gains.\nConclusions:\n1.\nCash compensatory receipts are taxable as business income.\n2.\nDuty drawbacks and import entitlement gains are revenue receipts.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Smarts (P.) Ltd., 233 ITR 243 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos.588, 589 and 590 of 1986, decision dated: 19-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "DEVINDER GUPTA, ACTG. C.J. AND, J.B. GOEL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Assessee R.D. Jolly with Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GEDORE TOOLS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 497 = 2000 SLD 497 = 2000 PTD 3708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Hotel Businesses and Tax Concessions\nKey Issues:\n1.\nEligibility of hotels for concessional tax rates.\n2.\nInvestment allowance for additions to plant and machinery.\nConclusions:\n1.\nHotels do not qualify as industrial companies for concessional tax rates.\n2.\nAdditions to hotel equipment are not eligible for investment allowance.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Vrindavan Hotels (P.) Ltd., 238 ITR 224 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.148 and 149 of 1995, decision dated: 24-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Joseph Markos and Joseph Kodianthara for the Assessee P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HOTEL AND ALLIED. TRADES (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 498 = 2000 SLD 498 = 2000 PTD 3712 = (1999) 238 ITR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Revision and CIT Powers\nKey Issue:\nScope of revisionary powers of the CIT under Section 263.\nConclusion:\nThe CIT can revise matters not considered in appeals, including draft assessment orders passed with IAC approval.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1788 of 1984 (Reference No.1284 of 1984), decision dated: 24-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY-JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 499 = 2000 SLD 499 = 2000 PTD 3677 = (1999) 238 ITR 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nKey Issue:\nPenalty for income not disclosed in original returns but revealed during reassessment.\nConclusion:\nPenalty for concealment was justified as the income was not voluntarily disclosed in the original returns.\nCases Referred:\nCIT v. Krishna & Co., 120 ITR 144 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 520 to 522 of 1998 (References Nos. 462 to 464 of 1984), decision dated: 6-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPOPULAR LUNGHI CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 500 = 2000 SLD 500 = 2000 PTD 3732 = (2000) 82 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Rectification\nKey Issue:\nRectification of a self-assessment order under Broad-Based Self-Assessment Scheme.\nConclusion:\nSuccessor appellate authority cannot rectify a predecessor's final order. Any correction must be sought through formal appeals.\nCases Referred:\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 1117.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,59(4),61,62,13(1)(c),(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4538/LB of 1999, decision dated: 20-06-2000, hearing DATE : 3rd June, 2000", + "Judge Name": "M. MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Zaheer, D.R.. Talat Javed, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 95 = 2011 SLD 95 = 2011 PTD 2533 = (2012) 105 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Immunity under Sales Tax Zero-Rating and Income Tax Provisions\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of S.R.O. 333(1)/2011 granting immunity to specific taxpayers.\n2.\nFederal Board of Revenue's (FBR) competence to extend such immunity.\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe issuance of Circular No. 6 of 2011 extending the immunity to provisions of Section 111(1)(b) and (c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was illegal and amounted to maladministration.\n2.\nFBR rescinded Circular No. 6 through Circular No. 8 of 2011, addressing the complainant's grievances.\nRecommendations:\nFBR was directed to ensure proper vetting of such circulars before issuance and establish a feedback mechanism to prevent misuse or misinterpretation.\nCases Referred:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 111(1), 206 & Second Schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1),206,SecondSched.,(45A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 97/ISD/SUO-MOTO(03)/957/2011 Decided on 17-8-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ramzan Bhatti, Advisor, for the Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt Advocate, for the Complainant. Aftab Ahmad, Chief(ITP) and Mohammad Imtiaz, Secy (WHT), Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 96 = 2011 SLD 96 = (2012) 105 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Misuse of Exemption Circular for FATA and PATA\nKey Issue:\nMisuse of a circular providing tax exemptions under the Prime Minister's Economic Incentive Package for FATA and PATA.\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe firm, registered to avail exemptions fraudulently, did not qualify as it was not based in FATA or PATA.\n2.\nThe FBR clarified and withdrew the benefit of the circular.\nRecommendations:\nThe concerned Chief Commissioner was directed to finalize proceedings against the firm and report compliance.\nCases Referred:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 07/QTA/IT(01)526/2011, decision dated: 18-8-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Nadir Khan, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Arif, Deputy Commissioner, Fida-ul-Haq, Assistant Commissioner, Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "COMPLAINANT\nvs\nHAQ NAWAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 4 = 2012 SLD 4 = 2012 PTCL 19 = (2012) 105 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Surcharge under Section 4A of Income Tax Ordinance\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLevy of 15% surcharge for rehabilitation of flood affectees.\n2.\nApplicability to taxpayers using non-standard tax years.\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe surcharge applied universally, irrespective of tax year commencement dates, as per legislative intent.\n2.\nAllowing exemptions for non-standard tax years would frustrate the purpose of the enactment.\nCases Referred:\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(68),4A,74 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1487,1488 and Miscellaneous Nos. 6962, 6963 of 2011, decision dated: 21-6-2011, hearing DATE : 27-5-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Alam and Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, for the Petitioner Kafeet Ahmed Abbasi, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "LOTTE PAKISTAN PTA LTD. through Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 97 = 2011 SLD 97 = 2011 PTD 2275 = 2011 PTCL 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Salary vs. Perquisites\nKey Issues:\n1.\nClassification of cash awards paid to employees as salary or perquisites.\n2.\nTreatment of repair, renovation, and alteration expenses.\nConclusions:\n1.\nCash awards based on individual performance fall under salary as per Section 16(2)(a)(ii) and not as perquisites.\n2.\nExpenditure on repairs not creating capital assets is classified as current repairs.\nCases Referred:\nSui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 PTD 3741.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16(2),24(i),136(1),23,ThirdSched. ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 256 to 259 of 1999 decided on 21-6-2011, hearing DATE : 10-5-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawwed Farooqui. Iqbal Haider", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSEMEA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 98 = 2011 SLD 98 = 2011 SCMR 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax Exemptions on National Saving Schemes\nKey Issue:\nValidity of exemptions from withholding tax on profits from National Saving Schemes post-enforcement of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nConclusions:\nExemptions granted under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, continued for investments made on or before 30-06-2001. The Federal Government could not withdraw such exemptions through sub-legislative instruments.\nCases Referred:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Second Schedule, Part-I, Cls. 77-C & 77-C(A).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.Part-I,77C,77C(A) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239(14) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No. 640 to 643 of 2006, Civil Petition No. 1001-L of 2006 and C.M.As. Nos. 2398 to 2401 of 2009, decision dated: 26-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Courts (in all cases). Saghir Ahsan Farooqui, NSO for the Applicants (in C.M.A. Nos.2398 to 2401 of 2009). Siraj Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE and others \nvs\nMessrs PROSPERITY WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 99 = 2011 SLD 99 = 2011 SCMR 1117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Government-Owned Corporations\nKey Issue:\nWhether Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) was exempt from property tax as a government-owned entity.\nConclusions:\n1.\nPTV, as a commercial public limited company, did not qualify for exemption under S.R.O. 24(1)/2001.\n2.\nThe corporation's assets were not vested in the Federal Government but owned by PTV itself.\nCases Referred:\nMuhammad Aslam Saleemi v. Pakistan Television Corporation PLD 1977 Lah. 852.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Capital Development Authority (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1981=6(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165,165-A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2009 and Criminal Original Petition No. 108 of 2010, decision dated: 7-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court/PTV. Mian Muhammad Hanif, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 1/CDA. Ex parte No. 2", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORP. LTD.\nvs\nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others\nCriminal Original No. 108 of 2010\nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman\nvs\nZIA-UR-REHMAN, DEPUTY CONTROLLER, PTV CORP. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 55 = 2008 SLD 55 = 2008 SCMR 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Assessment Orders\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope of mistake apparent on record under Section 156(1).\n2.\nDistinction between rectification and revision powers.\nConclusions:\n1.\nMistakes must be evident and not require elaborate discussions for rectification.\n2.\nRectification cannot alter tax liability based on considerations outside original proceedings.\nCases Referred:\n1992 PTD 570; (1959) 36 ITR 350.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(1),66,156 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.503-K of 2006, decision dated: 22-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "RANA BHAGWANDAS AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz A. Sheikh, Member Legal, Central Board of Revenue for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SHADMAN COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI through Director-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 56 = 2008 SLD 56 = 2008 SCMR 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Delay and Limitation\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that a delay in filing an appeal, even if only for one day, creates a right for the opposite party. Applications for condoning such delays must be made before the appellate authority and not for the first time in the Supreme Court. The petitioner was denied relief, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 130(2)(3); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130(2)(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.440-L of 2001, decision dated: 10-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIDA-EMILLAT, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 57 = 2008 SLD 57 = 2008 SCMR 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loan Definition for Tax Purposes\nConclusion: Only amounts received through crossed cheques or banking channels qualify as loans under S. 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Cash transactions are excluded unless explicitly stated.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 12(18).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18), ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1344 of 2003 and 1367-1370 of 2003, decision dated: 27-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record and Mumtaz Ahmed Member (Legal) C.B.R.s. M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX-\nvs\nMessrs USMAN GHEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 58 = 2008 SLD 58 = 2008 SCMR 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notice and Constitutional Petition\nConclusion: The Supreme Court emphasized using appropriate remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance before resorting to constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner bypassed statutory forums, and the appeal was set aside.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 66A; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199; Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.956-L and 957-L of 2003, heard on 12-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD and others\nvs\nMessrs PUNJAB BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 59 = 2008 SLD 59 = 2008 SCMR 510 = (2008) 97 TAX 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unregistered Sale Agreement and Taxability\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that unregistered sale agreements do not confer ownership or exclude property from taxation. Ownership remains with the seller until legally transferred.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 13(1)(aa) & (b); Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 53-A & 54; Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 17 & 49.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),(b) Registration Act, 1908=17,49 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882=53A,54 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1280 to 1285 of 2007, decision dated: 12-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Itaat Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record (in all cases) Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, PESHAWAR\nvs\nHAROON BILOUR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 60 = 2008 SLD 60 = 2008 SCMR 543 = (2007) 96 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Avoidance of Double Taxation\nConclusion: The High Court failed to consider distinctions between cases under S. 163(2). The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal while emphasizing independent consideration of facts.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 163(2).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1089 to 1095 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Courts. Nemos. S. Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. on Court notice", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 61 = 2008 SLD 61 = 2008 SCMR 586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Appeal and Maintainability\nConclusion: Appeals filed beyond the limitation period without valid explanation cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court granted leave to review the validity and applicability of statutory provisions.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 136 & 156; Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R. 20.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.LA. No. 113-K of 2000, decision dated: 7-07-2000", + "Judge Name": "RANA BHAGWANDAS AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-IV, KARACHI and others\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN ELECTRIC FITTINGS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. through Directors-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 62 = 2008 SLD 62 = 2008 SCMR 593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease Money and Taxable Income\nConclusion: Lease money received in advance should be proportionately taxed annually. The Supreme Court remanded the case for proper adjudication.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 19; K.S. Krishna Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh 1991 PTD 286.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1498 to 1500 of 2005, decision dated: 22-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX-\nvs\nSARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 63 = 2008 SLD 63 = 2008 SCMR 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Minimum Tax\nConclusion: Tax incentives require fulfillment of statutory conditions. The authority must verify compliance with SRO provisions for exempted industries.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80-CC & 80-D; Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), Ss. 2(1)(b) & 6.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80CC,80D Income Tax Act, 1922=2(1)(b),6 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1819 of 2000, 678 to 683 of 2003, decision dated: 26-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar. Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 1819 of 2000)\nMalik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 678 to 683 of 2003) with Mumtaz Ahmed, Member (Legal (C.B.R)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 1819 of 2000)\nM. Sardar Khan Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 678 to 683 of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Finance Division, Islamabad and others\nvs\nMessrs ZAMAN COTTON MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 64 = 2008 SLD 64 = 2008 SCMR 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay\nConclusion: The Supreme Court refused to condone delays in filing appeals without valid justification, reinforcing procedural adherence.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.136; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1300 of 2003, decision dated: 22-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J, FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M, JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMiss NAHEED KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 65 = 2008 SLD 65 = 2008 SCMR 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deeming Interest\nConclusion: Tax on loan interest should be charged prospectively. The Supreme Court resolved the case accordingly.\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 4(1).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1443-1447 of 1996 and 1009 of 2000, decision dated: 25-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mumtaz Ahmed, Member (Legal) C.B.R.s. Iqbal Salman Pasha, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 1443 and 1446 of 1996). Respondents not represented in remaining cases", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE \"\"A\"\" KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs COMBINED INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD. and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 406 = 2004 SLD 406 = 2005 PTD 2300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),13(1)(aa),13(1)(d),13(1)(e),13(2),13(7),62,62(1),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3887/LB of 1994, 31/10/2001", + "Judge Name": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 166 = 2005 SLD 166 = 2005 SCMR 1398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax on Rent\nConclusion: Tenants can deduct withholding tax before paying rent to landlords. Non-compliance with legal timelines results in default, justifying ejectment.\nCitations: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 15(2)(ii); Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.50(7-B).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7B) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2426 to 2428 of 2001, decision dated: 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Haider Ali Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Courts. Abdul Sattar Pingar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "RUKHSANA BEGUM\nvs\nTNT EXPRESS WORLDWIDE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 501 = 2000 SLD 501 = 2000 PTD 1237 = (1998) 233 ITR 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Scope\nConclusion: Reassessment under S. 147 should focus solely on escaped income. Entire original assessments cannot be reopened.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 147; CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.49 of 1993, decision dated: 9-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nN. KRISHNAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 502 = 2000 SLD 502 = 2000 PTD 1239 = (1998) 233 ITR 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision and Findings of Fact\nConclusion: Findings of fact by the Tribunal, if well-reasoned, are binding. No question of law arose for review.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 & 263.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "D. B. I.T.R. No 18 of 1995, decision dated: 15-04-1997", + "Judge Name": "B. R. ARORA AND A. K. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Anjay Kothari for Vineet Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHIV HARI MADHU SUDAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 503 = 2000 SLD 503 = 2000 PTD 1242 = (1998) 233 ITR 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Doctrine of Merger\nConclusion: The Commissioner retains revision powers for issues not appealed. Amendments clarified the scope of S. 263.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 35 & 263; CIT v. Eurasia Publishing House (P.) Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 381 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 307 of 1982, decision dated: 19-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. D. Jolly and Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPRINTERS HOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 504 = 2000 SLD 504 = 2000 PTD 1245 = (1998) 233 ITR 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Promotion Expenses\nConclusion: Business promotion expenses are deductible if not intended as advertisements. Remuneration exceeding statutory limits cannot be claimed as deductions.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 37(3); Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R. 6B.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=6B ", + "Case #": "I.T.R C. Nos. 126 and 127 of 1986, decision dated: 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name": "G. C. BHARUKA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. G. Sarangan with S. Parthasarathy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMYSODET (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 505 = 2000 SLD 505 = 2000 PTD 1249 = (1998) 233 ITR 770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Trusts and Tax Liability\nConclusion: Trusts created for minors are valid if properly documented. Income transferred to the trust is not assessable to the settlor.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; CGT v. K. R. Kumaran (1997) 223 ITR 683 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 94 of 1994 and 40, 41, 42 and 43 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd October, 1996", + "Judge Name": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner. P. G. K. Warrier and P. K. Suresh Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nK. T. MATHEW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 506 = 2000 SLD 506 = 2000 PTD 1258 = (1998) 233 ITR 813", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking and Business Income\nConclusion: Immovable properties acquired during debt recovery are taxable as business income upon sale if treated as stock-in-trade.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 28.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 286 of 1984, decision dated: 15-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.D. Mistry instructed by I. Dalal & Co. for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "L. M. DEVARE, LIQUIDATOR OF BANK OF KARAD LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 507 = 2000 SLD 507 = 2000 PTD 1266 = (1998) 234 ITR 804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Carry Forward\nConclusion: Registered firms can carry forward unabsorbed depreciation for future set-offs.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32; Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 155 of 1989, decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHYDRAZINES AND ALLIED CHEMICALS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 508 = 2000 SLD 508 = 2000 PTD 1267 = (1998) 234 ITR 822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Centering Material\nConclusion: Depreciation claims require proper classification. Individual pieces must qualify as plant/machinery for higher depreciation rates.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.82 of 1995, decision dated: 1st October, 1997", + "Judge Name": "A.K. MATHUR, C, J, AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Sapre for the Commissioner B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSINGHANIA ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 509 = 2000 SLD 509 = 2000 PTD 1270 = (1998) 234 ITR 850", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains—Short-term or Long-term\nConclusion: When a tenant acquires ownership of a leased flat, the lease merges into ownership under the doctrine of merger, extinguishing the tenancy. The sale of the property within a short period (4-5 months) was held to result in short-term capital gains.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2 & 45; Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 111.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 112 of 1987, decision dated: 15-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.V. Desai with J.P. Deodhar-for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDr. D.A. IRANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 510 = 2000 SLD 510 = 2000 PTD 1274 = (1998) 234 ITR 835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ and Alternate Remedy\nConclusion: High Courts generally do not interfere under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution if alternate remedies exist. However, in cases of procedural lapses, such as denial of opportunity to be heard, applications to recall or reference orders may be entertained within a limited time.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 254 & 256; Constitution of India, Art. 226.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 11551 of 1997-A, decision dated: 16-07-1997", + "Judge Name": "G. SIVARAJAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. D. Premachandran for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menons", + "Party Name:": "KEERTHI LIQUORS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 511 = 2000 SLD 511 = 2000 PTD 1276 = (1998) 234 ITR 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Under-Valuation and Preemptive Purchase\nConclusion: The Appropriate Authority’s determination of under-valuation must be based on objective facts, not arbitrary estimates. The court set aside the preemptive purchase of property due to flawed valuation methods.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Chap. XX-C; C.B. Gautam v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No.292 of 1993, decision dated: 8-08-1997", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHDBABU, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Ramachandran for A.R. Karunakaran for Petitioner. S.V. Subramanians Nos. 1 and 2. R. Thiagarajan No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. VATSALA RAMACHANDRA through Legal Representatives and another\nvs\nAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 512 = 2000 SLD 512 = 2000 PTD 1281 = (1998) 234 ITR 842", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Voluntary Contributions\nConclusion: Voluntary contributions are not taxable under S. 2(24)(ii)(a). Assessment proceedings for each year are independent, and res judicata does not apply to tax assessments.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2 & 256; CIT v. Chawla (M.) (1989) 177 ITR 299 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 21 of 1997, decision dated: 20-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "DIRECTOR OF Income Tax (EXEMPTION)\nvs\nDHARM PRATISTHANAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 513 = 2000 SLD 513 = 2000 PTD 2028 = (1999) 235 ITR 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Special Remuneration\nConclusion: Special remuneration paid as a mark of respect or non-commercial considerations, such as pensions to a deceased chairman’s widow, are not deductible as business expenses.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 37; CIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.419, 420, 421, 422, 423 and 424 of 1984 (References Nos.368 to 373 of 1984), decision dated: 27-01-1997", + "Judge Name": "A. ABDUL HADI AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. S.V. Subramanian for C.V. Rai an for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AMALGAMATIONS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 514 = 2000 SLD 514 = 2000 PTD 3741 = (2001) 83 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Late Payment Compensation\nConclusion: Interest or compensation for delayed payments under statutory or contractual obligations is not penal in nature and is deductible as a business expense.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 23(xviii) & 136; Natural Gas (Development Surcharge) Ordinance (I of 1967), S. 3(3); Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(xviii),136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.299-K of 2000, decision dated: 8-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim; Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-V, Income Tax BUILDING, SHAHRAHEKAMAL ATATURK, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 515 = 2000 SLD 515 = 2000 PTD 3748 = (2001) 83 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Advance Income Tax\nConclusion: Demand notices for recovering advance tax under S. 53 without explicit statutory authorization are invalid. Constitutional petitions challenging such notices are maintainable.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 53, 87, & 129; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,87,129 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 553-K of 1999, decision dated: 24-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "SAYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Farid, Advocate and S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Athar Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others\nvs\nMessrs PAK-SAUDI FERTILIZER LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 516 = 2000 SLD 516 = 2000 PTD 3752 = (2000) 82 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Successor Appellate Authority\nConclusion: A successor authority cannot disturb findings of a predecessor unless clear errors in fact or law are demonstrated. Self-assessments processed under specific schemes require adherence to outlined criteria.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 59(1), 62, 65, 129 & 156.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),10(b),129,65,61,62,156 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A, No. 4537/LB of 1999, decision dated: 7-06-2000", + "Judge Name": "M. MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Zaheer, D.R.. Talat Javed, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 517 = 2000 SLD 517 = 2000 PTD 3773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers Based on New Information\nConclusion: Revisional powers cannot be invoked under S. 66A based on information unavailable at the time of the original assessment. Such actions are invalid.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 66A & 65.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,65,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2822/LB and 2823 of 1998, decision dated: 19-05-2000, hearing DATE : 18-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 518 = 2000 SLD 518 = 2000 PTD 3776 = (2000) 82 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax on Income and Interpretation\nConclusion: The term gross receipts under S. 80D refers to business or professional income, while tax deducted on other income, such as dividends, is payable separately. Fiscal statutes should be strictly construed.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80D & 30(2)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,22,30(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.703/KB and 1499/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 5-09-2000, hearing DATE : 26-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, S. M. SIBTAIN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Mateen, F.C.A.. Khalid Siddique, D.R. Mahfuz-ur-Rehrnan Pasha, IAC and Ilyas Elahi Ganjani, D.R.. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Siraj-ul-Haque Memon. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 100 = 2011 SLD 100 = 2011 PTD 2227 = 2012 PTCL 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Appeals and Procedural Hardship\nConclusion: Appellate forums must decide appeals within six months. Delays causing hardship to taxpayers warrant High Court directions for expedited interim relief decisions.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 120 & 127; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,127 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.23289 of 2010 and C.M. No.1 of 2011, decision dated: 17-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAROOQ KHALID PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE through Director\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 5 = 2012 SLD 5 = 2011 PTD 2229 = 2012 PTCL 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Surcharge for Flood Rehabilitation\nConclusion: The 15% surcharge levied for flood rehabilitation applies to all taxpayers regardless of whether they follow a normal or special tax year. High Court dismissed challenges to its application.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 4A; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(68),4A,74 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1487, 1488 and Miscellaneous Nos. 6962, 6963 of 2011, decision dated: 21st June, 2011, hearing DATE : 27-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Alam and Anwar Kashif Mumtaz for Petitioners. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasis", + "Party Name:": "LOTTE PAKISTAN PTA LTD. Through Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 6 = 2012 SLD 6 = (2012) 105 TAX 163 = 2011 PTD 2234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Continuous Funding System as Profit on Debt\nConclusion: Income from Continuous Funding System qualifies as profit on debt and is subject to final tax deduction at 10%, as outlined in relevant provisions. Appeals for misclassification were dismissed.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 2(46), 151, & 233A(1)(d).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(46),151,233A(1)(d),122(5A),122(9),131(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.509/KB and 510/KB of 2011, decision dated: 15-06-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zaffar Akhtar, D.R.. Abid Shuban.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., ZONE1, R.T.O.; KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs Mrs. SALMA AMIN TAI, SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 101 = 2011 SLD 101 = 2011 PTD 2243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Anti-Dumping Duties and Commission Composition\nConclusion: Anti-Dumping investigations and decisions must be made by a properly constituted commission. Any deficiency in its composition renders the proceedings void ab initio.\nCitations: Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000), Ss. 21, 23(4), & 27; National Tariff Commission Act (VI of 1990), S. 5.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)=21,23(4),27,20 National Tariff Commission Act, (VI of 1990)=5 Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)=21 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,9,18,23 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5609 of 2011, heard on 29-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar and Abdul Quddus Mughal for Petitioner. Ahmed Sheraz No. 1. Dr. Pervaiz Hassan and Rafey Alam No. 2. Ms. Yasmin Sehgal, Deputy Attorney General. Ata Hussain Shah, Section Officer (Litigation), Ministry of Commerce", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHAWER PAPER MART through Proprietor\nvs\nNATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION through Chairman and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 102 = 2011 SLD 102 = (2011) 104 TAX 375 = 2011 TAX 375 = 2011 PTD 2252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delegation of Powers and Tax Assessment\nConclusion: Delegated powers under S. 210 allow taxation officers to amend self-assessments deemed finalized under S. 120. Such actions, if within legal boundaries, are valid and binding.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 120, 122(5A), & 210.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),120,210,210(1A),211,67,154(1),28 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62,63,65,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.483/KB of 2011, decision dated: 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 20-05-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Dawoodi.Zafar Akbar D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITEX INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nA.C.I.R.-B, AUDIT DIVISIONI, R.T.O., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 103 = 2011 SLD 103 = (2011) 104 TAX 265 = 2011 PTD 2265 = 2011 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment—Financial Charges and Profit & Loss Expenses\nConclusion:\n(a) Financial charges disallowed by the Taxation Officer were reinstated by the Appellate Tribunal as the disallowance lacked factual basis and disregarded evidence provided by the taxpayer.\n(b) Disallowance of expenses based on past history without specific unverifiable instances is unjustified. Lump-sum disallowances were overturned for failing to comply with legal provisions.\n(c) Levy of Workers' Welfare Fund for 2008 was deleted per FBR Circular No. 13 of 2008, while the levy for 2009 was remanded for reconsideration.\nCitations:\n•\nCIR v. Habib Bank A.G. Zurich, ITRA No.104/2010.\n•\nWorkers' Welfare Fund Ordinance (1971), S.4.\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 122(5A), 122(9), 177 & 67.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),122(9),177,67 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.43/KB and 48/KB of 2011, decision dated: 9-06-2011, hearing DATE : 2-04-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Salman Pasha and Nadeem Ahmed Dawoodis. Mirza Nasir Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AVARI HOTELS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, L.T.U., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 104 = 2011 SLD 104 = 2011 PTD 2275 = (2012) 105 TAX 35 = 2012 PTCL 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Salary, Perquisites, and Repairs\nConclusion:\n(a) Cash awards paid to employees based on individual performance are considered part of salary and not perquisites. The High Court upheld this interpretation.\n(b) The term include in statutes expands the scope to give the widest possible meaning.\n(c) Repairs not creating capital assets are treated as current repairs.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 16(2), 23, and Third Schedule.\n•\nGirdhari Dass & Sons v. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 339.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16(2),24(i),136(1),23 & ThirdSched ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.256 to 259 of 1999, decision dated: 21st June, 2011, hearing DATE : 19-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawwed Farooqui. Iqbal Haider", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSEMEA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 7 = 2012 SLD 7 = (2012) 105 TAX 144 = 2011 PTD 2286 = 2012 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Stay Orders\nConclusion: The First Appellate Authority unjustifiably directed payment of 50% of the outstanding demand without recording reasons. The condition was removed, and the Department was directed not to initiate recovery proceedings until appeal resolution.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 127, 122(5A), 122(9), and 113.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,122(SA),122(9),113 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.633/KB of 2001, decision dated: 23rd June, 2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Arshad Siraj. Abdul Aziz, D.R. and Badar-ud-Din, Additional Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs. KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION, LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RANGE B, Zone-III, LTU, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 8 = 2012 SLD 8 = (2012) 105 TAX 290 = 2011 PTD 2290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exports and Tax Rates\nConclusion:\n(a) Goods exported as textile made-ups, such as terry towels, were taxed at 1%, not 1.5%. Appellate Tribunal favored the taxpayer.\n(b) Rectification under S.221 is void when it amounts to a reassessment of tax rates.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 221, 154, and Seventh Schedule.\n•\nCIT v. Shadman Cotton Mills (2009 PTD 253).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=154,221,SeventhSched,Part-II & III ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 257/LB of 2011, decision dated: 9-05-2011, hearing DATE : 14-04-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Momin Sultan and Hassan Kamran. Naeen Hassan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZEPHYR TEXTILES LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL) R.T.O" + }, + { + "Case No.": "700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 105 = 2011 SLD 105 = 2011 PTD 2336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Omitted.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5),122(5A),170(4),120(1),122(3),170 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.245/LHR/IT(212)502 of 2011, decision dated: 9-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi Advisor Dealing Officer. Nasir Jamil Khan, ACA Authorized Representative. Muhammad Irfan Raza, Addl. CIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "HAMID ASHRAF, Proprietor H.A. Construction, Lahore\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 106 = 2011 SLD 106 = (2011) 104 TAX 61 = 2012 PTCL 152 = 2011 PTD 2358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Proceedings\nConclusion: References filed beyond the statutory time limit without condonation applications are non-maintainable. Limitation provisions in the Limitation Act, 1908, are strictly applied to tax matters.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.136.\n•\nLimitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,111,134,136(1),239 Limitation Act, 1908=3, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131 ", + "Case #": "T. R. No.150 of 2008, heard on 18-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Asghar Saroha. Muhammad Asghar Bhutta", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LEGAL DIVISION, MULTAN\nvs\nLady Dr. MUSARRAT MUMTAZ, C/o D.H.Q. Hospital, D.G. Khan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 9 = 2012 SLD 9 = (2012) 105 TAX 26 = 2011 PTD 2362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Assessment and Time Limitation\nConclusion: Orders under S.66A issued after the four-year limitation period are invalid. Tribunal struck down assessments made after the statutory period.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.66A.\n•\n2009 SCMR 1279.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62,65 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),239 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.761/KB of 2010, decision dated: 23rd December, 2010", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MALIK ABDUL SAMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khaliq-ur-Rahman, C.A. Yousif Hyder Shaikh, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JS INVESTMENT LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUEE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 107 = 2011 SLD 107 = 2011 PTD 2368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nConclusion: Appeals dismissed due to non-appearance were reinstated when justified by unavoidable circumstances like natural disasters. Tribunal recalled its prior order.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.221.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. Recalling No.133/KB in I.T.A. No.966/KB of 2010, decision dated: 20-01-2011, hearing DATE : 26-01-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tariq Ansari, ITP. Imtiaz Ahmed Dev, D.R. and Fiaz Hussain Abro, ACs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARFARAZ AHMED & BROTHERS, ROHRI\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., SUKKUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 108 = 2011 SLD 108 = (2011) 104 TAX 149 = 2011 PTD 2370 = 2011 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Amendments and Adjustments\nConclusion:\n(a) Double taxation of markup income is impermissible, and additions based on it were deleted.\n(b) Voluntary add-backs of capital losses cannot lead to further disallowances.\n(c) Improperly labeled bad debts were restored.\n(d) Apportionments between Presumptive Tax Regime and normal income must follow clear rules.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.122(5A), 67, and 29.\n•\n2007 PTD (Trib.) 1529.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(SA),29,122(5A),67 Income Tax Rules, 1922=13,231 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.394/LB of 2011, decision dated: 18-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "M.A. , JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shabbir Ahmad, FCA. Atif Bashir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEHMOOD MEHBOOB BROTHERS (PVT.) LIMITED, MULTAN\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 109 = 2011 SLD 109 = 2011 PTD 2389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revised Returns in Audit Proceedings\nConclusion: Revised returns should be treated as deemed amended orders, and assessments ignoring these are invalid. Tribunal annulled the assessment and directed adherence to revised returns.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 177, 122(3)(b), and 114(6).\n•\n2009 PTD (Trib.) 749.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12(2)(c)(d),13(2),21(l),21(m),22(12),18(3),114,177,122,122(3)(b),122(4),122(5),122(9),22(3)(b),114(6),174(4)(a),174(4)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.738/KB of 2009, decision dated: 8-01-2011, hearing DATE : 8-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "SYED SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH BUKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL AZIZ MEMON, ACCOUNTANT MERNBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Memon, DCIR/D.R.. A.S. Jafri", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIV. RTO, HYDERABAD\nvs\nMessrs SHAD & CO. CARRIAGE CONTRACTOR HEAD OFFICE; HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 110 = 2011 SLD 110 = 2011 PTD 2401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman and Maladministration\nConclusion: Delays in appellate processes by authorities constitute maladministration. FTO recommended disposing of appeals within 30 days with proper hearing.\nCitations:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaints No.205/Khi/Customs(87)484 and 206/Khi/Customs(88)485 of 2011, decision dated: 12-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Justice (R.) M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer. Ms. Dilharam Shaheen Authorized Representative. Naveed Abbas, AC Collector Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARAJ DIN & SONS, LAHORE and another\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 111 = 2011 SLD 111 = (2011) 104 TAX 223 = 2011 PTD 2435 = 2012 PTCL 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Notices\nConclusion: Notices under S.65 missing essential details, such as the reasons for reopening, are nullities in law. Tribunal invalidated such notices.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.65.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(c),59,59(1),59A,65,65(1),65(2) Central Excise Rules, 1944=10(2),10(3) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 52 of 2008, hearing DATE : 16-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant(s) by: Syed Khalid Javaid Buldiari\nRespondent(s) by: Mian Khalid Hussain Mitroo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX (LEGAL), REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, MULTAN\nVS\nINTIZAR ALI, PROPRIETOR, MESSRS EAGLE CYCLE AGENCY, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 10 = 2012 SLD 10 = (2012) 105 TAX 264 = 2011 PTD 2440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income and Other Deductions\nConclusion:\n(a) Interest income from surplus funds is not business income but income from other sources. \n(b) Sale of scrap linked to manufacturing is treated as business income.\n(c) Expenses related to withholding taxes must comply with statutory requirements; remanded for reconsideration.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.18, 39, and 34(5).\n•\n2008 PTD 1420.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,18,21,34(5),153,67, Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,Part-I,107AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.838/LB and 857/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st December, 2010, hearing DATE : 29-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Iqbal Khawaja (in I.T.A. No. 838/LB of 2009). Zulqurnain Tirmizi, D.R. (LTU) (in I.T.A. No. 838/LB of 2009). Zulqurnain Tirmizi, D.R. (LTU) (in I.T.A. No. 857/LB of 2009). M. Iqbal Khawaja (in I.T.A. No. 857/LB of 2009)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAMS TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.T., L.T.U., LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 112 = 2011 SLD 112 = 2011 PTD 2455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Record Loss\nConclusion:\n(a) Refund claims delayed due to the Department's inability to locate the complainant's assessment record were deemed maladministration. The FTO directed the issuance of the refund and compensation under S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within 21 days.\n(b) The Department's failure to safeguard taxpayer records constituted maladministration, highlighting negligence in its custodial responsibilities.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.170 & 171.\n•\n2006 PTD 2277.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3), ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.196/LHR/IT(166)406 of 2011, decision dated: 22-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SHABBIR AHMAD SUMRA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 113 = 2011 SLD 113 = (2011) 104 TAX 142 = 2011 PTD 2476", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Rebate for Librarians\nConclusion: Librarians in Punjab and Sindh availed a 75% tax rebate under various provincial letters and circulars, yet the FBR’s refusal to extend this uniformly across Pakistan was found discriminatory. The FTO recommended addressing this within 21 days to ensure equitable treatment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Second Schedule, Part-III, Cl. (2).\n•\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal’s judgments Nos. 420 & 421/LV/2009 (21-12-2009).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=SecondSched,Part-III,CI.(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3).2(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.38/Isd/IT(14)/490 of 2011, decision dated: 19-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Khalid Mirza, Advisor and Muhammad Ramzan Bhatti Dealing Officers Azim Khan Marwat Mrs. Binte Zehra, Secretary, Islamabad Colleges Librarians and Muhammad Zulgarnain Akhtar, Librarian, Iqra University, Islamabad Authorized Representatives Aftab Ahmad, Chief ITP Inland Revenue, Tax Policy, F.B.R. Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "AZIM KHAN MARWAT, SECRETARY GENERAL PAKISTAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 114 = 2011 SLD 114 = 2011 PTD 2533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Immunity and Circular Misuse\nConclusion:\n(a) S.R.O. 333(1)/2011 extending immunity to specific taxpayers was found discriminatory and illegal. FTO directed the FBR to ensure legal vetting of future circulars.\n(b) Circular No. 6 of 2011 was rescinded through Circular No. 8 of 2011, addressing the complainant’s grievances.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 111(1), 206, and Second Schedule.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1),(45A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.97/ISD/SUO-MOTU(03)/957 of 2011, decision dated: 21st June, 2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ramzan Bhatti, Advisor for Dealing Officer Waheed Shahzad Butt for the Complainant Aftab Ahmad, Chief (ITP), and Muhammad Imtiaz, Secy. (WHT) for Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 115 = 2011 SLD 115 = (2011) 104 TAX 369 = 2011 PTD 2543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge and Presumptive Tax\nConclusion:\n(a) Presumptive tax under S.80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was deemed final, exempting further surcharge under Para-C of the First Schedule.\n(b) Minimum tax liability compared to total assessed tax negated additional surcharges.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.80-D & First Schedule, Part-III, Para-C.\n•\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 2662.\n•\n2006 PTD 1189.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(44),9,10,80D,80DD,FirstSched.,Part-III,ParaC ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Applications Nos.494, 495 of 2006 27 of 2006 and 341, 342 of 2010, decision dated: 2-12-2010, hearing DATE : 14-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUNIB AKHTER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Arshad Siraj for Applicants (in I.T.RAs. Nos.494 and 495 of 2006). Miss Lubna Perwez for Applicant (I.T.R.A. No. 27 of 2007). Ali Mumtaz Sheikh for the Applicants Commissioner (in I.T.R.As. Nos. 341 and 342 of 2010). Iqbal Salman Pashas (in I.T.R.As. Nos. 341 and 342 of 2010). Jawaid Farooquis (in I.T.R.As. Nos. 27 of 2007 and 494 and 495 of 2006)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ADAM SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 11 = 2012 SLD 11 = (2012) 105 TAX 201 = 2011 PTD 2590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Jurisdiction and Selection Criteria\nConclusion:\n(a) The Commissioner’s authority to select cases for audit under S.177(4) does not require prior issuance of audit selection criteria by FBR.\n(b) Audit proceedings for prior years (2004-2005) conducted under provisions not in force at the time were annulled due to retroactivity concerns.\n(c) Future audits must follow procedural safeguards, including clarity on selection criteria under S.177(4).\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.177, 120(1A), & 122.\n•\n2010 PTD 571.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1A),120(14),121,122,122(5),122(9),126(2)(a),126(2)(b),177,177(4)(a),177(4)(b),177(4)(c),177(4)(d),177(4),177(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 852/IB to 854/IB of 2009, decision dated: 10-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS \nMUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBERS\nISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Ziaullah Khan, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "C.IT./W.T. (LEGAL), RTO, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nBrig. IRFANULHAQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 116 = 2011 SLD 116 = (2012) 105 TAX 81 = 2011 PTD 2643 = 2012 PTCL 565 = (2011) 104 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund Amendments\nConclusion:\n(a) Amendments to the Workers’ Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, through Finance Acts 2006 and 2008 were declared unconstitutional.\n(b) The Fund was determined to be a fee rather than a tax, requiring regular legislative procedures under Art.70 of the Constitution.\n(c) Constitutional protections against misuse of money bills were emphasized to maintain legislative integrity.\nCitations:\n•\nWorkers’ Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971), S.4.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 70 & 73.\n•\nMessrs Mutual Funds Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (2010 PLC 306).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(1),4(7),Preamble,6,7,10,10A,10(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Finance Act, 2008=Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=70,73(3),732(2),73(2)(a),73(2)(g),73(5),199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 8763, 8766, 8767, 8768, 3643, 4216 and 4217 of 2011, decision dated: 19-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Umsn Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Khan and Naseem Kashmiri, Deputy Attorney Generals for Pakistan, Raja Sikandar Khan, for F.B.R. and Moazzam Tahir Minhas for WWFs", + "Party Name:": "EAST PAKISTAN CHROME TANNERY (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 117 = 2011 SLD 117 = (2011) 104 TAX 388 = 2011 PTD 2668 = 2012 PTCL 332 = 2011 PTR 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit Adjustments\nConclusion:\n(a) The taxpayer's attempt to adjust the tax credit under S.107-AA against the minimum tax under S.80-D was deemed invalid due to the non-obstante clause in S.80-D, which prevented deductions or credits from conflicting with the minimum tax provisions.\n(b) The non-obstante clause in a statute ousts other inconsistent provisions.\n(c) The decisions of Appellate Tribunals are not binding on the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80-D(1) & 107-AA.\n•\n2009 PTD 654, 2009 PTD 1187, 2005 PTD 259.\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills v. CIT, PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D(1),107AA,131,134,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No.966 of 2008, decision dated: 28-03-2011, hearing DATE : 22-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. \nNasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DEWAN FAROOQUE MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LEGAL DIVISION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 118 = 2011 SLD 118 = 2011 PTD 2704 = (2012) 105 TAX 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revised Return and Amendment of Assessment\nConclusion:\n(a) The Commissioner was empowered to amend assessments based on new information, and the rejection of a revised return was justified due to discrepancies not addressed by the taxpayer.\n(b) Relief was provided by adjusting the estimated sales price of fine rice and broken rice.\n(c) Disallowance of diesel oil expenses was reduced by the First Appellate Authority from 20% to 5%, and this adjustment was upheld.\n(d) A disallowance of profit and loss expenses was adjusted to 10% by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 122(4)(5), 209, 210, 211, 262, 120 & 114(6).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(4)(5),209,210,211,262,120,114(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.955/KB of 2010, decision dated: 22-06-2011, hearing DATE : 14-06-2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "None. None", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SACRAL RICE MILLS, Proprietor Girdharilal Khorwah\nvs\nC.I.R., AUDIT DIVISION, RTO, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 119 = 2011 SLD 119 = (2011) 104 TAX 408 = 2011 PTD 2708 = 2012 PTCL 517 = (2012) 105 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection and Burden of Proof\nConclusion:\n(a) The Commissioner has the authority to select cases for audit upon written reasons, and this process was deemed legally valid.\n(b) The burden of proof lies with the person asserting a fact.\n(c) The Appellate Tribunal remanded a case involving the sale of land for re-examination after considering the taxpayer's evidence. The reference application was dismissed due to being premature.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 109, 122 & 177.\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electronic Industries Ltd., 1988 PTD 111.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=109,122,177 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117,118 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No.597 of 2009, decision dated: 17-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUSHIR ALAM, C, J AND SALMAN HAMID, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwer Kashif Mumtaz for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqi. Mohsin Imam, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax Reference Application No.597 of 2009, decided on 17th May, 2011\nMessrs E.M. OILS MILLS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. through Director\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AUDIT DIVISION II, COMPANIES III, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 120 = 2011 SLD 120 = 2011 PTD 2753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tobacco Development Cess\nConclusion:\nThe levy of a tobacco development cess by the Provincial Government was legal and did not violate constitutional provisions, as it was not deemed double taxation. The petitioner failed to implead necessary parties, which affected the maintainability of the constitutional petition.\nCitations:\n•\nNorth-West Frontier Province Finance Act (I of 1996), S. 11 (amended by Finance Act VI of 2004).\n•\nPakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. N.-W.F.P., 2002 CLC 1910; PLJ 2002 SC 625.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "North West Frontier Province Finance Act, 1996=11 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,148,151,199 Pakistan Tobacco Board Ordinance, 1968=9 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.217 of 2008, decision dated: 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "ATTAULLAH KHAN AND SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rustam Khan Kundi for Petitioners Sanaullah Khan Shamim Gandapur, D.A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "MOSAN KHAN and 2 others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary Finance Department and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 12 = 2012 SLD 12 = (2012) 105 TAX 353 = 2011 PTD 2758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer's appeal, which was rejected for being time-barred, was found to have legitimate grounds for delay, as the taxpayer had been pursuing the case through the Ombudsman and courts. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the case was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for hearing on merits.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.127.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.60/Q of 2010, decision dated: 9-08-2011, hearing DATE : 27-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kamal Hassan Siddiqui. Muhammad Ilyas", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAKHSHANI BUILDERS, QUETTA\nvs\nCIR (APPEALS), HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 13 = 2012 SLD 13 = (2012) 105 TAX 402 = 2011 PTD 2772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Charges and Lease Rental Disallowances\nConclusion:\n(a) Disallowance of financial charges was remanded for further review as the taxpayer's claim had not been properly adjudicated.\n(b) The apportionment of expenses between exempt income and normal income was confirmed, as the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that no expenses were incurred on exempt income.\n(c) The taxpayer's claim for the opportunity to be heard was found to be without merit, as sufficient opportunities had been given.\n(d) Tax on dividends for public limited companies was levied at the correct 5% rate under the Final Tax Regime.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 21, 67, 122(5A), 5 & 1st Schedule, Part-I, Div-III.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21 Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Income Tax Rules, 2001=67 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.471/KB of 2011, decision dated: 25-06-2011, hearing DATE : 18-06-2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Arshad Mehmood, FCA. Shafqat Hussain Kehar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUED, LTU, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 14 = 2012 SLD 14 = (2012) 105 TAX 355 = 2011 PTD 2809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Setting off Losses\nConclusion:\n(a) The taxpayer correctly set off business losses arising from the sale of assets against interest income, as the loss was determined under the business income head.\n(b) Even in the absence of business revenue, business losses could be computed and set off against any other income.\n(c) The principle of setting off losses under S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 56, 22(8)(b).\n•\n1996 PTD 292, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 286, 2010 PTD 1809.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=56,22(8)(b),11 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 332/KB of 2011, decision dated: 14-06-2011, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Iftikhar, D.R. Abid Shaban", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, L.T.U., KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NAQSHBANDI INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 121 = 2011 SLD 121 = 2011 PTD 2871 = 2012 PTCL 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease and Capital Value Tax\nConclusion:\n(a) Where a statute mandates a specific type of transfer, such as a lease, it must be strictly enforced with adherence to the requirements outlined in the law.\n(b) The essential elements of a lease are outlined, including transfer of interest in immovable property, the right of enjoyment, consideration in the form of rent or premium, and a defined period or perpetuity.\n(c) The petitioners were wrongly subjected to an additional Capital Value Tax on a sub-lease, as they had already paid the tax at the appropriate rate. The claim for additional tax was invalid, and the petition was allowed.\nCitations:\n•\nTransfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 105\n•\nFinance Act (V of 1989), S. 7(2)(CA)(a)(ii)\n•\n2010 PTD (Trib.) 1046.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=105 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Finance Act, 1989=7(2)(CA)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2325 of 2009, decision dated: 27-09-2011. dates of hearing: 17-01-and 19-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khaleeq Ahmed for Petitioners. Kafil Ahmed Abbasis Umar Hayat Sandhu, Dy. Attorney-General. Saifullah, Asstt. A.G., Sindh", + "Party Name:": "SULTAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI and 12 others\nvs\nPROVINCE OF SINDH through, Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 15 = 2012 SLD 15 = 2012 PTD 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Fund and License Fee\nConclusion:\n(a) The taxpayer's claim for deductions for contributions to a gratuity fund was disallowed because it lacked the necessary approval from the Commissioner, as required by the Income Tax Rules. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the contributions were within the prescribed limits and allowed the deductions.\n(b) The right conferred upon a taxpayer under primary legislation cannot be overridden by subordinate legislation like rules.\n(c) A dispute over withholding tax on a license fee, whether it was royalty or not, was resolved in favor of the taxpayer, with the Tribunal allowing the deduction of the license fee at the lower withholding tax rate.\n(d) The taxpayer was entitled to adjustments for refunds against liabilities for the subject tax year, as the matter was appealable.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 21(e), S. 152(1), S. 221\n•\nI.T.A. No.767/LB of 2009 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21e,21(c),152(1),221,21(k),22,122(5A),60A,75(3A) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 Income Tax Rules, 2002=117 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.627/LB, 628/LB, 678/LB and 646/LB of 2010, decision dated: 9-06-2011, hearing DATE : 13-04-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar, FCA (in I.T.As. Nos.627/LB and 628/LB of 2010). Muhammad Tahir, D.R. (in I.T.As. No. 627/LB and 628/LB of 2010). Muhammad Tahir, D.R. (I.T.As. Nos.678/LB and 646/LB of 2010). Asim Zulfiqar, FCA (I.T.As. Nos.678/LB and 646/LB of 2010)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HONDA ATLAS CAR (PAKISTAN), LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 16 = 2012 SLD 16 = (2012) 106 TAX 205 = 2012 PTD 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Record Maintenance and Tax Year 2005\nConclusion:\n(a) The Taxation Officer's order for calling records beyond the prescribed date was annulled by the First Appellate Authority. The order was deemed invalid as the taxpayer was not required to maintain records beyond 30-6-2010 for the 2005 tax year.\n(b) If a person has fulfilled the conditions for an exemption from excise duty or tax, they acquire a vested right, and changes to such exemptions cannot be applied retrospectively.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 161 & 205\n•\nFazal Din and Sons's case 2009 SCMR 973\n•\nArmy Welfare Sugar Mills 1992 SCMR 1652\n•\nAl-Samrez Enterprises 1986 SCMR 1917", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1052/LB of 2011, decision dated: 14-10-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmad Kalwar, D.R. Waqas Khalid", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., MULTAN\nvs\nALI RAZA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 17 = 2012 SLD 17 = 2012 PTD 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Assessment and Unexplained Income\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer made an ex parte assessment under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, adding unexplained income from a property purchase, as the taxpayer had not filed the required return of income. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by remanding the case instead of applying due diligence in reviewing the facts. The assessment was annulled because no notice under Section 116 was issued, and there was no clear evidence of when the taxpayer made the investment. The original order was canceled, and the taxpayer's appeal was accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 111, 114, 121, 122, 127 & 131.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,114,121,122,127,000 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.442/LB of 2011, decision dated: 21st October, 2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aurangzeb. Dr. Shazia Gul, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 18 = 2012 SLD 18 = (2012) 105 TAX 489 = 2012 PTD 122 = 2012 PTCL 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax and Personal Liability\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer wrongly held the taxpayer personally liable for failing to withhold tax, without identifying the relevant parties or amounts. Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requires the taxpayer to be a withholding agent for specific transactions, which was not established. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly found that the Taxation Officer’s action was legally unsound.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 161 & 131.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1151/LB and 1152/LB of 2011, decision dated: 19-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Hassan D.R..None", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O.-I, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs NAM INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 19 = 2012 SLD 19 = (2012) 105 TAX 137 = 2012 PTD 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Final Tax Regime and Taxable Income\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer, operating an oil storage terminal, contested the Taxation Officer's assertion that payments received for terminal operations should be taxed under the Normal Tax Regime (NTR). The court held that the tax deducted on these payments should be considered final tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The petition was accepted, and the show-cause notice was quashed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 53, 115(4), 122(5A), 153, 169 & Second Schedule, Part-IV, clause (42).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,115(4),122(5A),153,169,SecondSched.,Part-IV, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.D-1709 of 2008, 785 of 2006, 2490, 2491 of 2007 and 2376 to 2378 of 2008, decision dated: 27-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Farogh Naseem for Petitioners. Jawaid Farooqui Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, D.A.G. Sadaqat Khan, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "ENGRO VOPAK TERMINAL LTD. through Manager Finance & Corporate Service, Karachi\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 20 = 2012 SLD 20 = (2012) 105 TAX 505 = 2012 PTD 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Statement and Discrepancies\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer's revised wealth statement, correcting omissions or discrepancies, was initially rejected. However, it was concluded that the taxpayer had the right to revise the wealth statement under Section 116(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, even after discrepancies were pointed out. The original addition made under Section 111(1)(b) was deleted, and the revised statement was accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 116(3), 111(1)(b), 114(6) & 122.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116(3),111(1)(b),114(6),122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.383/IB of 2011, decision dated: 10-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Masood Chatha. Ziaullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "RASHID MEHMOOD\nvs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 21 = 2012 SLD 21 = (2012) 105 TAX 484 = 2012 PTD 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer’s application for condonation of a 170-day delay in filing an appeal was dismissed due to the lack of sufficient cause. The affidavit filed did not explain the reasons for the delay, nor did it demonstrate that the delay was beyond the taxpayer’s control.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 131(1)(d)\n•\nLimitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Cond.) Nos.219/KB to 221/KB of 2011, I.T.As. Nos.718/KB to 720/KB of 2011, decision dated: 4-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Afzal D.R.s. Mazharul Hassans", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-I, R.T.O., KARACHI and others\nvs\nMessrs NATASHA L. JATOI, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 22 = 2012 SLD 22 = (2012) 105 TAX 413 = 2012 PTD 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment and Deemed Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that an assessment under Section 121 in the presence of a valid return was not permissible as it would lead to two conflicting assessments—one deemed and one ex parte. The department’s attempt to apply Section 121 in such a case was legally flawed. The assessment under Section 121 was deemed invalid, and the appeal was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 121(1)(d), 177(10), 114, 120 & 122(9).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121(1)(d),177(10),114,120,122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.316/IB of 2011, decision dated: 10-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ziaullah Khan, D.R. for Applicant. Zahid Masood Chatta", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs EMPIRE HOTEL, MURREE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 23 = 2012 SLD 23 = (2012) 105 TAX 281 = 2012 PTD 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loan Treated as Dividend\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer mistakenly treated an advance to a shareholder as dividend and imposed withholding tax. The amount was disclosed as a loan, and no tax was required to be deducted. The Tribunal ruled that the amount was properly treated as a loan and could only be treated as dividend under specific conditions outlined in Section 2(19)(e).\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 2(19)(e) & 161.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(19)(e),161,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.430/LB of 2009, decision dated: 10-10-2011, hearing DATE : 28-06-2011", + "Judge Name": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq (Adv.). Muhammad Tahir (DR)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB COLLEGE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 24 = 2012 SLD 24 = (2012) 105 TAX 431 = 2012 PTD 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax and Government Entities\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer, a government-controlled company, contested the imposition of turnover tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for the tax year 2006. The Tribunal found that the taxpayer was not liable for tax under Section 113 for 2006, as the provisions of Section 49(4) had not yet made government entities taxable for that period. The tax demand was quashed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 49(4), 113, 221, 122(5), 120(1), 2(64), 9 & Second Schedule, Part-IV, Cl.11A (XV).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=205,119(6),137,49(4),113,221,122(5),120(1),2(64),9,SecondSched.,Part-IV, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.187/KB and 188/KB of 2011, decision dated: 24-03-2011", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi and Qadeer Ahmed, ITPs. Gohar Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CENTRAL POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., GUDDU\nvs\nC.I.R. (APPEALS-III), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 25 = 2012 SLD 25 = 2012 PTD 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income and Notice for Compliance\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer successfully contested an addition of unexplained income on the grounds that the Taxation Officer did not have definitive information regarding the taxpayer’s ownership or investment in the property. The addition was removed, and the departmental appeal was rejected.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 111(1)(b), 122(9).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(9),120,111(1)(b),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1207/LB and 1291/LB of 2010, decision dated: 29-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Waseem Ch.s (in I.T.A. No. 1207/LB of 2010). Sajjad Taslim, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 1207/LB of 2010). Sajjad Taslim, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 1291/LB of 2010). M. Waseem Ch.s (in I.T.A. No. 1291/LB of 2010)", + "Party Name:": "Miss JAANA MALIK and others\nvs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL), R.T.O.-II, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 26 = 2012 SLD 26 = 2012 PTD 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recouped Expenditure and Pre-Commencement Expenses\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that expenses waived during the pre-commencement period should not be treated as incurred and thus should not be amortized. The reversal of interest and penalties was properly categorized as a non-taxable event, and the department’s attempt to tax it was found to constitute double taxation. The appeal was allowed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 70, 69, 25, 18(1)(d), 120, 122(5) & 122(9).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=70,69,25,18(1)(d),120,122(5),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.352/IB of 2011, decision dated: 5-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Faisal Banday, FCA for Applicants. Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LAFARGE PAKISTAN CEMENT LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 27 = 2012 SLD 27 = 2012 PTD 229 = (2012) 105 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes and Compensation Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the rectification of a compensation order, done by a different authority, was invalid, as only the original authority could amend the order. Additionally, it was determined that the adjustments for earlier refunds had not been properly accounted for. The rectification order was set aside, and the case was remitted for reconsideration.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 52 & 86.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,122(5A),239(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.244/LB to 446/LB, 449/LB to 451/LB of 2009, decision dated: 8-12-2010, hearing DATE : 2-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar, FCA. Karamatullah Ch. D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 28 = 2012 SLD 28 = 2012 PTD 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Excess Tax Deduction and Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer filed a complaint after excess tax was deducted at source, but the refund was not issued. The Federal Tax Ombudsman observed that, although the complaint came after the matter was sub judice, any further delay in issuing the refund would constitute maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue direct the Chief Commissioner to issue the refund within 21 days. The delay also created a right to compensation under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 170, 171, 153, 239(10), 1st Schedule: Part-III, Div-III, Cl. (1a) & (b).\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9(2)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171,153,239(10),1stSched:Part-III,Div-III, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.409/LHR/IT(331)830 of 2011, decision dated: 5-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Khwaja Riaz Hussein, Advocate for Authorized Representative. Muhammad Ali, DCIR for Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAHIR NASIM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 29 = 2012 SLD 29 = 2012 PTD 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Amendments of Assessment under Presumptive Tax Regime\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer's refund claim for carriage receipts was rejected by the Taxation Officer under the Presumptive Tax Regime. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that carriage receipts were income assessable under the normal tax regime. Further, the Audit Division, not the Enforcement Division, should have handled the assessment. The Ombudsman intervened and recommended that compensation be issued due to maladministration and delays.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 122(5A), 170(4), 171.\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),170(4),171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3), ", + "Case #": "Complainant No.347/LHR/IT(282) 686 of 2011, decision dated: 1st November, 2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer. Najam-ul-Hassan, Authorized Representative. Shakeel Ahmad Shakeel, DCIR for Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN CHATTHA, OIL TRADERS, BHAKKAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 30 = 2012 SLD 30 = (2012) 105 TAX 236 = 2012 PTD 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund for Tax Rebate on Instructional Allowance\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer, a full-time teacher, claimed a 75% tax rebate on instructional allowance, but the Department refused the refund, citing an administrative post. The Ombudsman found the refusal unfair and recommended the issuance of the refund within 15 days. The evidence of tax deduction was sufficient to support the claim, and the claim was not barred by the limitation period.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Second Schedule: Part-III, Cl. (2).\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 24(1).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=SecondSched,Part-III,Cl.(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=24(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.121/Isd/IT(63)1121 of 2011, decision dated: 1st November, 2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Istataat Ali, Advisor Dealing Officer.Complainant in person for Authorized Representative Faisal Irshad, Inland Revenue Officer and Ghulam Hussain, Audit Officer Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Dr. R.A. SIYAL, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 31 = 2012 SLD 31 = 2012 PTD 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income and Improper Service of Statutory Notices\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority found that statutory notices were not properly served, denying the taxpayer a chance to explain the source of the investment. The assessment under Section 122(1) was canceled. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it was based on improper service of notices.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 111(1)(b), 122, 128.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1)(b),122,128,122(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.878/LB of 2011, decision dated: 8-10-2011, hearing DATE : 27-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Hassan, D.R. Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nQAMAR JAVED, PROPRIETOR, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 32 = 2012 SLD 32 = (2012) 106 TAX 64 = 2012 PTD 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Upfront and Residual Commission under Presumptive Tax Regime\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer’s dispute over the assessment of upfront and residual commission under the Presumptive Tax Regime was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that all commission income, regardless of its categorization under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 233, was taxable under the same provisions. The taxpayer’s claim that residual commission should be excluded was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 233, 122(5A).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=233,122(5A),233(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.612/IB and 543/IB of 2009, decision dated: 2-08-2010, hearing DATE : 25-05-2010", + "Judge Name": ", JAVAID IQBAL, MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt and Sh. Sheraz ul Haq. Ziaullah Khan, D.R. and Bilal Hassan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "SHEIKH COMMUNICATION, Proprietor Ehsan Elahi\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-II), R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 33 = 2012 SLD 33 = 2012 PTD 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Demurrage Charges and Customs Department Responsibility\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer claimed demurrage charges for goods delayed by the Customs Department due to a dispute. The Ombudsman determined that the delay was the responsibility of the Customs Department, and recommended that the Port Trust refund the demurrage charges within 15 days.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.339/LHR/CUS(11)678 of 2011, decision dated: 21st December, 2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Akhtar, Advisor Dealing Officer.Mian Ahmad Sethi-Authorized Representative M. Qasim Khokhar, D.C. Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIZAMI WIRE INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 34 = 2012 SLD 34 = (2012) 105 TAX 207 = 2012 PTCL 1 = 2012 PTD 396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Rehearing of Appeal due to Delay\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer contested that appeals should be reheard due to delay beyond the six-month limit prescribed in Section 132(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The court found the provision to be directory, and the delay did not automatically invalidate the appeals. The petition was dismissed, but the court directed the authorities to decide the case within 10 days.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 131 & 132(2-A).\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,132(2A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.2825, 2810, 2826 and 2829 to 2836 of 2011, heard on 1st November, 2011", + "Judge Name": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 2810 of 2011). \nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Khurram M. Hashmi and Sajid-ur-Rehman Mashwani for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.2825 to 2835 of 2011). \nAbid Aziz Sheikh for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 2836 of 2011)\nShafi Muhammad Chandio, D.A.G.s\nAhmr Bilal Sofi, Ayyaz Shaukat, Usman Kareem for FBR, Muhammad Aaqil Usman, Member Legal FBR, M. Bilal and Babar Bilal for Taxation Officer, Ch. Shaukat (Registrar) and Shahid Mustafa (Assistant Registrar), Representatives of the Appellate Tribunals.", + "Party Name:": "OMV (PAKISTAN) EXPLORATION GmbH, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 35 = 2012 SLD 35 = 2012 PTD 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": " Composite Audit and Taxpayer's Rights\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer's complaint against the composite audit (simultaneous income tax and sales tax audits) was upheld. The Ombudsman found that the composite audit exposed the taxpayer to double jeopardy and violated the legal frameworks governing audits. The Ombudsman recommended that the notices for the composite audit be withdrawn within 15 days.\nCitations:\n•\n2011 PTD 1558; (2011) 103 Tax 131 (SC Pak.) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.572/LHR/IT(449)/1157 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Muhammad Humayun Authorized Representative. Safdar Bhatti, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM SARWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 166 = 2006 SLD 166 = 2006 PTD 1979 = (2006) 93 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax on Income and Re-Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer contested the imposition of minimum tax under Section 80-D during a re-assessment, arguing that the tax should not be levied after the original assessment had merged with the appellate order. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment, stating that the minimum tax was correctly imposed under the provisions of Section 80-D, despite the taxpayer's argument.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80-D, 80-C, 80-CC & 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,80C,80CC,62,ThirdSched.,7(b)(1),8(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4181/LB to 4183/LB, 4493/LB of 2000, 31/LB, 32/LB of 2001; 1979/LB and 1980/LB of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja and Faisal Iqbal Khawaja/Assessee. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for the Respondent/Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 167 = 2006 SLD 167 = 2006 PTCL 605 = 2006 PTD 2001 = (2006) 93 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Depreciation Allowances\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer challenged the reopening of an assessment concerning depreciation allowances granted three years ago. The High Court ruled that the matter had been thoroughly considered by the Assessing Officer, and the reopening was not justified under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The impugned notice was declared illegal.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 65 & 156.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions No. 2757 of 1985, heard on 1st December, 2005", + "Judge Name": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawad Hassan for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 168 = 2006 SLD 168 = 2006 PTD 2012 = (2006) 93 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Additional Assessments\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer argued that the assessment order was passed after the statutory time limit, but the Appellate Tribunal held that the order had been made within the prescribed period. It was emphasized that the Assessing Officer could dictate the order within a reasonable period after concluding proceedings, even if the order was not written immediately. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 65(3A), 62.\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(3A),62,65,129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 697/LB to 700/LB, 1591/LB and 1592/LB of 2001, decision dated: 24-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar and Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq, I.T.P. (in I.T.As. Nos.697/LB to 700/LB of 2001). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for, Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.697/LB to 700/LB of 2001). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.A. 1591/LB and 1592/LB of 2001). Dr. Ilyas Zafar and Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. 1591/LB and 1592/LB of 2001)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 169 = 2006 SLD 169 = 2006 PTD 2854 = (2007) 95 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Minimum Tax Under Protection of Economic Reforms Act\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer filed for rectification to remove the minimum tax imposed under Section 80-D, arguing that their case was covered by a notification in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Income Tax Officer should have considered this under Section 156 for rectification and allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the Income Tax Officer and Commissioner.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80-D, 134, 136, 156.\n•\nProtection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), S.6.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,134,136,156 Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1999 , decision dated: 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqui. \nArshad Siraj", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX\nvs\nGULF EDIBLE OILS (PVT.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 170 = 2006 SLD 170 = 2006 PTD 2036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Interest Income Taxation\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer’s income from interest was taxed despite claims of exemption for educational institutions under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the tax on interest income, as income from other sources, while recognizing the exemption for voluntary contributions and income for charitable purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Second Schedule, Part-I, Cl. (93), (94).\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.122.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Part-I,(86) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 194, 195 and 196/KB of 2004, decision dated: 23rd June, 2005", + "Judge Name": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R.. Amjad Javed Hashmi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 171 = 2006 SLD 171 = 2006 PTD 2040 = (2006) 93 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Exemption Period for Tax Holiday\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer contested the classification of the exemption period for their business. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessment order, which wrongly allocated the exemption period, was incorrect. The Tribunal rejected the claim for a rectification application for earlier years and upheld the finality of prior orders, declaring that the exemption holiday was misallocated.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Second Schedule, Part-I, Cl. (118C).\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.156.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Part-1,Cl.(118C),156, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 157(PB) and 172(PB) of 2002, decision dated: 16-12-2003", + "Judge Name": ", JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFARUL HASSAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Amin Shah, F.C.A. and Mehmood Mirza/Assessee. Mirza Khan, D.R./Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 172 = 2006 SLD 172 = 2006 PTD 2058", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Ex Parte Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer was assessed under the Self-Assessment Scheme, but the Assessing Officer conducted an ex parte assessment based on a survey, without considering the taxpayer’s previous self-assessment. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the ex parte assessment, recognizing that the taxpayer had already filed a valid return.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 63, 59.\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No.18 of 1999, dated 11-9-1999.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1662/LB of 2004, decision dated: 24-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid and Muhammad Younis Khalid Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 173 = 2006 SLD 173 = 2006 PTD 2060", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Addition of Expenses\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer made additions to the taxpayer’s profit and loss expenses without providing specific defects in the accounts. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the additions, stating that general comments in the order sheet did not justify the rejection of the accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the additions lacked proper justification.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 62.\n•\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 2668; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 2190.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1650/KB and 1651/KB of 2002, decision dated: 27-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "S. HASSAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Pervez Jami for the Assessee.Zaki Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 174 = 2006 SLD 174 = 2006 PTCL 654 = 2006 PTD 2078", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Addition of Income\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer’s accounts were rejected without specific evidence of unverifiability. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not pointed to any specific defects and had based their judgment on assumptions. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the additions and allowed the taxpayer’s profit calculation.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 62.\n•\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 2668; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 2190; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 39.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,111,116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3556/LB of 2003, 5575/LB, 5576/LB, 5947/LB to 5949/LB of 2004, decision dated: 31st October, 2005", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aslam Khan, F.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.3556/LB of 2003, 5575/LB and 5576/LB of 2004)\nAnwar Ali Shah, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.3556/LB of 2003, 5575/LB and 5576/LB of 2004)\nAnwar Ali Shah, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 5947/LB to 5949/LB of 2004)\nAslam Khan, F.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos. 5947/LB to 5949/LB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 175 = 2006 SLD 175 = 2006 PTD 2095 = (2006) 93 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Tax by Association of Persons\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer, an Association of Persons, was not required to deduct advance tax under Section 153(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Since the association was not formed under a specific legal enactment, it did not fall under the category of prescribed person required to deduct tax.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 153, 165, 80.\n•\nC.B.R. Circular C. No.1(17)WTH-91-Pt, dated 2-11-2002.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,165,80, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 683/PB of 2004, decision dated: 12-09-2005", + "Judge Name": ", JARED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahidur Rehman, I.T.P.. Yousaf Ghaffar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 176 = 2006 SLD 176 = 2006 PTD 2106 = (2006) 93 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\nThe penalty order passed after four years from the notice issuance was invalid. The Taxation Officer had exceeded the legal time limit for imposing the penalty under Section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 111, 116.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,13(1)(d),116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3713/LB of 2003, decision dated: 10-03-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI., JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.. Imran Rasool and Naeem Munawars", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 177 = 2006 SLD 177 = 2006 PTD 2119 = 2006 PTCL 619 = (2006) 93 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Cash Rewards\nConclusion:\nCash rewards for excellence in export were considered casual, non-recurring receipts and thus were not taxable. The burden of proof to show that a receipt was not taxable lay on the revenue.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 111, 13(1)(d).\n•\nRamanathan Chettiar v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 458.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22(c),SecondSched,Cl,(65) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 259 of 1998, decision dated: 17-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan Ms. Saima Amin Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\n SYED BHAI (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 178 = 2006 SLD 178 = 2006 PTD 2130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Assets Tax and Additional Tax\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax and penalties could not be imposed due to confusion in the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of the additional tax by the First Appellate Authority.\nCitations:\n•\nFinance Act (XII of 1991), S. 12(8).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991=12(8) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4100/LB of 2002, decision dated: 16-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfer Hussain, D.R. Shahid Pervez Jami", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 179 = 2006 SLD 179 = 2006 PTD 2146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions and Disallowances\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly deleted the disallowed expenses and additions. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision, ruling that no specific notice was issued under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to confront the taxpayer.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 12(18), 24(ff), 62.\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2983.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),24,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5323/LB of 2003, 2132/LB of 2002, 5192/LB to 5194/LB, 4329/LB to 4331/LB of 2004, decision dated: 13-08-2005", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Pervez Jami. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 180 = 2006 SLD 180 = 2006 PTD 2154 = (2006) 93 TAX 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Procedures and Form Errors\nConclusion:\nThe use of an old appeal form did not invalidate the appeal process as long as substantial legal and procedural requirements were met. The Court ruled that technicalities should not undermine the administration of justice.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 52A & 50(4).\n•\nPLD 175 SC 678.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52A,50(4),86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1222/KB to 1224/KB of 2004, decision dated: 7-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kafil Ahmed Abbasi. Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 181 = 2006 SLD 181 = 2006 PTD 2179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Notice Requirement\nConclusion:\nThe absence of notice under Section 62 for confronting the taxpayer invalidated the additions made. The Appellate Tribunal correctly deleted the additions due to failure in adhering to mandatory legal requirements.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 62.\n•\n2005 PTD (Trib.) 534.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 317/KB of 2001, decision dated: 27-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Arhad Siraj. Farrukh Ansari, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 182 = 2006 SLD 182 = 2006 PTCL 670 = 2006 PTD 2208 = 2007 PTR 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Questions of Fact\nConclusion:\nSince the questions raised were factual and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, no question of law was involved, and the High Court declined to entertain the reference.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.17 of 2004, decision dated: 16-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Ch. OMAR NAZIR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 183 = 2006 SLD 183 = 2006 PTD 2227 = (2006) 93 TAX 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Addition to Declared Income\nConclusion:\nThe addition to the declared income based on re-determination of property value required two prior approvals, which were not obtained, making the addition invalid under the provisions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 13.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 243 of 1991, decision dated: 17-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND S. AHMED SARWANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqui for Applicant. Aziz A. Shaikh", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nvs\nAMIN HAJI USMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 184 = 2006 SLD 184 = 2006 PTD 2275 = (2007) 95 TAX 53 = 2007 PTCL 195 = 2007 PTR 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exempt Income and Determination of Quantum\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to further probe or determine the quantum of income declared as exempt, and he was required to accept the declared results of the exempt income.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 5, 14(1), Second Schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,14(1),SecondSched ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 28 of 1995, decision dated: 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Ali Jafri for Petitioner. \nShahid Pervez Jami", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs WAHEED BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 185 = 2006 SLD 185 = 2006 PTD 2277 = 2007 PTCL 206 = 2006 SCMR 1670 = (2007) 95 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Golden Hand-Shake Compensation\nConclusion:\nPayments to retiring employees under the Golden Hand-Shake Scheme were treated as salary for tax purposes, based on the legal fiction created by the legislature. Such payments could not be classified as retirement benefits, and were taxable under Section 15(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 2(6), 15(a), 16(2)(a)(iii)(c)(i).\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No.15 of 1997 (Income Tax), dated 6-11-1997.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(6),15(a),16(2)(a)(iii)(c)(i),50,SecondSched.,77 ", + "Case #": "Civil appeals Nos.857 to 867, 1792, 1793 of 2002 589, 48 of 2003, 2511, 2512 of 2001, 448 of 2004 and 379 of 2006, decision dated: 17-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ibrar Hussain Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 858 of 2002).\nC.M. Lateef, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.857 and 860 of 2002).\nRay Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.1792 and 1793 of 2002).\nSikandar Hayat Khan, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 379 of 2006).\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.857-867 of 2002 and 589 of 2003).\nMalik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.1792 and 1793 of 2002),\nCh. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 1792 of 2002).\nMehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 2512 of 2001).\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in C.A. No. 2511 of 2001).\nNemo (in C.A. No. 2511 of 2001).\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in C.A. No. 2512 of 2001).\nMehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 2512 of 2001).\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeal No. 448 of 2001).\nNemo (in C.A. No. 448 of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "Malik MUHAMMAD INAM and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nCivil Appeal No.2511 of 2001\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nvs\nS. HAMIDULLAH SHAII and others\nCivil Appeal No.2512 of 2001\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nVs\nMUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN and others\nCivil Appeal No.448 of 2004\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX and others\nVs\nSARA ROOHI USMANI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 186 = 2006 SLD 186 = 2006 PTD 2291 = (2006) 93 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gain and Goodwill\nConclusion:\nCompensation received by the taxpayer for the termination of an agency and license agreement was treated as a capital receipt, not goodwill. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that this compensation was not taxable as capital gain under Section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 27.\n•\n1984 CLC 2804; PLD 1963 SC 663.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1640/KB of 2004, decision dated: 24-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farogh Naseem. Sheikh Muhammad Hanif D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 187 = 2006 SLD 187 = 2006 PTD 2318 = (2007) 95 TAX 86 = 2007 PTR 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal refused to refer the reframed questions to the High Court. The High Court upheld the decision, rejecting the reference application.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 123 of 2001, decision dated: 28-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Petitioner\nMuhammad Ryas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD NASEEM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 188 = 2006 SLD 188 = 2006 PTD 2325 = (2006) 93 TAX 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowances and Deductions\nConclusion:\nThe disallowance of financial charges was overturned by the Appellate Tribunal, confirming that the Assessing Officer's rejection was not valid.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 62, 23(1)(vii).\n•\n2002 PTD 1195; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2938.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,ThirdSated.,R.5(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3949/LB to 3951/LB and 4450 to 4453/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8-12-2005", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zaeem-ul-Farooq. Javed Iqbal Rana, LTU and Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.s. Javed Iqbal Rana, LTU and Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.s (in I.T.A. Nos. 4450/LB to 4453/LB of 2003). Zaeem-ul-Farooqs", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 189 = 2006 SLD 189 = 2006 PTD 2329 = 2007 PTCL 247 = (2007) 95 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Selection for Total Audit\nConclusion:\nThe selection of the taxpayer’s case for a total audit was deemed illegal due to the lapse in time for selecting cases before the original deadline.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 62.\n•\n1992 PTD (Trib.) 1665.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R No.10 of 1994, decision dated: 20-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL BRICKS CO., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 190 = 2006 SLD 190 = 2006 PTD 2344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Survey and Estimate of Sales\nConclusion:\nThe sales estimate made by the Survey Team was found to be more reliable than the Inspector’s estimates, and the Tribunal directed that the sales declared in the survey form be accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1398/LB and 730/LB of 2004, decision dated: 20-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid Majeed Ch. ITP (I.T.A.s No. 1398/LB of 2004). Abdul Sttar Abbasi, D.R. (I.T.A. No. 1398/LB of 2004). Abdul Sttar Abbasi, D.R. (I.T.A. No. 730/LB of 2004). Rashid Majeed Ch. I.T.P. (in I.T.A. No. 730/LB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 191 = 2006 SLD 191 = 2006 PTD 2345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal and Rejection for Missing Documents\nConclusion:\nThe High Court upheld the rejection of the appeal due to the absence of required documents. The Tribunal exercised its discretion appropriately.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R. 11(1), (3).\n•\nShahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan, PLD 1970 SC 139.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=11(1),(3) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 91 of 1998, decision dated: 28-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs RASHID AHMAD, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 192 = 2006 SLD 192 = 2006 PTD 2348 = (2006) 93 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability for Failing to Deduct or Pay Tax\nConclusion:\nThe appellant was not a company as defined under Section 2(16)(bb) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and, therefore, not required to deduct tax under Section 50. The Appellate Tribunal vacated the orders of the lower authorities that had treated the appellant as an assessee in default. \nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 52, 86, 50, 2(16)(bb).\n•\nC.B.R. Circular Letter C. No.1 (17) WHT/91-PT, dated 29-8-2002.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,50,2(16)(bb) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153(9), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 124/KB to 126/KB of 2005, decision dated: 4-03-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tayyab Gee Adeeb, F.C.A.. Basharat Qureshi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 193 = 2006 SLD 193 = 2006 PTD 2359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability for Failing to Deduct or Pay Tax\nConclusion:\nThe appellant was not a company as defined under Section 2(16)(bb) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and, therefore, not required to deduct tax under Section 50. The Appellate Tribunal vacated the orders of the lower authorities that had treated the appellant as an assessee in default. \nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 52, 86, 50, 2(16)(bb).\n•\nC.B.R. Circular Letter C. No.1 (17) WHT/91-PT, dated 29-8-2002.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.73 of 1999, decision dated: 4-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMUHAMMAD IKRAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 194 = 2006 SLD 194 = 2006 PTD 2361 = (2006) 93 TAX 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court and Discretionary Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in rejecting the appeal due to the failure to file certified copies of the impugned order. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that discretionary orders by subordinate courts should not be interfered with unless arbitrary.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136.\n•\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R.11.\n•\nShahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,210 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1547/KB of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Chaman Lal Oadh, D.R.. Muhammad Mehtab Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 195 = 2006 SLD 195 = 2006 PTD 2373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Received and Taxability\nConclusion:\nThe advance payment received for the sale of a shop, verified by a government functionary, was not a fictitious transaction. Therefore, Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not applicable, and the Appellate Tribunal vacated the addition made by the Taxation Officer.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 12(18), 39(3).\n•\n1995 PTD 1176; 1997 PTD 453; 2002 PTD 2594.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2231/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Hameed, ITP Sabiha Mujahid, D.R,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 196 = 2006 SLD 196 = 2006 PTD 2378 = (2007) 95 TAX 41 = 2007 PTR 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Year and Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly rejected the reference application, confirming that the assessment year followed the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, and Rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982 did not apply retrospectively.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 9, 24, 136.\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, 1982, R.20.\n•\nCIT v. Isthmian 20 ITR 572; Jayakumari v. CIT 165 ITR 792.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,24,136 Income Tax Rules, 1982=20 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.56 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd December, 2002", + "Judge Name": "SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Applicant. \nNasarullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CALTEX OIL (PAK.) LIMITED through Nuruddin Damani\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES II, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 197 = 2006 SLD 197 = 2006 PTD 2384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Law Amendments\nConclusion:\nThe amendment in Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, excluding Associations of Persons from minimum tax liability, was not remedial or curative but a policy change. Therefore, the appeal of the Association of Persons was rejected, and the decisions of the Assessing Officer and Appellate Authority were upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 80D.\n•\nFinance Act (IV of 1999); Finance Ordinance (XXV of 2001.\n•\n1993 SCMR 73; 2002 PTD 285; PLD 1997 Lah. 292.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 551/IB of 2005, decision dated: 15-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, A.R.. Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 198 = 2006 SLD 198 = 2006 PTD 2396 = (2006) 93 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake and Notice Requirements\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Assessing Officer must provide an opportunity for a hearing before increasing the taxpayer’s liability. Additionally, rectifications require a notice to the taxpayer, which was not issued in this case, rendering the rectification invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 156(1), 38(6).\n•\n1992 PTD 570.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,156(1),38(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1246/LB of 2003 and 3768/LB of 2005, decision dated: 8-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aslam Lillah (LTU), D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 199 = 2006 SLD 199 = 2006 PTD 2402 = (2007) 95 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Discretion to Accept or Reject Appeals\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s discretion to reject an appeal without required documents under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 was not arbitrary and could not be interfered with, as long as it was exercised judicially.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R. 11.\n•\nShahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=11 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 97 of 1999, decision dated: 7-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs PUNJAB CLOTH HOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 200 = 2006 SLD 200 = 2006 PTD 2413 = (2006) 93 TAX 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Mistake on Record\nConclusion:\nThe rectification of an assessment order was improper as it involved a change of opinion and a review of previous decisions. The rectification was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal due to lack of legal justification.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 156, 221.\n•\n1992 PTD 570; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 4026.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2953/LB and 2954/LB of 2004, decision dated: 30-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Monim Sultan Rana Muhammad Luqman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 201 = 2006 SLD 201 = 2006 PTD 2419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Claim and Manufacturer Status\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal determined that the assessee was a manufacturer and thus eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal also ruled that the issue was one of fact, not law, and dismissed the reference application to the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136(2).\n•\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax v. SMT Sajjanbai ITR 1982, Volume 137 at page 329.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2) & SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.187 of 1993, decision dated: 16th, November, 2002, hearing DATE : 5-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Abdul Ghaffar Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-III, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 202 = 2006 SLD 202 = 2006 PTD 2421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Finality of Assessment Order\nConclusion:\nThe assessment order becomes final after it has gone through all forums. The word pending includes any appeal or revision under the law, and the decision of the last forum is binding and conclusive.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 2(7).\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue and others v. Chand Motors 1993 SCMR 39.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(7),22 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 90 of 1993, decision dated: 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Lateef Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BAHRIA OIL MILLS, VEHARI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 203 = 2006 SLD 203 = 2006 PTD 2859 = (2006) 93 TAX 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Collected or Deducted as Final Tax on Imported Goods\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority directed the Taxation Officer to compute tax on the value of goods excluding customs duty and sales tax. However, the Appellate Tribunal annulled this decision, holding that customs duty and sales tax should be included in the value of imported goods for tax purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 169, 170(4), 148(7)(9), 122(5A), 2(2).\n•\nMessrs Madina Enterprises Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others Constitution Petition No.598 of 2001, 14th September, 2004.\n•\nCivil Petition No.364-L of 2002, 6th July, 2004.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=169,170(4),148(7)(9),122(5A),2(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 840/KB and 848/KB of 2005, decision dated: 23rd May, 2006", + "Judge Name": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Faiz Ellahi Memo. D.R.. Mazharul Hassan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 204 = 2006 SLD 204 = 2006 PTD 2436 = (2007) 95 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Finality of Assessment Orders\nConclusion:\nAn assessment order by the Income Tax Officer is not final and can be challenged through appeal or revision. The finality of such orders is established only after going through all the forums, with the findings of the last forum being binding.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 2(7).\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue and others v. Chand Motors 1993 SCMR 39.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Village Panchayat Act, (XI of 1939)=114 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.90 of 1998, decision dated: 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Lateef Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD, ZONE\nvs\nMessrs SHAHZAD AND COMPANY, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 205 = 2006 SLD 205 = 2006 PTD 2439 = (2007) 95 TAX 48 = 2007 PTR 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court and Tribunal's Mistake\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's refusal to refer a question of law to the High Court, based on an internal error in treating a reference as an appeal, was unjustified. The error was on the Tribunal's part, not the applicant's, and thus the Tribunal’s decision violated provisions of Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 136(1).\n•\nPackages Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1993 SCMR 1224.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(vii),136,136(1),136(2) ", + "Case #": "ITC No. 197 of 2004, decision dated: 1st March, 2006", + "Judge Name": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION)\nvs\nNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 206 = 2006 SLD 206 = 2006 PTD 2445 = (2007) 95 TAX 60 = 2007 PTCL 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cantonment Board Tax Liability\nConclusion:\nThe Cantonment Board was wrongly treated as an assessee in default for tax under Section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The case required a detailed examination of facts, and the constitutional petition for relief was not maintainable due to the necessity for adjudication based on evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 52.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.\n•\nPremier Cloth Mills Ltd. Lyallpur v. The Sales Tax Officer 1972 SCMR 257.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ petition No.4459 of 2003, heard on 19-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Azhar for Petitioner. \nCh. Sagheer Ahmads", + "Party Name:": "CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MULTAN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 207 = 2006 SLD 207 = 2006 PTD 2452 = (2007) 95 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Selection for Audit\nConclusion:\nRevenue authorities must disclose criteria for selecting cases for audit. If the returns are revised and payment made, no further action should be taken against the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Petitions 1962 to 2205 of 2005.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.11038 of 2004, heard on 19-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IFTIKHAR BROTHERS, CIVIL QUARTERS ROAD, SHEIKHUPURA\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 208 = 2006 SLD 208 = 2006 PTD 2866 = (2007) 95 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Investment and Cash Credit\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal correctly applied Section 13(1)(a) for unexplained cash credits rather than Section 13(1)(aa), ruling that manipulations of cash books and cash credits should be treated as unexplained income, subject to tax under Section 13(1)(a).\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 13(1)(a), 13(1)(aa), 111, 136(2).\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Khairpur Textile Mills Ltd. 1989 SCMR 61.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 2 of 1995, decision dated: 20-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs JEHLUM FABRICS, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 209 = 2006 SLD 209 = 2006 PTD 2453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim Denial and Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer’s failure to act on refund claims within the prescribed 45 days constituted maladministration. The Ombudsman directed the Taxation Officer to issue the refunds as per law.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 153, 170.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,170 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98-L of 2006, decision dated: 10-04-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arif Malhi for the Complainants. M. Ghias-ud-Din, (DCIT)s", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD TARIQ and another\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 210 = 2006 SLD 210 = 2006 PTD 2456 = 2007 PTCL 188 = 2006 SCMR 1867 = 2007 PTR 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Receipt for Delayed Payment of Balance Price\nConclusion:\nCompensation received by the assessee for delayed payment on land acquisition was not part of the sale price and was thus taxable as income.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 27.\n•\nC.I.T. West Bengal-II v. Kamal Beharilal Singha (1971) 82 ITR 460.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1039 to 1042 of 2003, decision dated: 16-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J., M, JAVED BUTTAR AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Iqbal Hashmi, Advocates (in all cases). Nasir Saeed Sheikh, D.A.G., Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record and Shaukat Ali Sheikh, Commissioner Income-taxs", + "Party Name:": "MODEL TOWN SOCIETY LTD.\nvs\nIncome Tax AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 211 = 2006 SLD 211 = 2006 PTD 2465 = (2006) 93 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions Not Admissible: Mark-Up Reserve and Bad Debts\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal upheld the disallowance of mark-up reserves under Section 23(1)(xxi) due to the retrospective nature of the amendment. Bad debts provision, however, was allowed, as the State Bank of Pakistan's certificate was provided verifying the irrecoverable debts.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 23(1)(xxi).\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xxi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.69/PB and 70/PB of 2001-02, decision dated: 6-08-2004", + "Judge Name": ", JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghafoor, F.C.A.. Faheem Muhammad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 212 = 2006 SLD 212 = 2006 PTD 2474 = (2007) 95 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Modification of Assessment Order\nConclusion:\nThe modification of an assessment order after 8 years based on audit reports changing trial production to commercial production was legally flawed. The Appellate Tribunal’s decision to retroactively apply changes was annulled as it violated principles of tax assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 66-A, 122(5), 136, 53.\n•\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner and another v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. 1997 PTD 1485.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=66,66A,122(5),133 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,118(c),SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "T.R.A. No. 14 of 2005, decision dated: 18-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees. \nEid Muhammad Khattak", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARINA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY ZONE, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 213 = 2006 SLD 213 = 2006 PTD 2485 = (2006) 93 TAX 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Investment in Property\nConclusion:\nThe exemption under Clause 6F of the Second Schedule, providing immunity from probe for investments made up to 16-12-1999, was applicable retrospectively, as it was a beneficial provision. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the exemption and deleted the addition made by the Taxation Officer.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Second Schedule, Part-IV, Cl. 6F.\n•\n2003 PTD 812; 1997 PTD 1555.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 680/LB to 682/PB of 2004, decision dated: 29-03-2005", + "Judge Name": ", JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahidur Rehman, Anthorised Representative. Yousaf Ghaffar, D.R.,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 214 = 2006 SLD 214 = 2006 PTCL 432 = (2007) 95 TAX 1 = 2006 PTD 2498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Filing Estimate and Revised Estimate\nConclusion:\nThe company’s delay of two days in filing its estimate was deemed irrelevant as it had paid all dues based on the revised estimate filed within the prescribed time. The High Court dismissed the department’s appeal, supporting the course adopted by the company.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 53(2), 87.\n•\nCivil Petition No. 1962 to 2205 of 2005.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53(2),87 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.3184-L of 2001, decision dated: 4-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nvs\nDAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 215 = 2006 SLD 215 = 2006 PLD 787 = (2006) 93 TAX 293 = 2007 PTCL 1 = 2006 PTD 2502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Total Audit Procedures\nConclusion:\n(a) Under the Self-Assessment Scheme, the assessee is not obligated to file a return under Section 59 unless specifically required, and the Deputy Commissioner will assess income based on the return filed under the scheme.\n(b) The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) can select cases for total audit under Section 59(1-A) and the Deputy Commissioner will assess the selected cases using the procedures under Sections 62 or 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(c) The CBR can select up to 20% of returns for audit via computer ballot or through recommendations by the Regional Commissioners.\n(d) The term “any” in this context is broad and may include all or some, depending on the statute's intent.\n(e) No specific percentage for selection of cases for audit was required in the Self-Assessment Scheme. The selection process was not ultra vires.\n(f) Policy guidelines were administrative and did not impose rights or obligations.\n(g) There was no need for prior issuance of guidelines; their issuance after the scheme’s promulgation was valid.\n(h) The guidelines, not being statutory rules, did not need to be published in the official Gazette.\n(i) The principles of natural justice applied flexibly and did not require hearings at the preliminary stage of audit selection.\n(j) Preliminary inquiries do not always require a hearing, depending on the situation.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 55, 59, 59(1-A), 62, 63, 4-A.\n•\nCh. Zahoor Elahi M.N.A. v. The State PLD 1977 SC 273.\n•\nAdministrative Law by Sir William Wade, 9th Edition.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,59(1A),62,63,4A,59(3) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 233 to 315, 833 to 848, 1041 to 1046 of 2004, 1211 to 1214, 1641 and 1704 of 2005, decision dated: 28-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record, assisted by Shahid Jamil Khan, Advocate, Khurram M. Hashmi, Advocate and Danish Zuberis.\nShahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 1046 of 2004)\nShahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.233, 241, 243, 256, 261, 271, 274, 275, 279, 283, 286, 293, 296, 301, 304 of 2004).\nSiraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos. 238 of 2004 and 1212 of 2005).\nMuhammad Iqbal Hashimi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos.248 to 251, 256, 259, 303 and 1041 of 2004).\nMian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos.262, 265, 266 to 269, 294, 298, 835, 844 of 2004 and 1214 of 2005).\nMuhammad Qamar-uz-Zaman, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. A. No. 263 of 2004).\nMuhammad Naeem Shah, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos. 276, 288, 315 of 2004 and 1213 of 2005).\nDr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos.841 and 843 of 2004).\nM.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.248 to 251, 259, 303 of 2004).\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 263 of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nMessrs MEDIA NETWORK and others\nCivil Appeals Nos. 833 to 848 of 2004\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nM. YOUSAF ACADEMY QUICK FILL CNG and others\nCivil Appeals Nos. 1041 to 1046 of 2004\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nSADAQAT RAHIM and others\nCivil Appeals Nos. 1211 to 1214 of 2005\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nMessrs Haji MUHAMMAD TANVIR and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.1641 and 1704 of 2005\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nMessrs MIAN COLD STORAGE MEWA MANDI, SIALKOT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 216 = 2006 SLD 216 = 2006 PTD 2554 = (2006) 93 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Period for Amendment of Assessments\nConclusion:\n(a) Amendments to assessments under Sections 62 and 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were time-barred as they were initiated after the limitation period had expired.\n(b) Section 122(4-A) was retrospectively applicable, correcting the limitation ambiguity.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 122(4-A).\n•\nEllahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(4A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 578/LB and 579/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st April, 2006", + "Judge Name": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Zubair Tawana, DCIT. Asim Zulfiqar, ACA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 217 = 2006 SLD 217 = 2006 PTD 2565 = (2006) 94 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Regular Assessment\nConclusion:\n(a) The regular assessment remains applicable when an assessee's income exceeds the turnover threshold that qualifies for minimum tax. The assessee is liable to file a regular return if their earnings exceed the minimum tax rate.\n(b) The addition under Section 13(1)(aa) was valid as the assessee failed to produce evidence to support the claimed version.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80D, 62, 13(1)(aa).\n•\nMessrs Ellahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),13(1)(aa),62,80,80C,80CC,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 387/IB of 2005, decision dated: 1st March, 2006", + "Judge Name": "SYED MASOOD UL HASAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Aslam Sheikh\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 218 = 2006 SLD 218 = 2006 PTD 2569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compliance with Procedural Requirements\nConclusion:\n(a) If the law prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed precisely; non-compliance may render actions invalid.\n(b) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal properly rejected the appeal as it was not filed in accordance with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1997 Lah. 692.\n•\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, Rr. 10 & 15.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.385 to 889 of 1998, decision dated: 17-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Safdar Mehmood", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES Zone-III, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs IDARA-IKISSAN, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 219 = 2006 SLD 219 = 2006 PTD 2575 = (2006) 93 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Order Passed by Outgoing Officer\nConclusion:\nThe order passed by the First Appellate Authority, after the officer had relinquished his charge, was invalid as the officer was functus officio and could not deal with the case. The order was void ab initio, and the case was to be heard afresh.\nCitations:\n•\n1995 MLD 1596; 1995 CLC 1951.\n•\nAli Akbar v. State 1969 PCr.LJ 1307.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131,134,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 905/IB of 2002, decision dated: 19-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "SYED MASOOD UL HASAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees. \nRaja Muhammad Irshad, DAG/Legal Advisor, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, I.A.C. and Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 220 = 2006 SLD 220 = 2006 PTD 2585 = (2006) 93 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation of Property in Rental Business\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed depreciation on the property used for rental income, ruling that the income was properly classified under property income. The Revenue's challenge on the classification was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 31(1)(c), 136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=31(1)(c),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 233 of 1997, decision dated: 6-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousaf Umar for the Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nDr. BASHIR AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 221 = 2006 SLD 221 = 2006 PTD 2590 = 2007 PTCL 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Assessment Orders\nConclusion:\nWhere the law has changed due to a superior court's interpretation, the Assessing Officer may rectify the assessment if the error was apparent on the record. A review of the assessment order under Section 156 is not permitted, as it would be beyond the officer's jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 66-A, 156.\n•\nKhalid Adamjee v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1983) 48 Tax 56.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No.425 of 1999, decision dated: 18-08-2006, hearing DATE : 10-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Ms. Lubna Pervaiz. Muhammad Fareed", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHADMAN COTTON MILLS LTD. through Director\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 222 = 2006 SLD 222 = 2006 PTD 2602 = (2007) 95 TAX 108 = 2007 PTR 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bearer Cheques and Loan Claims\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's claim for a loan obtained through two bearer cheques was valid as the genuineness of the cheques was verified by the bank. Despite the cheques not being crossed as required by Section 12(18), the High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not deny the loan, as the purpose of Section 12(18) was to prevent fictitious loans, which was not the case here.\nCitations:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 276.\n•\nUtman Ghee Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 PTD 63.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 255 of 1999, decision dated: 6-07-2006, hearing DATE : 7-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar\nMuhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "AHMED ALI\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 223 = 2006 SLD 223 = 2006 PTD 2607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-opening of Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer's re-opening of the case under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was invalid because the officer did not have the proper delegation of powers and the case was reopened based on existing records without justification.\nCitations:\n•\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 714; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 742.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1491/LB of 2005, decision dated: 5-05-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shahid, Abbas Sabiha Mujahid D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 224 = 2006 SLD 224 = 2006 PTD 2614 = (2006) 93 TAX 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Assessment Re-opening\nConclusion:\nThe use of the word permission instead of approval by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was held to be equivalent to approval for the purposes of initiating re-opening proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal’s decision to vacate the First Appellate Authority's order was correct.\nCitations:\n•\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.59/IB of 2004, decision dated: 17-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON/JUDICIAL MEMBER, KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Ullah Khan, A.C. (Legal) MTU and Muhammad Ali Shah, D. R, for the Appellant. Mansoor Ali Malik for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 225 = 2006 SLD 225 = 2006 PTD 2623 = (2006) 93 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment under S. 62 and S. 80C\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer improperly shifted proceedings from Section 62 to Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, without closing the previous proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment due to lack of lawful procedure.\nCitations:\n•\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 1288.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,80C & SecondSched,59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1307/LB of 2001, decision dated: 17-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleem Abid, ITP. Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 226 = 2006 SLD 226 = 2006 PTD 2630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Directors' Perquisites\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal correctly allowed exemptions on perquisites for the director who worked full-time for one company, even though he was associated with more than one company, as the director only received benefits from one company.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Mazhar Hussain 1988 PTD 563.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 476 of 1996, decision dated: 15-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Badar-ul-Amir", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nKHALID SHARIF C/o SARGROH SERVICES LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 227 = 2006 SLD 227 = 2006 PTD 2638 = 2007 PTCL 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tourism Development Corporation’s Exemption\nConclusion:\nGrants received by the Tourism Development Corporation were not taxable as income under Section 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The sale proceeds from its assets also could not be treated as part of the turnover and taxed under Section 80-D.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 22, 80-D.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 410 to 412 of 1999, decision dated: 6-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zahid", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES Zone-II, LAHORE\nvs\nTOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. PUNJAB (TDCP), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 228 = 2006 SLD 228 = 2006 PTD 2639 = (2006) 93 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax on Privatized WAPDA Entities\nConclusion:\nThe minimum tax levied on the turnover of the assessee, a WAPDA privatization company, was ruled invalid as it was essentially taxing WAPDA's turnover. Exemption provisions applicable to WAPDA entities were relevant and the demand for minimum tax was annulled.\nCitations:\n•\n1993 SCMR 833; PIDC v. CIT (1980) 41 Tax 44.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D & SecondSched Companies Ordinance, 1984=15,32,33,183,178,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2840/LB of 2004, decision dated: 1st May, 2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 229 = 2006 SLD 229 = 2006 PTD 2654 = (2007) 95 TAX 35 = 2007 PTCL 313 = 2007 PTR 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Assessment Order\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal correctly held that rectification under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not applicable as the alleged error was not apparent from the record but rather involved new arguments.\nCitations:\n•\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 964; I.T.As. Nos. 556 and 557 of 1965-1966.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62(1),136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3 to 8 of 1998, heard on 13-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. \nNemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHROOM INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CIRCLE5, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 230 = 2006 SLD 230 = 2006 PTD 2660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 5808\nErroneous Assessment and Re-assessment\nConclusion:\nRe-assessment under Section 13(1)(d) for sale proceeds was upheld, but the Court found that the determination of whether such sale constituted business income required factual inquiry, which the Tribunal properly handled.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 13(1)(d), 136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A.136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.203 to 205 of 1998, decision dated: 3rd July, 2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs NUSRAT CORPORATION, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 231 = 2006 SLD 231 = 2006 PTD 2662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income and Amendments\nConclusion:\nThe addition of unexplained income in the year following its discovery was ruled invalid as the addition should have been made in the immediately preceding year (2003) and not in 1998-99. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the departmental appeal due to the legal and factual infirmities in the order.\nCitations:\n•\n2005 PTD 1316; 2006 PTD 673.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(2),122(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.122/LB of 2005, decision dated: 20-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R.. Ajmal Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 232 = 2006 SLD 232 = 2006 PTD 2669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court\nConclusion:\nThe High Court declined to answer the reference questions regarding factual controversies as no question of law was involved.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 9 of 1994, decision dated: 20-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nKHALIFA SYED SAIF ULLAH C/O MEHBOOB INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 233 = 2006 SLD 233 = 2006 PTD 2670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Investment\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal correctly deleted the addition for unexplained investment, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the source of the investment, which had not been properly contested by the Assessing Officer.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 13(1)(aa).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6284/LB and 6285/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-06-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 234 = 2006 SLD 234 = 2006 PTD 2678 = (2007) 95 TAX 120 = 2007 PTCL 310 = 2007 PTR 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Charges and Investment in Certificates\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed the deduction for financial charges related to investments made by the assessee, as the requirements under Section 23(1)(vii) were met.\nCitations:\n•\n1992 PTD (Trib.) 954; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 677.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.57, 58 and 60 of 1998, decision dated: 6-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs ALI CHICKS POULTRY BREEDINGS FARM, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 235 = 2006 SLD 235 = 2006 PTD 2680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Assessment Orders\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment and remanding the case to the Assessing Officer instead of addressing the issue of escaped income. The Tribunal restored the prior assessment order.\nCitations:\n•\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 3732; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 964.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),61,134,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5349/LB and 5350/LB of 2005, decision dated: 17-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 236 = 2006 SLD 236 = 2006 PTD 2688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Mistakes in Trading Account Additions\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the additions to the trading account, finding the disallowances to be made without any logical or evidential basis.\nCitations:\n•\n1995 PTD 1210.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2729 /LB of 2005, decision dated: 1st June, 2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 237 = 2006 SLD 237 = 2006 PTD 2689", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Total Audit\nConclusion:\nThe Department’s appeal was rejected as the First Appellate Authority had properly followed the High Court’s ruling regarding the self-assessment scheme, which allowed the acceptance of the assessee's return.\nCitations:\n•\n2006 PTD 538.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1378/LB of 2004, decision dated: 6-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana M. Laqman, D.R.. M. Shahid Abbas", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 238 = 2006 SLD 238 = 2006 PTD 2691 = (2007) 95 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Factual Inquiries in Re-assessments\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal's decision to reject additions under Section 13(1)(d) was upheld as it was based on factual inquiries, and the taxability of a transaction as business income required detailed factual examination.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 13(1)(d), 136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.546 of 1998, decision dated: 6-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nMst. KHAIR-UNNISA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 239 = 2006 SLD 239 = 2006 PTD 2693 = (2006) 93 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Error in Bank Account Documentation\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal properly denied the rectification application, as the department's new evidence regarding the bank account did not form part of the initial case, and the rectification process under Section 156 could not be used to introduce new arguments.\nCitations:\n•\n1999 SCMR 2189.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=156 Partnership Act, 1932=19(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 381/LB to 383/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Ahmad Din, D.R. and Faqir Hussain, C.I.T. for Applicants. Saqib Bashir and Javed Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 240 = 2006 SLD 240 = 2006 PTD 2706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Conceding Defects in Accounts\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal accepted the assessee's trading result as the Assessing Officer had failed to specify defects in the accounts or provide the required confrontation, as mandated by Section 62.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 856/LB, 1408/LB and 938/LB of 2003, decision dated: 20-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana M. Liqman D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 856 of 2003). Siraj-ud-Din Khalid (in I.T.A. No. 856 of 2003). Siraj-ud-Din Khalid (in I.T.A. No. 938 of 2003). Rana M. Liqman, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 938 of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 241 = 2006 SLD 241 = 2006 PTD 2709 = (2007) 95 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Questions of Law\nConclusion:\nRectification under Section 156 could only generate a question of law if it merged into the final assessment order. In the absence of a clear mistake, the High Court dismissed the reference application.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 136, 156.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,80D,136,156,Second Schedule,Part-I,Clause118C ", + "Case #": "R.A. No.13/PB of 2004, decision dated: 13-07-2005", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON\nABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Shaukat Amin Shah FCA\nRespondent(s) by: Mian Saeed Iqbal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 242 = 2006 SLD 242 = 2006 PTD 2722 = (2006) 93 TAX 374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability After Four Years\nConclusion:\nNotices issued after four years for tax under Section 52 were invalid, and the Appellate Tribunal canceled the tax demand for all four years.\nCitations:\n•\n2003 PTD 89 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB, 3265/LB, 3392/LB, 3393/LB of 2004, decision dated: 24-07-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB and 3265/LB of 2004). Saleem Abid, ITP (in I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB and 3265/LB of 2004). Saleem Abid, ITP (in I.T.As. Nos. 3392/LB and 3393/LB of 2004). Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 3392/LB and 3393/LB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 243 = 2006 SLD 243 = 2006 PTD 2729 = (2006) 93 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cancellation of Assessments under Section 122\nConclusion:\nThe assessment under Section 122 was annulled because it was made under a provision that did not exist at the time of the original assessment.\nCitations:\n•\n2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.321/KB of 2004, decision dated: 28-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Jalal-ud-Din, F.C.A.. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 244 = 2006 SLD 244 = 2006 PTD 2734 = (2007) 95 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gain on Immovable Property\nConclusion:\nThe High Court declined to intervene in the Tribunal's decision, as the assessment of the real estate dealings was based on factual findings and did not involve any legal issues.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 13, 136", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,14,22,27,136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 184 and 185 of 2001, decision dated: 4-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Shahid Jamil Khan", + "Party Name:": "Major (Retd.) PERVAIZ IQBAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 245 = 2006 SLD 245 = 2006 PTD 2737 = (2006) 93 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss on Exchange Fluctuation - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nConclusion:\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner's reclassification of the exchange fluctuation loss as a capital expenditure was invalid. The assessee’s loan did not fall under the category outlined in Rule 8(8)(e) of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as it was not related to the purchase of machinery or plant. The original assessment was in line with the law and the Tribunal restored it, holding that the loss was a revenue expenditure.\nCitations:\n•\n1986 PTD (Trib.) 105\n•\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 894", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A & ThirdSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2697/LB of 2003, decision dated: 1st December, 2005", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 246 = 2006 SLD 246 = 2006 PTD 2745 = (2006) 93 TAX 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Share of Profit from Association of Persons\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly held that the share of profit received by the assessee from an association of persons was exempt from tax under Clause (110) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this order, and the Department’s appeal was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\n2003 PTD 1913 (CIT Peshawar v. Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=88 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,2(16)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3490/LB and 3491/LB of 2005, decision dated: 10-06-2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. Imran Rasool and Khawar Rafique, Chief Accountants", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 247 = 2006 SLD 247 = 2006 PTD 2755 = (2006) 93 TAX 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estimation of Sales and Jurisdiction of Inspector\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal reduced the estimated sales figure based on the nature of the business and stock of the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the Income Tax Inspector lacked jurisdiction to enter and search the premises to enforce tax provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 175, 207, 208\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 3, 146", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=210,175,207,208 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3,146 ", + "Case #": "M.A.(AG) No.551/LB of 2006 and I.T.A. No.4780/LB of 2005, decision dated: 21st June, 2006", + "Judge Name": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Munawar. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 248 = 2006 SLD 248 = 2006 PTD 2773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction under S. 66-A\nConclusion:\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as no order was issued by the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) to assign jurisdiction for assessing the case. The Tribunal annulled the proceedings under Section 66-A.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 2005 SC 842", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6691/LB to 6695/LB of 2005, decision dated: 31st August, 2006", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 249 = 2006 SLD 249 = 2006 PTD 2784 = (2006) 93 TAX 130 = 2006 PTR 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court on Tax Questions\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal refused to refer several questions to the High Court, as the issues had already been settled or did not arise from the Tribunal’s order. This included questions regarding the taxation of Gilgit Agency, non-deduction of tax, and the treatment of certain income.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 2003 SC 614\n•\n2004 90 Tax 266 (H.C. Lah.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(c),50(5B),52,136,80D,23(1)(x),29 ", + "Case #": "R.As. Nos. 144/LB to 146/LB, 148/LB to 152/LB of 2005, decision dated: 24-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq, A.R. (in R.As. Nos.144/LB to 146/LB of 2005). Javed Iqbal Rana, I.A.C./D.R. for Applicant (in R.As. Nos.148/LB to 152/LB of 2005). Javed Iqbal Rana, I.A.C./D.R. (in R.As. Nos.144/LB to 146/LB of 2005). Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq, A.R. (in R.As. Nos.148/LB to 152/LB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 250 = 2006 SLD 250 = 2006 PTD 2827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax on Income\nConclusion:\nThe charge of minimum tax under Section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based solely on the I.T. 30 form without a proper assessment order, was declared illegal by the Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 80-D", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2166/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st June, 2006", + "Judge Name": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A.D. Ashgar. S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 251 = 2006 SLD 251 = 2006 PTD 2828 = 2007 PTCL 334 = (2007) 95 TAX 122 = 2007 PTR 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Enhancement of Assessment and Jurisdictional Requirements\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the enhancement of assessment by the Income Tax Tribunal without serving a show-cause notice to the assessee was illegal. Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified the conditions under which additions can be made under Section 13(1)(d), especially regarding investments, and emphasized that the Revenue must establish the source of income beyond doubt.\nCitations:\n•\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 1898\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Companies Zone-II, Lawrence Road, Lahore v. Sarfaraz Ali Sheikh (2000) 81 Tax 341\n•\nHudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Limited v. Pakistan 1998 PTD 34", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),13(1)(aa),13(1)(aa)(d),135(6) ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 197 and 198 of 2003, decision dated: 5-09-2006, hearing DATE : 27-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Siddique for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ BUTT\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 252 = 2006 SLD 252 = 2006 PTCL 480 = 2006 PTD 2849 = (2006) 93 TAX 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Proviso to S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusion:\nThe proviso inserted through the Finance Ordinance, 2001 to Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was considered a procedural provision, making it retrospective in operation. This amendment was procedural in nature and applied to all cases pending adjudication, from assessment to the apex court.\nCitations:\n•\n1985 PTD 276\n•\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 2609\n•\n2004 PTD (Trib.) 708", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,13(1)(aa),30(2)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2823/LB and 3700/LB of 2004, decision dated: 31st January, 2006", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Ali Ch. (in I.T.A. No. 2823/LB of 2004). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 2823/LB of 2004). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 3700/LB of 2004). Zafar Ali Ch. (in I.T.A. No. 3700/LB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 253 = 2006 SLD 253 = 2006 PTD 2869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "WAPDA’s Tax Obligations and Internal Transactions\nConclusion:\nWAPDA's internal transactions, such as those involving bonds or profits paid to its own formations, were not subject to tax deduction as there was no income chargeable to tax. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the Assessing Officer's order, finding no tax liability on such internal transactions.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1985 SC 109\n•\nHaji Ibrahim Ishaq Johri v. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1993 SCMR 287\n•\nPatiala State Bank's Case AIR 1941 Born. 94\n•\nUnion Bank Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan 1998 PTD 2116\n•\nBoard of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Central Board of Revenue 1998 PTD 2012", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,50(7D),50(8),2(32),9,151,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 357/LB to 360/LB of 2003, decision dated: 9-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 254 = 2006 SLD 254 = 2006 PTD 2884 = (2006) 93 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment and Non-Production of Books\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that rejection of the assessee's declared receipts was improper since the assessee maintained the required books of accounts. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the declared results and not to proceed with a best assessment based on unsubstantiated rejection of the accounts.\nCitations:\n•\n2006 93 Tax 165 (Trib.)\n•\nI.T.A. No.5776/LB of 2002, decided on 18-6-2003", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,62 ", + "Case #": "M.As.(A.G.) Nos.566/LB to 568/LB of 2006, I.T.As. Nos. 1959/LB to 1961/LB of 2005, decision dated: 3rd August, 2006", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh. Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 36 = 2012 SLD 36 = (2012) 105 TAX 194 = 2012 PTCL 528 = 2012 PTD 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Prize in Taxation Context\nConclusion:\nThe term prize in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was clarified to include regular payments (either in cash or kind) made to distributors for achieving sales targets. The Tribunal ruled that such sales incentives were taxable under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and subject to withholding tax.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Akhtar Munir 2007 PTD 1800\n•\nLone Cold Storage v. Revenue Officers 2010 PTD 2502", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No.473 of 2010, decision dated: 16-12-2011, hearing DATE : 2-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "FAISAL ARAB AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Lakhani for Applicant Jawaid Farooqi No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAZIR ALI INDUSTRIES LTD.\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 59 = 2002 SLD 59 = 2002 PTD 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Housing Society Exemption\nConclusion:\nThe exemption under Clause (103)(a) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, applies only to specific types of gains such as sales of goods or lease of land. Gains from activities like admission fees, construction violation charges, and subdivision fees are not exempt.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Second Sched., Cl. (103(a))", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=103,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 4 of 1999, decision dated: 22-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner. Zia Haider Rizvi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nLAHORE CANTONMENT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 60 = 2002 SLD 60 = 2002 PTD 358 = (2001) 84 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Inspecting Additional Commissioner in Revising Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal canceled the assessment modified under Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner, as it was made by an officer of the same rank, which violated procedural norms.\nCitations:\n•\n2001 PTD 1467", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,62,34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 726/KB, 1668/KB and 1669/KB of 2001-2002, decision dated: 13-10-2001, hearing DATE : 11-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Haider, A.C.A. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 61 = 2002 SLD 61 = 2002 PTD 363 = (2002) 85 TAX 478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Precondition for Filing Appeal Under S. 129\nConclusion:\nThe amendment to Section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, requiring a 15% deposit of the tax assessed before filing an appeal, was clarified as prospective in operation and not applicable to prior assessment years.\nCitations:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 3 of 2001, dated 23-5-2001", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7453 of 2001, decision dated: 28th September 2001", + "Judge Name": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwarul Haq for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "REEM RICE MILL (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Minister of Finance, Revenue Division, Lahore and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 62 = 2002 SLD 62 = 2002 PTD 364 = (2001) 84 TAX 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Director’s Salary under S. 24(fff)\nConclusion:\nThe salary paid in cash to directors of the company was disallowed because it was not paid through a crossed cheque or bank transfer as per Section 24(fff) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's treatment of directors as employees under the law.\nCitations:\n•\n1977 36 Tax 223\n•\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 2883", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,16(2)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4082/LB and 4148/LB of 2000, decision dated: 25th June 2001, hearing DATE : 30-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saleem Ch. (in I.T.A. No. 4082/LB of 2000). Shahid Zaheer, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 4082/LB of 2000). Shahid Zaheer, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 4148/LB of 2000). Muhammad Saleem Ch. (in I.T.A. No. 4148/LB of 2000)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 63 = 2002 SLD 63 = 2002 PTD 373 = (2001) 84 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Based on Reported Case\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal rejected a rectification application based on an obiter dictum in a reported case, ruling that no apparent mistake in law existed in the original order.\nCitations:\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2065\n•\nI.T.A. No. 497/IB of 1999-2000", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,135,12(18A) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) No. 3/IB of 2001-2002 in I.T.A. No. 676/IB of 1997-98, decision dated: 4-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SAEED AHMAD ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmed. Nadir Mumtaz Warraich, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 64 = 2002 SLD 64 = 2002 PTD 381 = (2002) 85 TAX 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Filing Appeals and Penalty Provisions\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed the appeals filed after the prescribed time limit, clarifying that limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the dismissal of appeals, even if the result was not communicated. Additionally, penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are quasi-criminal in nature, not strictly criminal.\nCitations:\n•\n1994 PTD 123\n•\n1991 PTD 678", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1),135,108,115,117,122 Income Tax Act, 1922=28(3),28,51 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. Nos. 20 to 33 of 1998, heard on 11-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nMakhdoom Zada Syed HASSAN MEHMOOD through Legal Heirs and 81 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 65 = 2002 SLD 65 = 2002 PTD 385 = (2002) 85 TAX 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-Condition for Filing Appeal and Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\nThe High Court allowed the appeal despite the pre-condition under Section 129, after compliance with the interim order, noting that the grievance had been redressed.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 9138 of 2001, heard on 28-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Moeen Qureshi. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "HUMAYOUN KHAN, DIRECTOR MANAKIN TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 66 = 2002 SLD 66 = 2002 PTD 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Distinction Between Tax Payable on Return vs. Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal found that no tax was payable under Section 54 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, due to the rejection of exemption claims, thus no additional tax was levied under Section 88. The Tribunal also clarified that tax liability based on assessment is distinct from tax payable on the basis of the return.\nCitations:\n•\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 2883", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,88,111,SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 891 of 2000, heard on 18-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawed Farooqi. Miss Sofia Saeed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 67 = 2002 SLD 67 = 2002 PTD 399 = (2002) 85 TAX 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Filing Appeal Against Tribunal’s Order\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed appeals filed beyond the limitation period, clarifying that limitation begins from the date of knowledge of the appeal’s outcome, not from the date of communication.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 135(8), 136, 137", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135(8),136,137 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 128 and 129 of 1999, decision dated: 28-04-2000, hearing DATE : 28-02-2000", + "Judge Name": "BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Rafique Dar, Advocate. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "Messrs QURESHI VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax arid 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 68 = 2002 SLD 68 = 2002 PTD 407 = (2002) 86 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment and Rejection of Books of Account\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that a best assessment could not be based solely on the non-production of books unless specific defects in the books were pointed out. It emphasized that the assessment should reflect an honest estimate, and the rejection of the declared trading results was unjustified in the absence of specific defects.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Pak Co. Ltd., Sargodha v. C.I.T., Rawalpindi Zone 1985 SCMR 786\n•\nLajwanti Sial and others v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 228\n•\n1994 PTD 174", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,61,62,23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 of 1998, decision dated: 4-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND MUSHIR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Bhatti. Sheikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AYENBEE (PRIVATE) LIMITED\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HEADQUARTERS), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 69 = 2002 SLD 69 = 2002 PTD 419 = (2002) 85 TAX 386 = 2002 SCMR 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance and Re-opening of Assessment\n•\nDetails: Under the Income Tax Ordinance (1979), the assessee was initially assessed as a public company entitled to a 5% super tax rebate. Later, it was discovered that the majority of shares were not government-held, disqualifying it as a public company. Notices were issued for additional assessments, leading to a series of appeals and tribunal decisions.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for a decision on whether the assessee qualifies as a public company under Para B(1), Part IV, of the First Schedule of the Ordinance.\n•\nCitations:\no\nReferenced Cases:\n\nOriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay PLD 1958 SC (Ind.) 151\n\nNorth-West Frontier Province Government v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan PLD 1993 SC 418\no\nDistinguished Cases:\n\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner and Chairman v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. 1997 SCMR 1256\n________________________________________\nRe-opening of Assessment Scope\n•\nDetails: Interference in completed assessments is restricted unless a new, definite fact emerges that justifies reopening.\n•\nHeld: Re-opening of assessments without discovery of concrete new facts is impermissible under S.65(1)(a)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1990 SCMR 697\no\nPLD 1990 SC 399\no\nMessrs E.F.U. General Insurance Co. Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 700\n________________________________________\nReference to High Court\n•\nDetails: Non-exercise or mis-exercise of jurisdiction by a Tribunal constitutes a question of law.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal and High Court must address whether a Tribunal's decision is legally justified under the given jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 136", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,FirstSched.,B(1),136(2),65(1)(a)(b),136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.984 to 990 of 1999, decision dated: 4-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JAVED IQBAL AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in all Cases). Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghauhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s,(in all Cases)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES Zone-II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SINDH ENGINEERING (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 70 = 2002 SLD 70 = 2002 PTD 430 = (2002) 85 TAX 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code and Appeals to Supreme Court\n•\nDetails: Petitions for certification must clearly outline grounds for appeals to the Supreme Court and adhere to the procedure under the Supreme Court Rules and CPC.\n•\nHeld: Appeals filed under ordinary law must follow CPC procedures unless explicitly overridden by Supreme Court Rules.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCivil Procedure Code (1908), O.XLV, Rr. 2, 3, & 8\no\nSupreme Court Rules (1980), O.XII, R.2", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,137 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(2)(d)(e)(f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLV,Rr.2,3,8,O.XII,R.2,109,112 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1936 to 1943 of 2000, decision dated: 7-11-2001, hearing DATE : 22-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRR, MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND RANA BHAGWANDAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PRIME DAIRIES ICE CREAM LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 71 = 2002 SLD 71 = 2002 PTD 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Succession to Business\n•\nDetails: Assessment made in the predecessor's name is invalid when the business is run by the successor.\n•\nHeld: Assessments must reflect the actual taxpayer responsible for the business operations.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1987 PTD (Trib.) 534", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=73,73(3),138,73 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1056-P of 2001, decision dated: 31st October, 2001", + "Judge Name": "SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Shoaib Jally for the Complainant. Shah Khan, ACIT", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 72 = 2002 SLD 72 = 2002 PTD 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance - Addition of Property Value\n•\nDetails: Approval by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner is mandatory for income adjustments under S.13 of the Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: Additions made without proper approval are invalid.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.I.T. v. Dr. Mrs. S.P. Niazi CTR No. 324 of 1991", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2D) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 10 of 1991, decision dated: 4-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD IQBAL DAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 73 = 2002 SLD 73 = 2002 PTD 441 = (2002) 86 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition and Show-cause Notice\n•\nDetails: Disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction. Alternative remedies must be exhausted.\n•\nHeld: High Court jurisdiction is limited when alternative remedies exist under tax laws.\n•\nCitations:\no\nMessrs Friend Sons v. Deputy Collector PLD 1989 Lah. 337", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3666 of 1999, heard on 10-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Saleem Sahgal. Shafqat Chohan", + "Party Name:": "DEANS ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RANGE NO.1, COMPANY ZONE I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 74 = 2002 SLD 74 = 2002 PTD 458 = (2002) 85 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Jurisdiction on Stay of Proceedings\n•\nDetails: Tribunals have the authority to stay recovery proceedings pending the resolution of appeals.\n•\nHeld: Interim orders preventing reassessment proceedings can be granted to avoid futile actions.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1985 PTD 375\no\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 902", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(6),66A Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151 ", + "Case #": "M. A. Stay Nos.640/LB to 642/LB of 2001, decision dated: 3rd November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asif Bhatti, I.T.P.. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 75 = 2002 SLD 75 = 2002 PTD 462 = (2002) 85 TAX 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court and Admission of Evidence\n•\nDetails: Questions of fact not raised before the Tribunal cannot be considered by the High Court.\n•\nHeld: The High Court refused to entertain questions not rooted in the Tribunal's order.\n•\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 131(4)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131,136 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 127 of 2001, decision dated: 16-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEC, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs JINNAH CADET SCHOOL, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 76 = 2002 SLD 76 = 2002 PTD 464 = (2002) 85 TAX 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Assessee’s Business\n•\nDetails: Determining whether the assessee is a manufacturer or a commission agent involves questions of fact.\n•\nHeld: High Court declined to adjudicate, as it fell outside its jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 136(1)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Applications Nos.3 and 4 of 1992, heard on 8-03-2000", + "Judge Name": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI AND MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ ZAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.Ilyas Zafar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs NIRALA (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 77 = 2002 SLD 77 = 2002 PTD 466 = (2002) 85 TAX 491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Status of Cooperative Society under Income Tax Ordinance\nDetails: Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, were determined not to be companies as defined under S.2(16)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nHeld: Cooperative societies are excluded from the definition of companies under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth Tax v. Messrs Engineering Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore 2000 PTD 3388.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(16)(b) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14013 of 1999, decision dated: 29-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Ullah Kayani and Tallat Farooq Sheikh for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "E.M.E. COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. through Secretary\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 78 = 2002 SLD 78 = 2002 PTD 467 = (2002) 86 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court's Jurisdiction in Income Tax Appeals\nDetails:\n(a) Questions regarding eligibility for the Self-Assessment Scheme were declined by the High Court.\n(b) Questions framed were neither of law nor involved substantial legal controversy, thus rejected.\n(c) Department can approach the Tribunal under S.156 for rectification if provisions of a Circular are ignored.\nHeld: High Court declined to entertain questions that did not involve legal or substantial controversy.\nCitations: The Lungla (Sylhet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.397 of 1998, heard on 11-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umer. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs AINEE SILK CENTRE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 79 = 2002 SLD 79 = 2002 PTD 498 = (2002) 86 TAX 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court on Questions of Law and Fact\nDetails:\n(a) For referring a question to the High Court, it must arise out of the Tribunal's order.\n(b) Property valuation is a factual matter, not to be raised as a question of law.\n(c) Reference application dismissed in limine due to irrelevance and factual controversies.\nHeld: Questions of fact, especially on property valuation, are not fit for High Court reference.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 5 of 1995, decision dated: 16-07-2001", + "Judge Name": ", JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND MANSOOR AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Elahi Malik for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Saleem", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SCHOWK INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 80 = 2002 SLD 80 = 2002 PTD 503 = (2001) 84 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Broad-Based Self-Assessment Scheme Qualification\nDetails: Assessee excluded from the Scheme for the year 1997-98 due to differences in the prior year's assessment basis. The Tribunal found the exclusion unwarranted as the assessee met the tax payment criteria.\nHeld: Tribunal refused to refer the matter to the High Court, affirming the assessee's eligibility under the Scheme.\nCitations: C.B.R. Circular No. 5 of 1997; C.B.R. Letter No. C. No. 7(27)/S. Asstt/1996.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59,59A ", + "Case #": "R.A. No.349/LB of 2001, decision dated: 29-09-2001, hearing DATE : 22-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R..Malik Muhammad Bashir", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 81 = 2002 SLD 81 = 2002 PTD 1379 = (2000) 242 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Goodwill in Capital Gains Computation\nDetails: Assessee purchasing a cinema theatre deducted the goodwill amount in capital gains computation. The Tribunal and appellate authorities allowed the deduction.\nHeld: Goodwill paid at acquisition was deductible for computing capital gains.\nCitations: CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC), among others.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.1122 of 1985 (Reference No. 574 of 1985), decision dated: 8-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner R. Janakiraman of a Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nvs\nK. RAFFIUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 82 = 2002 SLD 82 = 2002 PTD 509 = (2002) 86 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeal to High Court\nDetails: Revenue incorrectly filed an appeal directly with the High Court instead of applying for a Reference under S.136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nHeld: High Court dismissed the appeal due to procedural non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 103 of 1997, heard on 12-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan M. Tubasum Maqsood Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs AIR TRAVEL CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 83 = 2002 SLD 83 = 2002 PTD 512 = (2001) 250 ITR 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Bottles in Liquor Business\nDetails: Question of whether bottles used in the liquor business qualify as plant for depreciation purposes.\nHeld: Determined to be a question of law under Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2263 of 2000, decision dated: 27-03-2000", + "Judge Name": "B.N. KIRPAL AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor-General of India (Ms. Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) A. Subba Rao, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDOONGAJI & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 84 = 2002 SLD 84 = 2002 PTD 522 = (2001) 250 ITR 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Effect on Original Order\nDetails: Fresh assessment replaces and effaces the original order. The implications on liabilities like interest were affirmed based on fresh orders.\nHeld: Original order effaced; reassessment determines new liabilities.\nCitations: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Petitions for special leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.21273 to 21276 of 1995, decision dated: 25-03-1998", + "Judge Name": "S. C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ranbir Chandra, Anil Srivastava and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocatess Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Ashok Kulkarni and Ms.. Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocates with him)s", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and another\nvs\nK.L. SRIHARI (HUF) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 85 = 2002 SLD 85 = 2002 PTD 527 = (2001) 250 ITR 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax on Undistributed Profits\nDetails: Investment company's profits from property and plantation sales deemed commercial profits, invoking S.104 for additional tax.\nHeld: High Court's decision affirmed; profits available for distribution were subject to additional tax.\nCitations: M.R.M. Plantations (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160. ITR 213.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2205 of 1987, decision dated: 1st October, 1997", + "Judge Name": "S. C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocate (for I.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates). B.B. Abuja, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma, Arun K.Sharma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "M.R.M. PLANTATIONS (P) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 86 = 2002 SLD 86 = 2002 PTD 529 = (2001) 84 TAX 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gross Receipts Determination for Taxation\nDetails: Amount deducted by Highway Department for supply to contractors was not part of gross receipts.\nHeld: Amount excluded from gross receipts as it did not reach the contractor.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. J.S. Serwarey (1978) 38 Tax 57.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.50 of 1992, decision dated: 22-06-2001, hearing DATE : 22-05-2001", + "Judge Name": ", NASEEM SIKANDAR ACID MANSNOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIAN CONTRACTORS, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 87 = 2002 SLD 87 = 2002 PTD 532 = (2001) 84 TAX 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Income Tax Provisions and Double Taxation\nDetails:\n(a) Addition under S.12(18) not applicable for assessment year 1991-92.\n(b) Additional tax deletion upheld due to procedural confusion caused by multiple Circulars.\n(c) Double taxation on imports and supplies disallowed under S.80-C.\nHeld: Appellate Tribunal upheld relief against double taxation and time-barred additional taxes.\nCitations: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2853.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),80C,50(5) & 50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6872/LB of 1996. 1930/LB and 4265/LB of 2000, decision dated: 4-07-2001, hearing DATE : 30-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Muharnmad Iqbal. Anwar ul Haq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 88 = 2002 SLD 88 = 2002 PTD 541 = (2001) 84 TAX 471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Grounds in Appeal\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal refused to entertain an additional ground as it was not raised in the memo of appeal. The court emphasized that additional grounds should be entertained unless intended to delay or embarrass the proceedings. Refusal to entertain such grounds undermines the administration of justice.\n•\nHeld: Refusal by the Tribunal was deemed inappropriate; the appeal shall be considered pending and decided on merits.\n•\nCitations:\no\nManager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1975 SC 678)\no\nCannon Products Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (1985 PTD 549)\no\nPakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CIT (2000 PTD 2903)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=14 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.59 of 1998, decision dated: 25-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner in person. Kh. Muhammad Saeed", + "Party Name:": "Haji MEHR DIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 89 = 2002 SLD 89 = 2002 PTD 546 = (2001) 84 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax – Reserve in Balance Sheet\n•\nDetails: The case addressed the determination of provision for taxation in balance sheets. It was highlighted that reserves must represent actual liabilities and not arbitrary figures.\n•\nHeld: Provision for taxation should reflect correct liability; unbridled reserves are unacceptable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax, Lahore v. Mst. Fouzia Mughis (1988 PTD 629, 1992 PTD 671)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.453/LB and 454/LB of 1996, decision dated: 11-09-2001, hearing DATE : 8-02-2001", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja and Faisal Iqbal Khawaja, C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1390 = 2004 SLD 1390 = (2004) 90 TAX 65 = 2004 PTD 2912", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Order – Workers Welfare Fund\n•\nDetails: Objections raised regarding presumptive income led to rectification of the assessment. Complainant sought cancellation of the order after rectification addressed their grievances.\n•\nHeld: Rectification resolved the grievances; no further relief required.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59A,80C,80CC,143B Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1500-K of 2003, decision dated: 27-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Asgher Abbas, Dealing Officer. Aziz Ismail, Advocate, for the Complainant. Basharat Ahmed Qureshi, I.A.C. and Imtiaz Ali Solangi, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN FASHION CHANNEL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1361 = 2004 SLD 1361 = (2005) 91 TAX 73 = 2004 PTD 2928", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Operation of Notifications\n•\nDetails: Addressed whether a notification or executive order adversely affecting rights can operate retrospectively. Such orders cannot be retrospective unless they confer benefits.\n•\nHeld: Adverse orders cannot operate retrospectively; beneficial orders can be made retrospective.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc),34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 145, 146, 139, 140 and 141 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd October, 2003", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND MAIN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Awans. Ishaq Masihs", + "Party Name:": "BROTHERS ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 91 = 2002 SLD 91 = 2002 PTD 560 = (2002) 85 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Assessment – Lump Sum Addition\n•\nDetails: Authorities made lump sum additions to salary income based on ex parte orders. The burden to justify additions shifts to the Assessing Officer.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal directed deletion of lump sum additions and allowed exemptions per the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Second Sched., Cl. 54-A", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1211/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 15-11-2001", + "Judge Name": ", JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDMUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Waheed, I.T.P.. Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 92 = 2002 SLD 92 = 2002 PTD 562 = (2002) 85 TAX 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Golden Handshake Payments\n•\nDetails: Payments under Golden Handshake Scheme were taxed as salary. Employees contended such payments were compensation for loss of service and not taxable as salary.\n•\nHeld: Payments under the scheme are taxable as salary. Benefits under C.B.R. Circular No. 1 of 1965 are available to eligible employees.\n•\nCitations:\no\nMaharajkumar Gopal Saram Narain Singh v. CIT (1935 ITR 237)\no\nMrs. Samina Shaukat Ayub Khan v. CIT (PLD 1981 SC 85)\no\nNasir Mehmood Dar v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 PTD 3497)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(24),SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1973 of 2001, heard on 4-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Naveed Dar for Petitioners Muhammad Ilyas Khans Nos. 1 to 3 Nadeem Afzal Lones Nos.4 to 6", + "Party Name:": "IFTIKHAR AHMAD BUTT and 4 others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Economic Affairs and Statistics, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 93 = 2002 SLD 93 = 2002 PTD 570 = (2002) 86 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Reference to High Court\n•\nDetails: Tribunal's rectification orders and subsequent reference applications were examined for compliance with limitation periods under the Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: Reference applications must adhere to limitation periods; questions arising from rectified orders must be specific to rectification issues.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Sarfraz Ali Sheikh (2000 PTD 374)\no\nCIT v. National Food Laboratories (1992 SCMR 687)\no\nMessrs Pakistan Electric Fittings Manufacturing Co. v. CIT (2000 PTD 2407)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,62,132,135,136,136(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 148 of 2001, decision dated: 16-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Adeel Ahmed Abbasi for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nATEED RIAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 94 = 2002 SLD 94 = 2002 PTD 577 = (2002) 85 TAX 273 = (2002) 85 TAX 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Dividends and NIT Units for General Insurance Companies\nDetails: Assessee claimed lower tax rates for dividends derived from listed companies and NIT Units. The provision for computation of income for general insurance companies under Rule 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not specify tax computation, leading to the application of general provisions in the First Schedule.\nHeld: Assessee, being a general insurance company, was entitled to concessional tax rates as per the general provisions in the absence of specific exclusions.\nCitations:\n•\nAdamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer 1995 PTD 761\n•\nCentral Insurance Co. v. C.B.R. 1993 SCMR 1232\n•\nAmerican Life Insurance Co. 1967 PTD 427\n•\nMessrs E.F.U. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 700", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26(a),FirstSched,FourthSched.,5 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 66 of 1998, heard on 26-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqsood Hassan for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUSLIM INSURANCE CO. LTD., LAHORE\nvs \nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COYS. III, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 95 = 2002 SLD 95 = 2002 PTD 580 = (2002) 85 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Submission of Statements to Non-Jurisdictional Officers\nDetails: Assessee submitted statements to an officer who lacked jurisdiction over the case.\nHeld: Submission to an irrelevant officer did not comply with statutory provisions, justifying the penalty confirmed by the Tribunal.\nCitations: (1981) 43 Tax 51 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),139,142 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1067/KB/DB and 1068/KB/DB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 24-11-2001, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2001", + "Judge Name": ", JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mudassar Shah Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 96 = 2002 SLD 96 = 2002 PTD 616 = (2002) 85 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer\nDetails: Assessee faced penalties for non-filing of monthly statements, contending they were unnecessary due to lack of taxable payments. Amendments to related provisions through various SROs were also analyzed.\nHeld:\n1.\nTax Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to impose penalties under S.108(b).\n2.\nPenalty for non-filing before amendments through SROs was invalid.\n3.\nFirst Appellate Authority’s de novo decision was valid.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.As. Nos.361, 362/19 of 1997-98\n•\nI.T.A. No.384(IB) of 1999-2000", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),,139,142 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 141/113 of 1998-99, decision dated: 17-08-2001, hearing DATE : 16th August; 2001", + "Judge Name": ", JAMEEL AHMAD BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIZAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. Riffat Hussain Malik", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 97 = 2002 SLD 97 = 2002 PTD 625 = (2002) 85 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal After Revision by Member Judicial, C.B.R.\nDetails: Department filed an appeal after Member Judicial of C.B.R. issued an order on a revision petition.\nHeld: Filing of the appeal was a mala fide act, violating hierarchy protocols. Tribunal dismissed the appeal.\nCitations: (1982) 136 ITR 652", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,8 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2812/LB of 2001 and 210/LB of 1997, decision dated: 29-10-2001, hearing DATE : 27-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDJAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Maqbool (in I.T.A. No. 2812/LB of 2001). Sajjad Ali, D.R. (in, I.T.A. No. 2812/LB of 2001). Sajjad Ali, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 210/LB of 1997). Khalid Maqbool (in I.T.A. No. 210/LB of 1997)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 98 = 2002 SLD 98 = 2002 PTD 629 = (2002) 85 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Nil Income Declarations\nDetails: Assessee declared nil income for several years. Assessing Officer imposed additional tax. Tribunal found that nil income declarations did not require tax payment under S.54.\nHeld: Additional tax provisions were not applicable to nil income declarations. Tribunal’s view upheld strict statutory interpretation.\nCitations: Fiscal principles applied strictly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166,54,88,166(2)(d),SecondSched., Income Tax Act, 1922=45A ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.341 of 1991, decision dated: 19-02-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue. Zia Haider Rizvi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nLAHORE CANTONMENT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 99 = 2002 SLD 99 = 2002 PTD 639 = (2002) 85 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration and Status of Firms\nDetails: Disputes arose over registration of firms, their tax status, and eligibility for concessional tax rates. Amendments to S.69 impacted unregistered firms.\nHeld:\n•\nFirms could change status for tax benefits.\n•\nAssessee entitled to claim status as Association of Persons or unregistered firm for concessional rates.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Khatija Begum 1965 PTD 540\n•\nPLD 1961 SC 119", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68(4),68,69,(5),59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3804/LB of 1999, decision dated: 28-11-2001, hearing DATE : 12-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aslam; D.R.. Nemo for, Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 100 = 2002 SLD 100 = 2002 PTD 650 = (2002) 85 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Non-Filing of Wealth Statement\nDetails: Non-filing of wealth statements under the Self-Assessment Scheme led to assessment cancellations. Tribunal invalidated such cancellations citing expired limitation and procedural lapses by the Assessing Officer.\nHeld: Assessment cancellations without jurisdiction and in violation of procedural obligations were set aside.\nCitations:\n•\n1986 PTD (Trib.) 790\n•\n1988 PTD 16\n•\n1986 PTD 843\n•\n1988 PTD (Trib.) 987", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,59A ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3469/LB of 1996, decision dated: 29-09-2001, hearing DATE : 1st September, 2001", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDIMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Azeem. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 101 = 2002 SLD 101 = 2002 PTD 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Non-Filing of Wealth Statement\nDetails: Non-filing of wealth statements under the Self-Assessment Scheme led to assessment cancellations. Tribunal invalidated such cancellations citing expired limitation and procedural lapses by the Assessing Officer.\nHeld: Assessment cancellations without jurisdiction and in violation of procedural obligations were set aside.\nCitations:\n•\n1986 PTD (Trib.) 790\n•\n1988 PTD 16\n•\n1986 PTD 843\n•\n1988 PTD (Trib.) 987\n________________________________________\nThe judgment discusses the principles surrounding the maintainability of constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, particularly when alternative remedies, such as revision or appeals, are available. It also elaborates on the legal scope and implications of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, with special emphasis on presumptive tax regimes, assessment procedures, and interim relief during appellate proceedings.\n________________________________________\nHeld:\n1.\nConstitutional Petition Despite Alternate Remedy:\no\nAvailability of revisional remedies (e.g., under S. 115 CPC) does not automatically bar constitutional petitions if such remedies are not deemed efficacious.\n2.\nPrinciple of Alternate Remedies:\no\nWhile alternate remedies regulate jurisdiction, they are not absolute. Factors such as efficacy, jurisdictional errors, or mala fide actions determine the maintainability of constitutional petitions.\n3.\nPresumptive Tax Regime:\no\nUnder S. 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, certain categories (e.g., suppliers) operate under a presumptive tax regime where the income is deemed by law, disallowing the Assessing Officer from initiating inquiries under normal law.\n4.\nPowers of Assessing Authorities:\no\nAuthorities possess ancillary powers, including granting interim relief, even if explicit statutory provisions are absent, as long as they are incidental to their appellate powers.\n5.\nInterim Relief in Taxation Disputes:\no\nCourts emphasized the necessity for interim relief in taxation matters to prevent irreparable harm. Coercive recovery actions during pending appeals without lawful authority were invalidated.\n6.\nStay on Recovery Proceedings:\no\nHigh Court rulings declared that coercive actions like freezing bank accounts during appeal pendency must be avoided, ensuring proper judicial discretion.\n7.\nBar on Suit under S. 162 Income Tax Ordinance:\no\nThis bar does not apply to unlawful recovery orders lacking jurisdiction.\n________________________________________\nCitations:\n1.\nJudicial Precedents:\no\nMst. Hussain Bibi v. Muhammad Din (1976 SCMR 395)\no\nKamran Industries v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1996 Kar. 68)\no\nElahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC)\no\nTharparkar Sugar Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (1996 MLD 1220)\n2.\nStatutory References:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199\no\nCivil Procedure Code (1908), Section 115\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Sections 50(4), 80-C, 129, 134, 143-B, and 162", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,80C,143B,55,50(4),80C,129,143B,92,129,134,162 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1 & 2 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 283-of 1999, decision dated: 29-01-2001, hearing DATE : 13-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, S. AHMED SARWANA AND ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner. Muhammad Farid", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK-SAUDI FERTILIZERS LTD \nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 102 = 2002 SLD 102 = 2002 PTD 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 – Determination of Capital Gains Tax\n•\nDetails: Explains procedure for determining capital gains tax on sale, exchange, or transfer of immovable property under the Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964.\n•\nHeld: Factors like fair market value, similar sales, adjacent property prices, and expert opinions must be considered by the Assessing Officer. Single comparable transactions are insufficient.\n•\nCitations: Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 (Rr. 7 & 8); West Pakistan Finance Act (IX of 1963), S.16(2)(b); West Pakistan Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958), S.3.\n(b) Assessing Officer’s Valuation Without Evidence\n•\nDetails: A constitutional petition challenging an assessment where the Officer disregarded evidence of similar transactions.\n•\nHeld: The court set aside the assessment and appellate orders, directing the refund of excess tax. Burden of proof lies on the Assessing Authority to establish fair market value.\n•\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199; Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 (Rr. 7, 8, 9, 15 & 16).\n(c) Burden to Justify Tax Levy\n•\nDetails: The Assessing Authority must prove the declared version incorrect and substantiate the tax levy.\n•\nHeld: Courts emphasized the necessity of detailed and reasoned assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964=3,4,5,6,7,8,9,15,16 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.438 of 1989, decision dated: 21st November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Syed AZHAR ALI\nvs\nDirector General, EXCISE AND TAXATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 103 = 2002 SLD 103 = 2002 PTD 710 = (2002) 85 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Revision of Deputy Commissioner’s Order\n•\nDetails: Statement filed under S.143-B; the Inspecting Additional Commissioner canceled the assessment alleging lack of source explanation for investments.\n•\nHeld: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner improperly invoked S.66-A, as no actual order existed under S.59-A. Tribunal canceled the revision order.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 66-A, 80-C, 143-B & 59-A; 2000 PTD 2193, 1998 PTD 1201.\n(b) Disregard for Law in Taxation\n•\nDetails: Tax evasion by an assessee does not justify ignoring statutory provisions.\n•\nHeld: Any lapse on part of an assessee does not permit tax authorities to bypass legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,66A,80C,143B,59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.966/KB and 967/KB of 2000-01, decision dated: 10-11-2001, hearing DATE : 6-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN ANDMUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mehtab Khan. Syed Riaz-ud-Din, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 104 = 2002 SLD 104 = 2002 PTD 713 = (2002) 85 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nDetails: Penalty imposed for under-declaration of interest on Government securities due to a shift in accounting methods. The revised return corrected the mistake.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal deleted the penalty, emphasizing the need to prove mens rea in quasi-criminal proceedings.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.111; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 688; 2000 PTD 3471.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.840/KB/DB of 2000-01, decision dated: 14-11-2001", + "Judge Name": ", JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "E.U. Khawaja, C.A.. Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 105 = 2002 SLD 105 = 2002 PTD 716 = (2002) 85 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Precedent from Different Laws\n•\nDetails: Decisions under one enactment are not binding for another unless specified by law.\n•\nHeld: Income Tax authorities are not bound by property tax valuations but may use them as guidance.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.19; West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958), S.6.\n(b) Annual Letting Value Disputes\n•\nDetails: Tribunal remanded the case for fresh assessment, directing consideration of rent deeds and market data.\n•\nHeld: Assessments must be substantiated by evidence and market realities.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,20,21 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 7111/LB to 7118/LB of 1996, decision dated: 19th September", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Kamal, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 106 = 2002 SLD 106 = 2002 PTD 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of CBR Instructions\n•\nDetails: Clarifies the role of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) in issuing instructions.\n•\nHeld: CBR’s directions bind Assessing Officers but not appellate authorities or assessees.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 8, 3(1)(x), 4, 5 & 7.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,3(1)(x),4,5 & 7 ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 111 of 1993, decision dated: 15-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan. Sirajul Haque", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 107 = 2002 SLD 107 = 2002 PTD 728", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Casual and Non-Recurring Income Exemption\n•\nDetails: Gain from share sale under S.14 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance was deemed taxable as it lacked casual characteristics.\n•\nHeld: Exemption applies only when income is non-recurring and not from a defined source.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 4(3)(vii) & 17(5); Securities and Exchange Ordinance, S.14.\n(b) Interpretation of Exemptions\n•\nDetails: Strict interpretation of exemption laws is required, with doubts resolved in favor of the assessee.\n•\nHeld: Exemptions are not granted unless all conditions are satisfied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vii),17(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 64 of 1982, heard on 22-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq Memon for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALNOOR SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 108 = 2002 SLD 108 = 2002 PTD 750 = (2002) 85 TAX 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – S. 2(7): Assessment —Connotation and Essentials\n•\nDetails: Assessment involves Revenue's determination of income earned by an assessee, based on the return filed, its acceptance, or subsequent inquiries.\n•\nHeld: Deemed assessments under self-assessment schemes hold equal legal standing to those based on procedural inquiries. An assessment order gains finality unless revised or appealed under law.\n•\nCitations: N/A.\n(b) S. 65 & 66-A: Additional and Agreed Assessments\n•\nDetails: Agreed assessments are contractual but not immune to reopening if influenced by misrepresentation or fraud. Jurisdiction remains with the Assessing Officer and the Income Tax Appellate Commissioner.\n•\nHeld: Both authorities can revise or modify an agreed assessment if erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue interests.\n•\nCitations: 1993 PTD 125; 1990 PTD 383; 1990 PTD 903; (1964) 9 Tax 147.\n(c) Appeal Difficulties for Agreed Assessments\n•\nDetails: Agreed assessments pose challengess to appeal.\n•\nHeld: Assessees find it hard to contest such assessments at appellate forums.\n•\nCitations: N/A.\n(d) Framing Agreed Assessments: Legal Status and Practice\n•\nDetails: Agreed assessments, though outside statutory provisions, are accepted for convenience and Revenue’s inability to gather evidence.\n•\nHeld: Such assessments are equivalent to procedural assessments in validity.\n•\nCitations: Circular No. 17 of 1979, No. 15 of 1989, No. 12 of 1990; 1990 PTD 383.\n(e) Definition of Assessment \n•\nDetails: It includes determining the tax liability through statutory powers.\n•\nHeld: Assessment processes are integral to Revenue powers.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1989 Lah. 121.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(7),65 & 66A,129,134 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.75 of 1997, heard on 11-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SARGODHA ZONE, SARGODHA\nvs\nMessrs IRSHAD ANWAR & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 109 = 2002 SLD 109 = 2002 PTD 764 = (2002) 85 TAX 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeals Without Specific Grounds\n•\nDetails: Issues not raised through specific grounds of appeal at prior stages cannot be entertained by the Tribunal.\n•\nHeld: Appeal restricted to grounds explicitly contested earlier.\n•\nCitations: N/A.\n(b) Profit and Loss Expenses: Relevance of Case History\n•\nDetails: Expense admissibility is independently reviewed yearly. History may guide quantum but not determine admissibility.\n•\nHeld: Non-substantiated claims disallowed; remand possible for proper evidence.\n•\nCitations: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1935; 1988 PTD (Trib.) 1027.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "1.T.As. Nos. 2519/LB to 2522/LB of 1999, decision dated: 31st October, 2001, hearing DATE : 13-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi. Mrs. Iram Adnan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 110 = 2002 SLD 110 = 2002 PTD 769 = (2002) 85 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Extension of Filing Date – Ss. 55(3) & 59\n•\nDetails: Assessing Officer may extend filing dates, but such dates don't qualify under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nHeld: Extended dates by Assessing Officer cannot override statutory due dates. \n•\nCitations: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 183.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55.55(2),(3),59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.392/LB of 1995, decision dated: 31st October, 2001, hearing DATE : 18-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "ZAFAR ALI TAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.. Javed Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 111 = 2002 SLD 111 = 2002 PTD 779 = (2002) 85 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Income Deductions – Ss. 20 & 19\n•\nDetails: Salaries and allowances unrelated to property income or covered by repair allowances are non-deductible.\n•\nHeld: Adjustment against property income disallowed if already included in the annual value.\n•\nCitations: 1985 PTD (Trib.) 240.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=20,19 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1227/KB/DB of 2000-01, decision dated: 20-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. H. Faridi. Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 112 = 2002 SLD 112 = 2002 PTD 783 = (2002) 85 TAX 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Income on Delayed Payments – S. 30\n•\nDetails: Interest on delayed electricity bill payments is distinct and separate from business income.\n•\nHeld: Such interest is taxable independently and not part of exempt business income.\n•\nCitations: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3319.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,.31 & 23(1)(vii),SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2539/LB to 2541/LB of 1999, decision dated: 17-04-2001, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2001", + "Judge Name": "MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Muhammad Iqbal. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 113 = 2002 SLD 113 = 2002 PTD 789 = (2002) 85 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates – Taxability\n•\nDetails: Taxability of FEBC income differs between companies and individuals.\n•\nHeld: Companies are taxed only on profits from FEBC encashments, not the principal amount.\n•\nCitations: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80B(1) & 80B(2)(bb),143B,50(5B),13,62,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1691/KB/DB of 2001, decision dated: 18-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Salman Pasha and-Nadeem Dawoodi. Bakhat Zaman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 114 = 2002 SLD 114 = 2002 PTD 794 = (2002) 85 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Wealth Tax\n•\nDetails: Exemptions in schedules apply only under specified conditions. Wealth tax inclusion is for rate determination, not for rebate calculation.\n•\nHeld: Applications for rectification are valid if errors occur.\n•\nCitations: Circular No. 20 of 1988.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,14(1) & SecondSched.(129) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.871 and 872 of 2001, decision dated: 17-08-2001, hearing DATE : 16-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Amin, F.C.A.. Muhammad Asif; D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 115 = 2002 SLD 115 = 2002 PTD 798 = (2002) 85 TAX 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from House Property – Ss. 15(c), 19 & 136(1)\n•\nDetails: Rental income is taxable as property income, even if used by a family member for business.\n•\nHeld: Assessee liable for notional income tax unless property is used for their business.\n•\nCitations: 1989 PTD 1; 1986 PTD 43.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=15(c),19 & 136(1),19 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 195 of 1997, heard on 6-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nABDUL HAMID" + }, + { + "Case No.": "892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 116 = 2002 SLD 116 = 2002 PTD 804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Amnesty Scheme 2000 – Declarations and Rejections\n1.\nDetails:\no\nThe case involves the interpretation of words issued and received in Para. 10(3) of the Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000.\no\nPetitioners filed declarations disclosing investments but were served with show-cause notices. Their explanations were rejected by the Department after 31-12-2000.\no\nHigh Court held that rejection letters not issued by the deadline resulted in deemed acceptance of declarations.\n2.\nHeld:\no\nOrders of cancellation issued post-deadline declared null and void. The Department was restrained from initiating assessments or penalties regarding declared assets but retained authority for undeclared assets.\n3.\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 13, 59-D.\no\nWealth Tax Act (XV of 1963): S. 3.\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973): Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59D,13,129 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-639 and 640 of 2001, heard on 30-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner. Muhammad Farid", + "Party Name:": "A. REHMAN alias ABDULLAH and another\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 117 = 2002 SLD 117 = 2002 PTD 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Refund Withholding\n1.\nDetails:\no\nRefund was withheld by the Department citing a proposed reference under S.136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was not finalized.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman determined this withholding as maladministration.\n2.\nHeld:\no\nThe Ombudsman directed the issuance of refunds with compensation at 15% under S.102 of the Ordinance. Clear instructions were given to prevent misuse of provisions delaying refunds.\n3.\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 102, 103, 136(1).\no\nEstablishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000): S.9(ii)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii),9(ii)(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,103,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1570/L and 1567/L of 2001, decision dated: 31st December, 2001", + "Judge Name": ", JUSTICE (RTD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Aqeel Raza, Chief Accountant for the Complainant. Syed Mahmood Jafri, D.-C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs POLY PACK (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 118 = 2002 SLD 118 = 2002 PTD 827 = (2002) 85 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income and Share Deposits\n1.\nDetails:\no\nThe issue focused on whether cross-cheque payments fulfilled requirements under S.12(18) of the Ordinance. The language of the law was held to be disjunctive.\no\nInspecting Additional Commissioner��s revision based on lack of National Tax Number (NTN) was deemed invalid.\n2.\nHeld:\no\nPayments via cross-cheque without NTN compliance are sufficient under the law. Tribunal restored the original Assessing Officer's order.\n3.\nCitations:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 12(18), 66-A.\no\n2000 PTD 118 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3301/LB of 2001, decision dated: 13-11-2001, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Hadi, F.C.A. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 119 = 2002 SLD 119 = 2002 PTD 831 = (2000) 241 ITR 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n1.\nDetails:\no\nMere addition to income on the assessee's request does not justify a finding of concealment for penalty imposition under S.271(1)(c) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2.\nHeld:\no\nPenalty cannot be levied without material evidence of concealment.\n3.\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. C.J. Rathnaswamy (1997) 223 ITR 5 (Mad).\no\nSir Shadilal Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1674 of 1984 (Reference No .1199 of 1984), decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS. SANKARAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 120 = 2002 SLD 120 = 2002 PTD 833 = (2000) 241 ITR 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Guest House Expenditure and Allowance\n1.\nDetails:\no\nThe scope of disallowed expenditures under S.37(4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, was examined. It includes maintenance and provisions for guests in guest houses.\n2.\nHeld:\no\nMaintenance of guest houses, including meals and other provisions for guests, falls under disallowed expenditures per S.37(4).\n3.\nCitations:\no\nKanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 78 Taxman 455 (Cal).\no\nModi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 544 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case N.834 of 1986, decision dated: 18-12-1997", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMATHURANTAKAM COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 121 = 2002 SLD 121 = 2002 PTD 841 = (2000) 241 ITR 355 = (2000) 82 TAX 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Unrealized Rent\n1.\nDetails:\no\nThe assessee claimed deductions for unrealized rent. Legal proceedings to vacate the tenant were initiated but not completed.\n2.\nHeld:\no\nDeduction is allowable only in the year when steps to recover rent, such as instituting a legal suit, were taken.\n3.\nCitations:\no\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961: S.24.\no\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962: R.4.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.84 of 1984, decision dated: 10-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee. R.P. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SHREE NIKETAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 122 = 2002 SLD 122 = 2002 PTD 848 = (2000) 82 TAX 384 = (2000) 241 ITR 374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Banking company—Interest on securities—Business expenditure\nDetails: A banking company, as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, had to buy and sell Government securities to maintain ratios. The company deducted interest paid for the broken period on the purchase of securities during the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, which was initially allowed by the assessing authority. However, the assessing authority later withdrew this deduction through rectification, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal canceled the rectification orders.\nHeld: The interest paid on securities purchased by the bank for the broken period is a permissible business expenditure. Section 20(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows such interest to be deducted under sections 30 to 37 as a business expenditure. The Tribunal’s decision to cancel the rectification was upheld. The interest on securities is part of the bank’s trading assets, and the deduction was rightly allowed. The CBDT Circular No. 599, 1991 clarified the legal position in favor of allowing such deductions.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 19, 20, X1(1) & 154\n•\nCBDT Circular No. 599, dated 24-4-1991\n•\nUnited Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC)\n•\nBadridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.52 and 53 of 1995, decision dated: 1st March, 1999", + "Judge Name": "P. A. MOHAMMED, P. SHANMUGAM AND G. SIVARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P.G.K. Wariyar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 123 = 2002 SLD 123 = 2002 PTD 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979—Share deposit money\nDetails: Show-cause notices were issued to assessees for introducing share deposit money over and above authorized capital in ways that did not comply with the provisions of Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Department treated these amounts as loans from directors under the guise of share deposit money, but the High Court ruled in favor of the assessees, as share capital had increased due to these deposits.\nHeld: The amounts were deemed share deposit money, not loans as argued by the Department. Since shares were issued against the deposits, the money was correctly categorized. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. (1974) 29 Tax 242", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) Finance Act, 1998=62,66A,137 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.984-L to 988-L of 2001, heard on 24th October 2001", + "Judge Name": ".- CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in All C.Ps.).\nIbrar Hussain Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Records (in C. Ps. Nos.984/L and 985/L of 2001).\nIbrar Majal, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Records (in C.Ps. Nos.986/L and 987-L of 2001).\nNemo (in C. P. No. 988-L of 2001)", + "Party Name:": "INSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nMessrs MICRO PAK (PVT.). LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 124 = 2002 SLD 124 = 2002 PTD 885 = (2002) 85 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979—Status of company\nDetails: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner revised the Deputy Commissioner's order, determining the status of the assessee-company as a private company, rather than public, based on ownership details.\nHeld: The company was correctly categorized as a private limited company by the Appellate Tribunal, as the majority shareholder of NFC was not the Government of Pakistan.\nCitations:\n•\nC.B.R. v. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97\n•\nMessrs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66ASecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3820/LB to 3824/LB of 1999, decision dated: 29-09-2001, hearing DATE : 11-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asad Munir. Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 125 = 2002 SLD 125 = 2002 PTD 894", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979—Refunds and maladministration\nDetails: The Department withheld a refund due to the assessee after an Appellate Tribunal decision. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration due to deliberate withholding of the refund on irrelevant grounds.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended the refund be issued, with 15% compensation under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Department was instructed to avoid abusing provisions that delay refunds.\nCitations:\n•\nIn re: Unique Enterprises 1995 PTD 749", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii),9(ii)(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,103,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1570/L and 1567/L of 2001, decision dated: 31st December, 2001", + "Judge Name": ", JUSTICE (RTD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Aqeel Raza, Chief Accountant for the Complainant. Syed Mahmood Jafri, D.-C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs POLY PACK (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 126 = 2002 SLD 126 = 2002 PTD 900 = (2002) 85 TAX 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979—Disallowance of proportionate expenses\nDetails: The Assessing Officer initially allowed total expenses for the company, but the Inspecting Additional Commissioner modified the assessment, requiring apportionment of expenses against exempt income (capital gains). The Tribunal upheld the modification.\nHeld: The Assessing Officer's original assessment was incorrect because it did not apportion expenses against the exempt capital gains income, which resulted in the loss of revenue. The Tribunal's modification was valid.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. PICIC (1965) 56 ITR 77\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Industrial Investment Trust Company Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 436", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,15,24,62,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2128/LB of 2000, decision dated: 3rd February, 2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ul-Haq and Yousaf Saeed, F.C.A.. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A., Farooq Tahir, D.R Safdar Hussain,.I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 127 = 2002 SLD 127 = 2002 PTD 909 = (2002) 86 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979—Self-assessment and declaration\nDetails: The assessee filed a declaration under Section 55 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was considered irrevocable for the next three assessment years. The case discusses constitutional petitions filed against show-cause notices during the pendency of the assessments.\nHeld: The petitioner’s constitutional petition against the issuance of show-cause notice became infructuous after the decision by the Income Tax Authority and Tribunal. The petitioner could seek a reference in accordance with the law.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs H.M. Abdullah v. The Income-tax Officer, Circle V, Karachi 1993 SCMR 1195", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,80D & SecondSched.,,129,134,136 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18215 of 1995, heard on 16-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Mian Yousaf Umer No. 2. Mian Ashiq Hussains Nos.3 and 4", + "Party Name:": "PIONEER PAKISTAN SEED LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secertary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 128 = 2002 SLD 128 = 2002 PTD 912 = (2002) 85 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979—Self-assessment and assessment\nDetails: The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 59A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, after the prescribed time limit for the Self-Assessment Scheme had expired.\nHeld: Any assessment made after the lapse of the limitation period was invalid, as the assessee had acquired a vested right of escaping assessment. The order was void and could not be upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1963 SC 322\n•\n1993 PTD 332", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(4),65,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3773/LB of 1999, decision dated: 15-11-2001, hearing DATE : 10-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. S. Babar and M.M. Akram Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 3 = 2014 SLD 3 = 2014 SCMR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLocal Government Elections in Pakistan\n•\nDetails: The Election Commission of Pakistan was requested to extend the election schedule for local government elections due to practical and technical difficulties. The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional obligation to hold local government elections under Articles 32 and 140A, and the Election Commission's duty to comply. The revised election dates were accepted, affirming the commitment to the Constitution.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court disposed of the constitutional petition, accepting the revised election schedule and affirming the constitutional duty of the government and the Election Commission to adhere to local government election mandates.\n•\nCitations: Articles 32, 140A of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 184(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=32,140A,184(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6882 of 2013 in Constitutional Petition No.77 of 2010, decision dated: 13-11-2013", + "Judge Name": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Applicant, Ishtiak Ahmed Khan, Secretary, ECP and Syed Sher Afgan, Additional Secretary for Applicant (in C.M.A. No. 6882 of 2013). Muneer A. Malik, Attorney-General for Pakistan, Abdul Latif Yousafzai, AG, KPK, Khalid Javed Khan, AG, Sindh, Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional, AG, Punjab and Muhammad Farid Dogar, AAG, Balochistan on Courts Notice.", + "Party Name:": "PRESIDENT BALOCHISTAN HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 129 = 2002 SLD 129 = 2002 PTD 937 = (2002) 85 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nDetails: Penalties for concealing income were imposed by the Assessing Officer without prior approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal found these penalties were imposed incorrectly as the necessary procedure had not been followed.\n•\nHeld: The penalty orders were annulled because the proper procedure had not been followed, including the lack of prior approval and unsigned orders.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 111, 116", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3981/LB to 3983/LB, 3032/LB, 2993/LB and 2994/LB of 1997 decided on 30th June. 2001, hearing DATE : 13-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Irfan Aslam. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 130 = 2002 SLD 130 = 2002 PTD 946 = (2002) 85 TAX 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nDetails: An application for rectification of a mistake was dismissed by the Tribunal as the request was against the record and history of the case.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 156", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.221/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 15-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Applicant. Shahid Zaheer, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 131 = 2002 SLD 131 = 2002 PTD 951", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Additional Assessment\n•\nDetails: The Assessing Officer re-opened assessments based on information from the Excise and Taxation Department. The Tribunal ruled that the re-opening was based on suspicion rather than definite information.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision was overruled; the Assessing Officer had valid grounds to re-open the assessments based on definite information.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 65, 136(1), Qanun-e-Shahadat", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,65,65(2) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=2(8),92 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 99 of 1998, decision dated: 2-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCHOHAN FLYING COACH SERVICES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 132 = 2002 SLD 132 = 2002 PTD 983 = (2002) 85 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Capital Gains Tax\n•\nDetails: Compensation for the termination of a distributorship agreement was taxed under income from capital gains, as it was linked to the transfer of a capital asset.\n•\nHeld: The compensation received for relinquishing distributorship rights was properly taxed as capital gains under Section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 27, 30, 50", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27,50(5),(4),30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1045/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 30-10-2001, hearing DATE : 16-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Zakariya and Jan-e-Alam, A.R,. Fahimul Haq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 133 = 2002 SLD 133 = 2002 PTCL 351 = 2002 PTD 990", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Re-assessment Based on Incorrect Information\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal found that the re-assessment based on incorrect information was flawed, as the information related to individuals not connected to the assessee.\n•\nHeld: The High Court declined to interfere, affirming that the Tribunal's findings were accurate and no new questions arose from the case.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 65(2), 59(1)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,65(2),59(1) ", + "Case #": "R.A. No.3 of 2001 in C.T.R. No. 99 of 1998, decision dated: 16-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAAR ALI, JI", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Khalil Ahmed Rao", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCHOHAN FLYING COACH SERVICE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 134 = 2002 SLD 134 = 2002 PTD 993 = (2002) 85 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Applicability of Section 80C(5A)\n•\nDetails: Section 80C(5A) was applied to an assessment year for which it had not been in effect. The Tribunal ruled it was not applicable for the relevant year.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal deleted the addition made based on the improper application of Section 80C(5A) for the assessment year 1999-2000.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 80C(5A)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.877/KB/DB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 1st December, 2001, hearing DATE : 10-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "SYED KABIRUL HAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER,AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Jafar Ali Khawaja, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 135 = 2002 SLD 135 = 2002 PTD 998", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 65\nDetails: The case dealt with the validity of proceedings under S. 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The proceedings were initiated for additional assessment, but no assessment or deemed assessment existed.\nHeld: No proceedings could be initiated under S. 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, when there was no existing assessment.\nCitations: Muhammad Siddique v. CIT, Zone-A, Lahore 2001 PTD 1998 rel.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 65\nDetails: The issue concerned the initiation of proceedings for the assessment year 1982-83 when a return was filed for the year 1986-87 as a new taxpayer.\nHeld: Proceedings could not be initiated under S. 65 for the assessment year 1982-83 when the return for 1986-87 was filed as a new taxpayer.\nCitations: Muhammad Siddique v. CIT, Zone-A, Lahore 2001 PTD 1998", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 108 of 1993, decision dated: 21st June, 2001", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Saeed Khawaja for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ABDUR REHMAN alias BOOTA, LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 136 = 2002 SLD 136 = 2002 PTD 1000 = (2002) 85 TAX 364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Change of Accounting Method\nDetails: The assessing officer rejected a change in the method of accounting without valid reasons.\nHeld: The change in accounting policy could not be rejected simply on the grounds that it was against the interest of the revenue.\nCitations: 1992 SCMR 763 ref.\n(b) Income Tax - Addition of Interest/Mark-up\nDetails: The assessing officer added interest in respect of a subsidiary company, even though no real income had accrued to the assessee.\nHeld: The addition was deleted by the Tribunal as the relevant deeming provisions had already been withdrawn.\nCitations: Not provided.\n(c) Income Tax - Financial Charges and Notional Interest\nDetails: The assessing officer made an addition regarding notional interest on capital work in progress, without examining if borrowed funds were used.\nHeld: The matter was remanded for proper examination of the claim that no borrowed funds were involved.\nCitations: 1993 PTD 758 = 1993 SCMR 1224 distinguished.\n(d) Income Tax - Suppressed Production\nDetails: The assessing officer added income due to suppressed production without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain.\nHeld: The Tribunal set aside the addition, stating that no addition could be made without confronting the assessee with evidence.\n(e) Income Tax - Charity and Donation\nDetails: The assessing officer disallowed charity and donation expenses.\nHeld: The issue was set aside by the Tribunal because the assessee was not confronted with the disallowance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 443/LB and 605/LB of 2000, decision dated: 3rd January. 2002, hearing DATE : 21st December, 2001", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Aftab Hameed, F.C.A. (in I.T.A. No. 443/LB of 2000). Muhammad Asif, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 443/LB of 2000). Muhammad Asif, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 605/LB of 2000). Syed Aftab Hameed, F.C.A. (in I.T.A. No. 605/LB of 2000)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 137 = 2002 SLD 137 = 2002 PTD 1009", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 65, 13(1)(d), 59(1)\nDetails: The issue revolved around reopening an assessment based on the claim of purchasing property at a cheaper price without concrete evidence.\nHeld: The Tribunal restored the assessment under S. 59(1) after canceling the action taken under S. 65, due to lack of definite information.\nCitations: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1097, P.T.R. No. 17 of 1997, 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1133 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,13(1)(d) & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 272/LB and M.A. (Stay) No.49/LB of 2002, decision dated: 6-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas and Ahsan Imdad Sh., I.T.P.. Mrs. Iram Adnan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 138 = 2002 SLD 138 = 2002 PTD 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 66-A\nDetails: The assessing officer attempted to revise a Deputy Commissioner's order regarding estimation of sales in the case of ice factories.\nHeld: The High Court declared the notice issued under S. 66-A as unlawful, as the Inspecting Additional Commissioner could not revise a matter already addressed by the Appellate Authority.\nCitations: Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, PLD 1992 SC 549 = 1992 PTD 932; Mrs. Anjuman Shaheen v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 1993 PTD 1113 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 17596 of 1993, heard on 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "REHMAN ICE FACTORY\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 139 = 2002 SLD 139 = 2002 PTD 1016 = (2002) 85 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 80C(2)(a)(ii)\nDetails: The case examined whether imported finished goods were subject to presumptive tax under S. 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nHeld: The process of labelling, packing, and reducing moisture was not considered as manufacturing, and the goods were not exempt from S. 80C.\n(b) Income Tax - Import for Own Consumption\nDetails: The case involved toll manufacturing and whether the tax provisions under S. 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 applied.\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that the import was for the assessee’s own consumption and the tax provisions under S. 80-C were not applicable.\n(c) Income Tax - Disallowance of Expenses\nDetails: The assessing officer made a disallowance of expenses without pointing out any defects in the accounts.\nHeld: No disallowance could be made without providing valid reasons for the defects.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C(2)(a)(ii) & FirstSched.,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.581 and 582-KB/DB of 2000-2001; decided on 24-09-2001, hearing DATE : 19-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Irfan Saadat Khan. Basharat Qureshi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 140 = 2002 SLD 140 = 2002 PTD 1021 = (2002) 85 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 53(4)\nDetails: The issue involved compensation on advance tax paid during a specific financial year.\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that compensation on advance tax under S. 53(4) should be allowed, as the Revenue authorities could not retroactively deny the relief.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,53(4) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1051/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 18-10-2001, hearing DATE : 17-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Faisal Abdul Sattar, A.C.A.. Fahimul Haque, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 141 = 2002 SLD 141 = 2002 PTD 1023 = (2004) 89 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 80DD\nDetails: The case addressed whether S. 80-DD of the Income Tax Ordinance was discriminatory, conflicting with other exemptions granted to the petitioner.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claims, as the matter had been previously dealt with by the Supreme Court.\nCitations: Messrs Illahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,80DD,80C,80CC,SecondSched.,PartI,(118C),PartII,Cl.(6AA),PartIV,Cl.(58) Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2A,8,18,25,199,FourthSched. ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.2398 of 2001, decision dated: 5-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Udha Ram Rajput for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIMA COOKING OIL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 142 = 2002 SLD 142 = 2002 PTD 1026 = (2002) 86 TAX 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 24(ff), 59, 66-A, 136(2)\nDetails: The case involved an assessment under the Self-Assessment Scheme and the cancellation of that assessment for non-compliance with specific payment requirements.\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that no question of law arose from the rejection of evidence, and the petition was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(ft),59,66A,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. Nos. 170 and 171 of 2001, decision dated: 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "MADINA TRADERS, MAIN BAZAR, SHEIKHUPURA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONEC, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 143 = 2002 SLD 143 = 2002 PTD 1029 = (2002) 85 TAX 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 24(e)\nDetails: The case dealt with the disallowance of Head Office expenses not shown in the books of account.\nHeld: The Tribunal enhanced the income of the non-resident company by disallowing the Head Office expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1599/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 11-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Khaliq Khatri. Fahimul Haque, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 144 = 2002 SLD 144 = 2002 PTD 1035 = (2002) 85 TAX 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 138\nDetails: The case concerned a dismissal of a revision petition based on delay.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the revision petition should be heard on merits despite the minor delay.\n(b) Taxation - Condonation of Delay\nDetails: The Court considered the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals in revenue matters.\nHeld: The Court favored considering the delay sympathetically, provided the assessee was not contumacious.\nCitations: Controller, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 56 Tax 130 rel.\n(c) Duty of Court\nDetails: The case reflected on the judiciary's role in removing injustice rather than legalizing it on technical grounds.\nHeld: The High Court emphasized that justice should prevail, and the judicial system should work to eliminate injustice.\nCitations: Controller, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 56 Tax 130 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.21537 to 21539 of 2001, decision dated: 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Zia Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Rana SALEEM AKHTAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, SARGODHA, ZONEA, SARGODHA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 145 = 2002 SLD 145 = 2002 PTD 1038 = (2000) 241 ITR 361 = (2000) 82 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax—Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nDetails: Penalty proceedings initiated on March 23, 1974, were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) before the assessment was completed. The IAC imposed the penalty on August 29, 1979. The assessee argued that the IAC lost jurisdiction due to the omission of subsection (2) of section 274 under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, but on appeal, the Supreme Court found that the IAC retained jurisdiction to continue penalty proceedings initiated before April 1, 1976.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe IAC could continue penalty proceedings and pass orders as per the law, despite the omission of subsection (2) of section 274.\no\nThe Tribunal's cancellation of the penalty, based on jurisdiction, did not address the merits of the case; hence, the matter was remanded for consideration of the merits.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Sharadamma (R.) (Smt.) (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC); CIT v. Star Oil Mills (1997) 228 ITR 26 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 236 of 1982 (Reference No.148 of 1982, decision dated: 18-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Aajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nD. RAMASAMY REDDIAR (DECEASED) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 146 = 2002 SLD 146 = 2002 PTD 1040 = (2000) 82 TAX 282 = (2000) 241 ITR 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax—Income from Undisclosed Sources\n•\nDetails: The Income-tax Officer (ITO) added a difference between the value of stock in the books and the value declared to a bank for an overdraft. The assessee contended that the value declared was inflated. The ITO treated the difference as income from undisclosed sources, which was contested. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reduced the addition, and the Tribunal ultimately deleted it.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation and concluded that the statement made to the bank could not be the sole basis for proving undisclosed income. The Revenue failed to provide adequate evidence.\n•\nCitations: Combatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 375 (Mad.); Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.44 of 1986 (Reference No.20 of 1986), decision dated: 3rd September, 1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAVASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nN. SWAMY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 147 = 2002 SLD 147 = 2002 PTD 1044 = (2000) 82 TAX 444 = (2000) 241 ITR 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax—Charitable Trust Exemption\n•\nDetails: The issue was whether a trust's income had been properly accumulated for charitable purposes under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the trust had complied with the conditions for exemption, as the accumulated income had been applied for charitable purposes and investments were within the prescribed limits.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision was in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust, and there was no question of law arising from its order.\n•\nCitations: CIT (Addl.) v. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust (1995) 216 ITR 697 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No.257 of 1982, decision dated: 7th January. 1997", + "Judge Name": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M SIDICKK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nP.A.C. RAMASAMY RAJA EDUCATION CHARITY TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 148 = 2002 SLD 148 = 2002 PTD 1049 = (2000) 82 TAX 462 = (2000) 241 ITR 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax—Annual Letting Value of Property\n•\nDetails: The determination of the annual value of a property under section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was contested, particularly in light of the 1975 amendment to section 23. The actual rent received exceeded the notional value, which, after the amendment, determined the annual value.\n•\nHeld: The amendment in 1975 meant that actual rent received or receivable would be treated as the annual value if it exceeded the notional annual value, which applies from the assessment year 1976-77.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. C. Ramesan (2000) 241 ITR 426 (Ker.) (Appex.) (infra) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.246 and 247 of 1997, decision dated: 7-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, S. Vinod Kumar and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJOHNY JOSEPH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 149 = 2002 SLD 149 = 2002 PTD 1052 = (2000) 241 ITR 420 = (2000) 82 TAX 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax—Property, Business Expenditure, and Appeal Tribunal Powers\n•\nDetails:\n1.\nThe Tribunal remanded a case to determine reasonable rent for a property leased to an associate company at a low rent.\n2.\nThe Tribunal upheld the disallowance of business expenditure claims due to lack of evidence.\n3.\nThe Tribunal rejected additional grounds of appeal as they were not raised before the assessing officer.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal's remand for determining reasonable rent was justified due to the special facts of the case.\no\nThe Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of expenses due to insufficient evidence and upheld the rejection of additional grounds of appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No. 208 of 1998, decision dated: 9-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYUSIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 150 = 2002 SLD 150 = 2002 PTD 1055 = (2000) 82 TAX 603 = (2000) 241 ITR 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Powers of Income Tax Authorities under S.131\nDetails: The case dealt with the powers of Income Tax Authorities under section 131 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The powers can only be exercised if proceedings are pending under the Act. In this case, no proceedings were pending, and the Income-tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under S.131 without applying his mind to the jurisdictional requirement. The petitioners contended that no proceedings were pending, and the ITO's action was questioned.\nHeld: The summons under section 131 were quashed because the Income-Tax Officer failed to consider whether proceedings were actually pending. The ITO acted without applying the condition precedent for the exercise of powers under section 131.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 131", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4989 of 1994, decision dated: 24-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. K. DESHMUKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G.S. Jetley with Atul Tungare for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "G.M. BREWERIES LTD. and another\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 151 = 2002 SLD 151 = 2002 PTD 1060 = (2000) 241 ITR 451 = (2000) 82 TAX 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Penalty for Concealment of Income\nDetails: The case involved the imposition of penalty on an assessee for concealing income by claiming incorrect depreciation and engaging in a sham transaction. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty for incorrect depreciation but set aside the penalty for false claims regarding depreciation on computers.\nHeld: (i) The Tribunal failed to apply Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and erroneously deleted the penalty for depreciation on cylinders. The matter regarding penalty for depreciation on computers was set aside by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.\n(ii) The question of law about the penalty for the sale of cylinders was to be referred to the High Court.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256(2), 271", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 37 of 1998, decision dated: 3rd August, 1999", + "Judge Name": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly with Pr em Lata Barisal for Petition. K.K. Wadhera with P.S. Bajaj and Ms. Mamta Saha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGOYAL GASES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 152 = 2002 SLD 152 = 2002 PTD 1064 = (2001) 83 TAX 88 = (2000) 241 ITR 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997\nDetails: The case involved a delay in paying tax under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. The declarant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, citing difficulties in securing a loan to pay the tax.\nHeld: The declarant’s explanation for the delay was reasonable, and the tax should be accepted despite the delay. The Scheme's beneficial nature allowed for leniency in the strict interpretation of the limitation for tax payment.\nCitations: Indian Finance Act, 1997", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14316 of 1999, decision dated: 15-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "S, JAGADEESAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "E. PRAHALATHA BABU\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 153 = 2002 SLD 153 = 2002 PTD 1070 = (2000) 241 ITR 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Capital vs Revenue\nDetails: The case revolved around the classification of interest paid on borrowed capital for setting up a printing unit. The assessee had borrowed funds for the purpose of setting up a printing facsimile unit, and the interest was initially capitalized but later claimed as revenue expenditure.\nHeld: The interest paid on borrowed funds for setting up a printing unit was considered as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was incurred for carrying on business efficiently.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 37, Indian Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), CIT (Addl.) v. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 464 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 168 of 1987 (Reference No. 105 of 1987), decision dated: 8-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. V. Ramakrishnan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKASTHURI & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 154 = 2002 SLD 154 = 2002 PTD 1072 = (2000) 241 ITR 464", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Interest Income from Pronote\nDetails: The case involved the recovery of interest on a pronote issued by the assessee in which the interest was paid according to the pronote stipulations. The income derived from this interest was included in the assessment.\nHeld: The payment of interest was valid as the pronote stipulated interest, and evidence from the books of accounts showed that the interest had been paid. Hence, the interest income was assessable in the hands of the assessee.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1187 of 1990 (Reference No.607 of 1990), decision dated: 29-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUTHERN SHIPPING CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 155 = 2002 SLD 155 = 2002 PTD 1076 = (2000) 241 ITR 471 = (2000) 82 TAX 593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Application for Reference—Delay\nDetails: The assessee filed an application for reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a delay of 26 days. The delay was attributed to the mistake of the counsel.\nHeld: The delay was condoned as it occurred due to an inadvertent mistake by the counsel. The provisions for condoning delay under section 256 should be liberally interpreted, and the delay was within a reasonable limit.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14455 of 1999: decided on 14-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND B. PRAKASH RAO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Y. Ratnakar for Petitioner S.R. Ashoks", + "Party Name:": "VOLTAS LTD. (formerly Hyderabad Allwayn Ltd.)\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 156 = 2002 SLD 156 = 2002 PTD 1078 = (2001) 252 ITR 893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Dividend—Loans to Assessee\nDetails: The case involved an assessee who, through an employee, obtained loans from the company and later used the loans for personal purposes. The loans were considered as dividends for the assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the loans advanced to the employee and subsequently passed to the assessee were in fact loans for the benefit of the assessee, thus taxable as dividends.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 2(6A)(e), CIT v. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar (1977) 109 ITR 508", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 477 and 478 of 1979, decision dated: 30-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate. B.S. Ahuja and S.N. Terdol", + "Party Name:": "L. ALAGUSUNDARAM CHETTIAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER Off IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 157 = 2002 SLD 157 = 2002 PTD 1079 = (2001) 251 ITR 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Cooperative Society—Special Deduction\nDetails: A cooperative society engaged in banking business had earned interest from investments made out of its reserve fund, which was in compliance with statutory provisions. The issue was whether the income was exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: The interest income earned from such investments was exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i), as it was income derived from the business of the cooperative society and not restricted to working capital.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 80P(2)(a)(i), Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) overruled, CIT v. Bangalore District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 282 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4646 to 4648 of 2000, decision dated: 22-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARTVAL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General of India (Sanjiv Sen. B. V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him). Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 158 = 2002 SLD 158 = 2002 PTD 1082 = (2001) 251 ITR 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Penalty for Concealment of Income\nDetails: The case dealt with penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the concealment of income. The assessee had made incorrect entries regarding payments but later offered additional income to rectify the situation. The question was whether penalty could be imposed even without specific reference to Explanation 1(B) in the notice.\nHeld: The penalty was validly imposed under section 271(1)(c) as the notice did not need to explicitly invoke Explanation 1(B). The Explanation to section 271 is an integral part of the section, and its applicability was presumed in the notice.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 271(1)(c), Explanation 1(B), CIT v. P.M. Shah (1993) 203 ITR 792 (Bom.), CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom.) overruled", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 27, 1,000, of the Kerala High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 177 of 1997), 6465 of 2000, decision dated: 21st August, 2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHANVAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Subramonium Prasad, Advocate with him). B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda,, Nikhil Sakhardande, B.V.B. Das and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 159 = 2002 SLD 159 = 2002 PTD 1088 = (2001) 251 ITR 772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "This case involves the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which constructed flats and allocated them to buyers. However, due to a delay in allotting the flats as per the agreements, the DDA had to pay interest to the buyers for the delayed period. The issue arose when the income-tax authorities issued demands against the DDA for failing to deduct tax at source on the interest payments, as required by Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the amounts credited to the buyers were not considered as interest under the provisions of Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, thus overturning the demand for tax deduction at source and ordering the refund of tax collected from the DDA. However, since the refund was delayed, the DDA filed a writ petition.\nPending the writ petition, the amount was refunded with interest, but the DDA filed a miscellaneous petition claiming that the interest should have been calculated under Section 244(1A) for the assessment year 1988-89 and under Section 244A for the subsequent years.\nThe High Court ruled in favor of the DDA, stating that the order under which the DDA was treated as an assessee in default and had tax recovered was an order of assessment, and the refund with interest should be governed by Sections 244(1A) and 244A. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, noting:\n1.\nThe DDA, though not an actual assessee in some respects, was considered a deemed assessee under Section 2(7) of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nThe refund order was part of the appellate proceedings, so Section 240 applied, confirming the DDA’s status as an assessee for the purpose of refunds.\n3.\nSection 244(1A) applies to the period concerning the assessment year 1988-89, and Section 244A applies for subsequent years.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3544 of 1998, decision dated: 29-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA C.J.1, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him). G.C. Stharma, Senior Advocate (V.B. Saharya, Anoop Sharma and R.K. Raghavan, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nvs\nDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 160 = 2002 SLD 160 = 2002 PTD 1094 = (2003) 261 ITR 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "In this case, the Department of Income Tax sought a reference from the High Court after the Appellate Tribunal ruled that an increase in the subscribed capital of a company was not a device for converting black money into white. The Department had alleged that the increase in subscribed capital was being used to legitimize illicit money through the creation of an investment company.\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that even if the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, the increase in share capital could not be considered as undisclosed income. The Tribunal concluded that no device was involved in converting black money to white money.\nThe High Court declined the reference request and dismissed the appeal from the Department. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the matter was based on factual findings, and there was no question of law that required interference.\nThus, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Department's appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7968 of 1996 decided on 20-07-2000", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General of India (Nikhil Sakhardande and Mrs. Sushma Suri, advocates with him) M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Vinai Vasih, B.V. Desai and Santosh K. Aggarwal Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSTELLER INVESTMENT LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 161 = 2002 SLD 161 = 2002 PTD 1095 = (2001) 251 ITR 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "In this case, the respondent firm, engaged in manufacturing starch, liquid glucose, and cattle feed, started a new unit for producing dextro mono hydrate. The firm received a power subsidy under a scheme from the State of Madhya Pradesh. This subsidy was provided based on the consumption of electricity: a rate per unit for small-scale industries and a percentage of electricity charges for medium and large industries, subject to certain maximum limits. The central issue was whether the subsidy was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, with implications for taxability under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the subsidy was a capital receipt, and the High Court affirmed this decision. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the ruling was reversed. The Court held that the power subsidy was of a revenue nature, as it directly went towards reducing the electricity bills, which is an ongoing expense in the firm's business operations. This decision was in line with the Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. case, which concluded that subsidies for operational costs are considered revenue receipts.\nThe Supreme Court therefore rejected the argument that the subsidy was a capital receipt, reversing the earlier High Court decision.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 1998 with Civil Appeals Nos. 2004 and 2005 of 1998, 3462 of 1998, 3560 of 1998 and 5677 of 2001, decision dated: 23rd August, 2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajay Sharma, Ms. Neera Gupta, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates Nemo (in C.A. No. 2006 of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAJARAM MAIZE PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 162 = 2002 SLD 162 = 2002 PTD 1096 = (2001) 252 ITR 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "This case involves a paper manufacturing company that sourced raw materials, such as eucalyptus wood, from the Government of Uttar Pradesh, for which it was required to pay royalty. The royalty rate was initially fixed at Rs. 90 per volumetric ton (VMT), but it was subject to revision every two years. During the assessment year 1980-81, the Government revised the royalty to Rs. 145 and Rs. 156 per VMT for different periods, which the company disputed. A writ petition was filed, and the Allahabad High Court issued an interim order, directing the company to pay Rs. 110 per VMT while the case was pending.\nThe company provided for the royalty at the rate of Rs. 110 per VMT in its accounts but claimed a deduction for the higher rates of Rs. 145 and Rs. 156 in its tax return. The Assessing Officer allowed a deduction at the rate of Rs. 110 per VMT, and this was upheld by the Tribunal.\nThe Supreme Court applied its earlier ruling in Gorelal Dubey v. CIT (2001), where it had held that royalty is a statutory liability, not a contractual one, and that once the liability is established by the government, it is deductible as a business expense, irrespective of whether it was accounted for in the books. The Court concluded that the company was entitled to a deduction for the enhanced royalty at the rate of Rs. 145 and Rs. 156 per VMT, as the revised rates were statutory.\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s ruling that the enhanced royalty is a deductible business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 194 of 1992, decision dated: 20-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "Y.R. MEENA AND ARUNABHA BARUA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bajoria for the Assessee. Mallick for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "STAR PAPER MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 163 = 2002 SLD 163 = 2002 PTD 1104 = (2001) 251 ITR 428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "In this case, the Department of Income Tax sought a reference to the High Court regarding the scope and ambit of Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section deals with the powers of authorities during search and seizure operations. Specifically, the questions revolved around whether the Explanation to Section 132(4), added in 1989, could be applied to searches conducted before that date, and whether the explanation was merely procedural or substantive in nature.\nThe High Court ruled that the interpretation of Section 132(4), as it stood at the time of the search in 1988, was correct, and the explanation added in 1989 did not apply retroactively. The Court concluded that the statements made by persons examined during the search had no evidentiary value, as they were not supported by documentary proof.\nOn appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision. It found that the questions regarding the scope and interpretation of Section 132(4) and its Explanation were indeed questions of law. The Court directed the Tribunal to refer these questions to the High Court for determination.\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the questions raised were valid and could not be determined without a proper reference from the Tribunal, thus allowing the Department's application for a reference. The decision of the High Court was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4909 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd August, 2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Preetesh Kapar, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate (V. Balachandran, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSRI RAMDAS MOTOR TRANSPORT LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 164 = 2002 SLD 164 = 2002 PTD 1106 = (2001) 251 ITR 522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax---Cooperative society---Special deduction---Cooperative society engaged in banking business----Interest earned from funds utilized for statutory reserves---Income from hiring safe deposit vaults---Deductible-¬Interest from utilization of voluntary reserves---Deductible if funds utilized in course of ordinary banking business---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.80P(2)(a)(i)---Indian Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, S.67(2)---Indian Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S.6(1)(a)---[Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 229 and Mehsana District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 520 reversed in part].\nWhere the assessee, a cooperative bank, derived (i) income from utilization of its funds for statutory reserves under section 67(2) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and (ii) income from hiring out of safe deposit vaults:\nHeld, (i) that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest earned from funds utilized for the statutory reserves.\nCIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001) 251 ITR 194 (SC) fol.\n(ii) That provision of safe deposit vaults was part of the ordinary banking business of a bank as shown by section 6(1)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and, therefore, income derived by the assessee from the hiring out of safe deposit vaults was income from the business of banking and deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i).\nGujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 229 reversed.\nHeld, also, that the question whether income derived by the assessee cooperative bank from the investment of its voluntary reserves other than statutory reserves is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) depended upon whether the voluntary reserves were utilized in the course of its ordinary banking business.\nFrom the decision of the High Court to the effect that interest income of the assessee, a cooperative bank, from investments from its total reserves did not qualify for deduction under section 80P(a)(i) (see (2001) 251 ITR 520) appeals were preferred to the Supreme Court\nHeld, (i) that interest on investments from statutory reserves was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i):\nCIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001 ) 251 ITR 194 SC) fol.\n(ii) That, however, insofar as interest on investments from non-statutory reserves was concerned, the matter lead to be decided afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) after giving the assessee, in the interest of justice, opportunity to lead evidence on the aspect whether the voluntary reserves were utilized in the course of its ordinary banking business.\nMehsana District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 520 reversed.\nThe Supreme Court, accordingly, remanded the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the question relating to interest income from investments out of non-statutory reserves afresh. after giving the assesses, in the interests of justice, opportunity to lead evidence on the aspect which was not considered earlier.\nBihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1960) 39 I'm 114 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.7448 and 7449 of 2000 with Civil Appeals Nos.292 to 298 of 2001, decision dated: 30-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA, Y K. SABHUAWAL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashok II. Desai, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh and Ms. Ruchi Khurana, Advocates with him) (in C.As. Nos.7448 and 7449 of 2000)\nAnil B. Divan, Senior Advocate (K.H. Kaji, Manish K. Kaji and Ms. Indoo Verma, Advocates with him) (in C.As. Nos.292 to 298 of 2001)\nM.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik, Ms. Neera Gupta and B. V. Balaram Das, Advocates with him) (in all Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "MEHSANAN DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER\nC.As. Nos.292 to 298 of 2001\nGUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 165 = 2002 SLD 165 = 2002 PTD 1110 = (2001) 251 ITR 657", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax----Advance ruling---Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement---Article providing for non-discrimination---Non-resident company---Application for ruling on whether lesser rate of tax applicable to domestic companies should be available to it---Authority for Advance Rulings---Jurisdiction---Department raising objection---Authority seeing that objection was of some substance but ruling on merits against applicant--¬Supreme Court---Appeal by special leave by applicant---Ruling set aside ---Indian Finance Acts, 1994, 1995, 1996, Sched. I, Part I, para. E---¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 90, 256 & 2451-Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France, Art. 26.\nOn an application by the applicant, a non-resident banking company, under section 2456 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for an advance ruling on the question whether it could claim the benefit of the lesser rate of tax on domestic companies in view of Article 26 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France providing for non-discrimination, the Department raised a preliminary objection that, in view of the proviso to section 2458 the Authority for Advance Rulings had no jurisdiction to make a ruling. The Authority saw that the objection was of some substance but proceeded to give its ruling on the merits and ruled that the rate of tax fixed by an Act of Parliament, even if the rate of tax on non-domestic companies was higher, cannot be whittled down by reference to the provisions of an earlier agreement between France and India, even if such agreement had the force of law; and, therefore, the rate of tax payable by a non-domestic company could not be reduced by relying upon Article 26 of the D.T.A.A. (see (1999) 236 ITR 103). The appellant appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court, to have the ruling set aside. On the Department raising no objection and agreeing that it will not rely upon the ruling of the Authority before the Income-tax Authorities, and an application by counsel for the appellant for withdrawing the application before the Authority, the Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Authority, observing that the appellant would be at liberty to raise the issue of the rate at which it was liable to pay tax before the Income-tax Authorities.\nRuling of the Authority for Advance Rulings in Application No.P-16 of 1998, in re: (1999) 236 ITR 103 set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3815 of 1999 with Civil Appeals Nos. 3816 and 3817 of 1999, decision dated: 26-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Soli E. Dastur and S. Ganesh, Senior Advocates (R.F. Kaka and Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, Advocates with them). Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General for India and M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Pritesh Kapur and B.V.B. Das, Advocates with them)", + "Party Name:": "SOCIETE GENERALE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (and other appeals)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 166 = 2002 SLD 166 = 2002 PTD 1113 = (2001) 251 ITR 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax---Industrial company---Purchasing, peeling, freezing and exporting shrimps---Whether involves production or manufacture---No material produced regarding the stages through which the shrimps passed as processes involving production or manufacture ---Assessee not industrial company ---Not eligible to be taxed at lower rate of income-tax ---Indian Finance Act, 1981, S.2(7)(c).\nThe assessee-company, which claimed to be taxed at a lesser rate as an industrial company , claimed that its activities involves purchasing, peeling, freezing and exporting of shrimps. The Appellate Tribunal held that those activities amounted to production and the assessee was entitled to be taxed at a lesser rate, relying upon the decisions of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Marwell Sea Foods (1987) 16 ITR 624 and CIT v. Relish Foods (1989) 180 ITR 454. On a reference, the High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. On appeal.\nHeld, reversing the decision of the High Court, that, since the assessee had not placed before the taxing authorities a detailed description of the process by which the shrimps were prepared for export and the assessee had not established that its activities amounted to process involving production or manufacture, the assessee was not an industrial company and was not entitled to be taxed at the lower rate.\nCIT v. Relish Foods (1999) 237 ITR 59 (SC) fol.\nCIT v. Marwell Sea Foods (1987) 166 ITR 624 (Ker.)\nCIT v. Relish Foods (1989) 180 ITR 454 (Ker.) ref.\nAs directed by this Court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act ), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions relating to the consecutive assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 for the opinion of this Court:\n (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is an industrial company eligible to be taxed only at the rate of 55 percent?\n(1a) Whether processing of marine products for export would make the assessee an industrial company?\n(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that it cannot be said that the issue involved herein is a debatable issue and on that basis there was no mistake on the face of the record and are not the findings wrong, unreasonable and illogical? \nIn I.T.R. No.123 of 1986 (CIT v. King Fisheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 46 (Ker.) (F.B.) a Full Bench of this Court on the construction of section 80J and in view of the scheme and object of the Act held that for production or manufacture of processed fish, the assessee(s) would be entitled to relief under section 80J of the Act.\nThe term industrial company is defined under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1981, as follows:\n `industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. (Emphasis supplied).\nTaking into consideration this definitional section and the Full Bench decision, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee was an industrial company.\nWe, therefore, answer Question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.\nTurning to Question No. 2, it will be seen that the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was a non-industrial company. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. It is at that stage, the assessee made an application under section 154 stating that the assessee is an industrial company. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The view taken by the Assessing Officer was agitated in appeal right up to the stage of the Appellate Tribunal and then the Appellate Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court held that the question was beyond the pale of controversy and that the assessee is an industrial company.\nWe having upheld the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee is an industrial company, it does not seem to be necessary to go into Question No.2. The submission of learned senior standing counsel, however, before us is that the Tribunal as well as the Full Bench overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka (1986) 63 STC 239, in view of which the question is still debatable. Be that as it may, as the assessee is held to be an industrial company by the Tribunal and by the Full Bench of this Court, which considered the above Supreme Court decision, it must be held that the assessee is an industrial company and in view of this finding, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question of debatability.\nWe, therefore, return Question No.2 unanswered.\nThe Department appealed to the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3967 to 3971 of 1999 with Civil Appeals Nos. 3972 and 3973 of 1999 and 4500 and 4501 of 2001 and S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 19397 and 19398 of 1999, decision dated: 24-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rambir Chandra, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate M.P. Vinod Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKALA CARTOONS (P.) LTD, (and other appeals and special leave s)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 167 = 2002 SLD 167 = 2002 PTD 1117 = (2001) 251 ITR 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax----Export markets development allowance ---Weighted deduction--¬Failure to mention specific clause under which allowed---Order not invalid---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.35B.\n(b) Income-tax---\n----Income---Accrual---Cash incentive for exports---Mercantile system of accounting---Right to receive incentive accrues when claim filed.\nFrom the decision of the High Court to the effect, inter alia, (i) that though the specific sub-clause of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4580 to 4583 of 1998, decision dated: 19-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJTSH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates. Pratap Venugopal and K.J. Johin, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPUNJAB BONE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 168 = 2002 SLD 168 = 2002 PTD 1118 = (2001) 251 ITR 882", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax----Reference---Question of law---Firm---Registration---Firm formed in contravention of liquor rules---Whether entitled to registration---Question of law---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 185 & 256---A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, Rr. 38 & 39.\nThe question whether, in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a question of law.\nThe Supreme Court accordingly directed the Appellate Tribunal to state a case to the High Court and refer the question of law for opinion.\nBhiari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC) and CIT v. Nall' Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4158 to 4164 of 1994, decision dated: 6-12-2000", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ganesh, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, T.C. Sharma, S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates. L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate (S.K. Verma and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nLAMI WINE MERCHANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 169 = 2002 SLD 169 = 2002 PTD 1120 = (2001) 252 ITR 880", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax---Capital gains---Computation----Abkari business---Kist amount due to Government---Immovable property of assessee mortgaged to State for payment of Kist---Government selling property and realizing dues--¬Dues deduction from sale proceeds and balance paid to assessee----Amount deducted towards dues to Government from sale proceeds not to be deducted in computing capital gains---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.45---[CIT v. Attili Narayana Rao (1998) 233 ITR 10 reversed].\nThe assessee, who carried on Abkari business, had mortgaged immovable property belonging to him to the Excise Department of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh as security for amounts of Kist due to the State. On sale by the State Government of the immovable property by auction, a sum of Rs.5,62,980 was realized, wherefrom the Government deducted the sum of Rs.1,29,020 due towards Kist and paid over the balance to the assessee. In computing the capital gains from the sale of the property, the assessee sought deduction of the sum of Rs.1,29,020. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the claim on the ground that there was a clear charge or mortgage over the property and the amount realized under the charge or mortgage was an amount which never reached the assessee but reached the Government by overriding title. On a reference, the High Court held that by the mortgage an interest was created in favour of the State and when the property was sold by auction its value had to be reduced to the extent of the interest created in favour of the State. On appeal to the Supreme Court.\nHeld, reversing the decision of the High Court, that what was sold at the auction was the immovable properly belonging to the assessee and the price realized, therefore, belonged to the assessee. From that price the State deducted its dues towards Kist. Capital gains had to be computed on the full price (less admissible deductions).\nCIT v. Attili Narayana Rao (1998) 233 ITR 10 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4431 of 1999, decision dated: 11-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, B.V. Balarama Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him). Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nATTILI N. RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 170 = 2002 SLD 170 = 2002 PTD 1123 = (2001) 251 ITR 883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax---New industrial undertaking---New industrial undertaking in backward areas---Special deduction---Tyre retreading does not amount to production---Not entitled to relief---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.80HH & 80J.\n(b) Words and phrases--- Production ---Meaning of.\nFrom the decision of the High Court (see (1999) 239 ITR 375) to the effect (i) that for the purposes of the relief under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there has to be production which brings into existence a new article; and (ii) that when a tyre wears out, its life might be renewed by retreading but a different and distinct commodity cannot be said to have come into existence as a result of retreading, and, therefore, the business of retreading of tyres did not amount to production of a new article entitling the assessee to the relief under sections 80J and 80HH, appeals were preferred by the assessee to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.\nCIT v. Madurai Pandian Engineering Corporation Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 375 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4383 and 4384 of 1999, decision dated: 11-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUEHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate (V. Prabhakar and Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Advocates with him). Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 171 = 2002 SLD 171 = 2002 PTD 1124 = (2001) 251 ITR 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax---Cooperative society---Special deduction ---Scope of--Cooperative Society engaged in banking---Interest arising from investment made out of reserve fund---Whether qualifies for deduction---difference of opinion between two decisions of Supreme Court---Matter referred to larger Bench---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (Old) S. 81, (new) S.80P(2)(a)(i).\nIn view of the difference of opinion between two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 438 and CIT. Bangalore District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 282, on the question whether interest arising from investment made out of reserve fund by a cooperative society engaged in banking business qualifies for the special deduction under S.80P(2)(a)(i) (old S.81) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench.\nCIT v. Bangalore District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 282 (SC) and Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4646 to 4648 of 2000, decision dated: 16-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish Salve, Solicitor General for India (Sartjiv Sen and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate with him) for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 172 = 2002 SLD 172 = 2002 PTD 1127 = (2001) 251 ITR 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Income or Capital—Business of oil refinery and petrochemicals—Period of formation Income from house property, guest house charges for equipment, and recoveries from contractors for supply of water and electricity—Received during period of formation—Capital receipts and not income—To be adjusted against project cost for main business—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961—[CIT v. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 708 reversed].\nThe issue pertains to income received by the assessee, an oil refinery and petrochemical company, during its formation period. This income, including receipts from house property, guest house charges, equipment hire charges, and recoveries from contractors for water and electricity, was initially considered taxable as Income from other sources. The High Court upheld this view, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.\nThe Court held that these receipts were not taxable income but should instead be adjusted against the project cost for the main business of the oil refinery and petrochemicals. This aligns with previous judgments such as CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315, which established that income received during the formation phase is capital in nature and linked to the setting up of the business rather than operational income.\nCIT v. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 708 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3024 of 1999, decision dated: 24-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Tarun Gulati and Ajit Puduserry, Advocates with him). Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi and B.V. Balram Das, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "BONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 173 = 2002 SLD 173 = 2002 PTD 1129 = (2001) 251 ITR 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Investment allowance—Manufacture—Curing of coffee—Process of manufacturing coffee beans from raw berries—Amounts to manufacturing activity—Coffee beans produced from berries have distinct identity and are a new commodity—Assessee entitled to benefit of investment allowance on machinery installed for curing coffee—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32A—[CIT v. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 916 reversed].\n(b) Words and phrases— Manufacture —Meaning of.\nIn this case, the assessee had a coffee curing plant and sought an investment allowance for machinery used in the process of curing coffee. The process involved several stages of converting raw coffee berries into coffee beans, which were considered a new and distinct commodity from the raw material.\nThe Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, affirming that the process of curing coffee involved manufacturing, as the final product (coffee beans) had an independent identity from the raw berries. The Court ruled that the assessee was entitled to an investment allowance for the machinery used in this manufacturing process.\nCIT v. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 916 reversed.\nDeputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63 (SC) and (1980) Supp. SCC 174 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 8832 and 8833 of 1997, decision dated: 5-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.N. Sree Kumar, Advocate. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, B.V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "ASPINWALL & CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 174 = 2002 SLD 174 = 2002 PTD 1135 = (2001) 252 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Settlement Commission—Nature of—Quasi-judicial body—Not executive authority like CBDT—Jurisdiction and powers—Interest for delay in filing return—Interest for deficiency or deferment of advance tax—No power to reduce or waive—Waiver or reduction permissible only under circular of CBDT in cases and under conditions prescribed—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 119, 234A, 234B, 234C, 45A(b) & 245D(4), (6).\n(b) Income-tax—Advance tax—Deficiency or deferment—Interest—Mandatory—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 234B & 234C.\n(c) Income-tax—Return—Delay or default—Interest—Mandatory—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 234A.\n(d) Income-tax—Central Board of Direct Taxes—Nature of—Executive Authority—Circulars—Beneficial to assessee—Binding nature—Settlement Commissioner—Can waive or reduce interest in accordance with circular of CBDT Circular No. 400/234/95-IT(B), dated May 23, 1996—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.119(2)(a).\n(e) Interpretation of statutes—Purposive interpretation—Only when language of statute ambiguous, conflicting or gives meaning leading to absurdity—Power vested in Authority—To be exercised in particular manner—Authority has to exercise it only in manner provided.\n(f) Income-tax—Clarificatory note—Press release—Do not have statutory force like circulars.\n(g) Words and phrases— Settlement , terms , shall —Meanings of.\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the Settlement Commissioner, under sections 245D(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not have the power to waive or reduce interest statutorily payable under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, except as granted under CBDT circulars. The circulars issued by the CBDT, such as Circular No. 400/234/95-IT(B), may allow the reduction or waiver of interest, but this is within the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner or Director-General, not the Settlement Commissioner.\nThe Court further clarified that statutory interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory and cannot be waived by the Settlement Commissioner. It can only be reduced or waived under conditions outlined in relevant CBDT circulars.\nAnjum Mohammed Hussein Ghaswala: In re (1998) 230 ITR (AT) 1 varied.\nCIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 443 (SC) explained and distinguished.\nUCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 4126 to 4150 of 2000 with Civil Appeals Nos. 16810 of 1996, 6275 to 6286, 6414, 6415 and 3744 of 1998, and 1561, 1858, 3859, 5655 to 5659 of 1999 and S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 16404, 16405, 16407 to 16411 and 17832 to 17834 of 2000, decision dated: 18-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "DR. A. S. ANAHU, C.J. I, K. T. THOMAS, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.L. Verma, J. Ramamurti, S. Ganesh, R.P. Agarwal and Josesph Vellapally, Senior Advocates for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nANJUM M.H. GHASWALA and others (and other appeals and special leave s)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 175 = 2002 SLD 175 = 2002 PTD 1152 = (2001) 251 ITR 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome-tax: Business expenditure – Disallowance of employee benefits exceeding limits set by the tax law.\n•\nSection 40A(5): Limits on employer’s expenditure on employee benefits/perquisites.\n•\nHeld: The employer's expenses on benefits, like free cars for employees, must be determined under Section 40A(5) and not according to the rules for calculating perquisites in employees’ individual assessments. Disallowance of excess is based on actual expenditure by the employer.\n•\nOverruled Precedents: CIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 35 (Cal.) and Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 695 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.95 of 1998, decided 30-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General of Indian and R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik, Nikhil Sakhardande, Rajiv Nanda, V.B. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with them). B. Sen, Senior Advocate. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBRITISH BANK OF MIDDLE EAST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 176 = 2002 SLD 176 = 2002 PTD 1161 = (2001) 251 ITR 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome-tax: Assessment under Section 143(1A) – Imposition of additional tax on the reduction of declared loss due to adjustments.\n•\nHeld: Even if the loss is reduced due to adjustments under Section 143(1)(a), additional tax can be imposed under Section 143(1A), following the retrospective amendment.\n•\nPrecedent Reversed: J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (1993) 200 ITR 584.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1636 of 1994 with Civil Appeals Nos. 3664 of 1992 and 1225 of 1993, decision dated: 21st February, 2001", + "Judge Name": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ganesh, Pritish Kapur and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocatess.\nPratap Venugopal and K.J. John, Advocates (in C. A. No. 1636 of 1994).\nV.U. Eradi, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, K.V. Viswanathan and Ms. Suman Jyothi Khaitan, Advocates. (in C.A. No. 3464 of 1992).\nSantosh K. Agrawal, Advocate (in C.A., No. 1225 of 1993).", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER oF Income Tax\nvs\nJ. K. SYNTHETICS LTD\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 3464 OF 1992\nUNION OF INDIA\nvs\nINDO-GULF FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD.\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.1225 OF 1993\nUNION OF INDIA\nvs \nMODI CEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 177 = 2002 SLD 177 = 2002 PTD 1185 = (2002) 85 TAX 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Pakistan): Re-opening of return filed under Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nHeld: The re-opening of the return was valid after the assessment was finalized under Section 59-A at an amount higher than the declared income. The assessment was prejudicial to revenue, and constitutional jurisdiction was not exercised in favor of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59,59A,62,63,64,129,134 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.23442 of 1996, heard on 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahzad Nasir for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "ARIF NIZAMI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 178 = 2002 SLD 178 = 2002 PTD 1186 = (2002) 85 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Pakistan): Revision of assessment order due to short payment of tax under Section 59(1).\n•\nHeld: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner validly canceled the assessment due to short tax payment, and the case was directed to proceed under normal law.\n•\nCondonation of Delay: Short payment of tax, resulting in revenue loss, was not to be condoned, especially in the discretion of the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,66A,59(1),134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.396/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 29-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Fareed for Applicant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 179 = 2002 SLD 179 = 2002 PTD 1195 = (2002) 86 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Pakistan): Assessment Process and Constitutional Petition\n•\nFacts: The assessee filed a return and, after providing further information in response to a notice, the assessment was completed. The assessee challenged this order in first and second appeals. While the appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Assessing Officer issued a notice for re-assessment. The assessee informed the officer that the matter was still pending before the Tribunal, but the officer proceeded to complete the assessment.\n•\nHeld: The Assessing Officer should have waited for the decision of the Tribunal. The High Court accepted the constitutional petition, ordering the officer to defer further action pending the Tribunal's decision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,134,55,61 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13815 of 1996, heard on 31st January, 2002", + "Judge Name": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Amjad Andrabi for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD INAYATULLAH CHEEMA\nvs\nSardar ALI RAZA MASOOD QAZILBASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 180 = 2002 SLD 180 = 2002 PTD 1197 = (2002) 86 TAX 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Pakistan): Reference/Appeal\n•\nFacts: The appeal was based on the applicability of Section 13(1)(a). The Tribunal made a finding based on the facts, and the High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, noting that no significant legal question was presented that required interpretation by the Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.29 of 2000, heard on 26-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Fareed for Applicant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Miss Lubna Pervez", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs B.C.C.I. OVERSEAS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 181 = 2002 SLD 181 = 2002 PTD 1201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Pakistan): Withholding Tax and Rectification Application\n•\nFacts: The assessee was found to have withheld tax at a lesser rate than required from its dealers. The Tribunal ruled that the Department had credited the correct amounts to recipients, and the assessee could apply for rectification if they believed part of the tax had been collected after assessments.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision left the matter open for the assessee to establish via a rectification application. No substantial question of law was raised, and the High Court declined to intervene.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,50(4A),52,52A,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 1 of 2001, heard on 14-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar. Mian Yousaf Umar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COYS, Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 182 = 2002 SLD 182 = 2002 PTD 1205 = (2002) 86 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S. 157(2)(a) (iv)---Authorised representative of assessee---Scope--­Legal practitioner entitled to practise in any Civil Court in Pakistan is included among the authorised representatives under the provision of S.157(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 157(2)(c) & 157(3)(a)-- Income-tax practitioner --- Connotation Legal practitioner whether cannot represent an assessee---Income Tax Practitioner defined in S.157(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, is altogether different from the person who is a legal practitioner--If a person is enrolled as an advocate and is on the role of Provincial Bar Council as a legal practitioner to practise in any Civil Court, such person is not debarred under S.157(3)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to represent-an assessee. \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 157(2)(a)(iv) & 157(3)(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Authorised representative--Petitioner being legal practitioner was not debarred from representing an assessee---Petitioner was entitled to appear before all Income-tax Authorities on account of his being a legal practitioner---Letter debarring the petitioner was without lawful authority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=157,157(2)(a)(iv),157(3)(a) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.20296 of 1996, heard on 7-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Waheed Akhtar for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "GHAFFAR HUSSAIN\nvs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EASTERN REGION), LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 183 = 2002 SLD 183 = 2002 PTD 1206 = (2003) 87 TAX 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Pakistan): Constitutional Petition after Withdrawal of Reference\n•\nFacts: After an unsuccessful appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee withdrew the Income Tax Reference filed with the High Court and instead filed a Constitutional petition. The assessee's grievance was that its accounts had been rejected by the Authorities without proper verification.\n•\nHeld: The withdrawal of the reference did not prevent the filing of the Constitutional petition. However, the High Court found that the assessee failed to make a sufficient case for Constitutional jurisdiction, and the petition was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16558 of 1995, heard on 7-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalil Ahmad Rao for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT ART FABRICS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 184 = 2002 SLD 184 = 2002 PTD 1209 = (2003) 87 TAX 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether a notice under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance was validly served on the assessee.\n•\nFindings: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the notice was never served on the assessee and dismissed the authorities' appeal. The High Court could not entertain a question not raised before the Tribunal or ruled upon. Therefore, the High Court declined to answer the questions posed by the authorities and refused to proceed with the reference.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61,135,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.82 of 1993, heard on 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMst. SHAKEELA BANO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 185 = 2002 SLD 185 = 2002 PTD 1212 = (2002) 86 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether a show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer for the refiling of a return for the assessment year 1985-86 was lawful.\n•\nFindings: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, noting that the assessee bypassed the prescribed forums and did not contest the show-cause notice within the required forums. Therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Furthermore, the assessee’s claim under the Self-Assessment Scheme was upheld, and interim injunctions in such cases could not exceed six months.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,65,136(2),59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 6416 of, 1991, heard on 7-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner Kh. Muhammad Saeed on behalf of Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Ch. SAMIULLAH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE A, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 186 = 2002 SLD 186 = 2002 PTD 1216 = (2000) 82 TAX 589 = (2000) 241 ITR 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether penalty proceedings can be initiated against a legal heir for the deceased's concealment of income.\n•\nFindings: The legal heir is treated as a deemed assessee under Section 159, making the initiation of penalty proceedings valid. The Tribunal remanded the penalty matter back to the Assessing Officer due to a new plea raised regarding the deceased’s illness during the relevant period.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 127 and 128 of 1994, decision dated: 22-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "Y.R. MEENA AND G. C. DE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Smt. TAPATIPAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 188 = 2002 SLD 188 = 2002 PTD 1225 = (2000) 241 ITR 473 = (2000) 82 TAX 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether the Commissioner’s rejection of an application for the waiver of penalty or interest was valid.\n•\nFindings: The Commissioner’s rejection of the application without proper consideration of the conditions under Section 273A was invalid, as it lacked the application of mind required by the law.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No.247 of 1591, decision dated: 14-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "S.K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. SHARADA PULLELA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 189 = 2002 SLD 189 = 2002 PTD 1229 = (2000) 241 ITR 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether the writ petition challenging the attachment and sale of property could proceed despite an alternate remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nFindings: Since the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C.M. No.147 of 1998 in C.W.P. No.954 of 1990, decision dated: 8-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARUN KUMAR AND MANMOHAN SARIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Rachna Rao for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly with Ajay Jhas", + "Party Name:": "S.V. MUZUMDAR\nvs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 190 = 2002 SLD 190 = 2002 PTD 1230 = (2000) 241 ITR 482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether a reassessment could be made to withdraw a deduction granted for a donation to an institution, where approval was withdrawn with retrospective effect.\n•\nFindings: The assessee was entitled to the deduction based on the approval granted at the time of donation. Retrospective withdrawal of approval did not affect the valid deduction at the time of donation, so the reassessment to withdraw it was deemed invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3320 of 1987, decision dated: 7-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.K. DESHMUKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harsh Desai, instructed by V.L. Panjuani for Petitioners. S.R. Rajgurus", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL LEATHER CLOTH MANUFACTURING CO\nvs\nINDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 191 = 2002 SLD 191 = 2002 PTD 1233 = (2000) 82 TAX 465 = (2000) 241 ITR 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether tax paid under Section 140A could be refunded in the absence of an order of assessment within the prescribed time.\n•\nFindings: The High Court ruled that tax paid under Section 140A is treated as assessed tax, and since no order of assessment had been passed, the refund claim was not valid unless filed within the prescribed legal framework.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No.2403 of 1988, decision dated: 22-04-1998", + "Judge Name": "D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.R. Bhave for Petitioner. V.K. Tankha", + "Party Name:": "CHANDRA MOHAN\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 192 = 2002 SLD 192 = 2002 PTD 1239 = (2000) 241 ITR 492 = (2000) 82 TAX 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Whether subsidies should be deducted from the actual cost of assets to determine depreciation.\n•\nFindings: Depreciation should be allowed on the full actual cost of assets without reducing the amount of subsidy received. This position was affirmed by following precedents where depreciation was allowed on the entire cost without adjusting for subsidies received.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1010 and 1011 of 1988 (References Nos.775 arid 776 of 1988), decision dated: 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAJAPALAYAM MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 193 = 2002 SLD 193 = 2002 PTD 1241 = (2000) 82 TAX 474 = (2000) 241 ITR 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business loss—Loss on account of dealing in shares\n•\nThe assessee, an investment company, claimed a loss from share transactions. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the loss, asserting that the transactions were not genuine due to the failure to produce the broker through whom the shares were sold. However, the Tribunal found the loss to be genuine.\n•\nThe Tribunal noted that the identity of the persons involved in the transactions was undisputed, payments were made and received through account payee cheques, and there was no dispute about the purchase and sale of shares. The inability to produce the broker did not affect the genuineness of the transactions.\n•\nHeld: The loss was deductible as it was based on factual findings, and the Tribunal's view was not perverse, despite the absence of the broker's evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.204 of 1996, decision dated: 6-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "Y.R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCURRENCY INVESTMENT CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 194 = 2002 SLD 194 = 2002 PTD 1244 = (2000) 241 ITR 497 = (2000) 82 TAX 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Cash credits—Burden of proof under S.68\n•\nUnder Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the burden of proving the source of credits and the creditworthiness of lenders lies with the assessee. The assessee failed to prove that the alleged creditors, who were fishermen with no substantial means, had the capacity to advance significant amounts.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the creditors could not justify their ability to lend such amounts. Some even stated they had signed blank papers, and others gave conflicting statements.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding that the cash credits were not genuine was based on facts. As the assessee failed to explain the source of the credits satisfactorily, the amounts were assessable as income.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.58 of 1996, decision dated: 27-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C. Kochuinni Nair and S. Vindo Kumar for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate, and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "OCEANIC PRODUCTS EXPORTING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 195 = 2002 SLD 195 = 2002 PTD 1248 = (2000) 241 ITR 502 = (2000) 82 TAX 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Appeal to Appellate Tribunal—Remand\n•\nAfter an appeal, the Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b) and remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority. The assessee did not challenge the Tribunal's remand order in the High Court, and thus, the order became final.\n•\nThe question of the validity of jurisdiction could not be reopened in subsequent proceedings based on the remand order.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's order of remand was final, and the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment could not be reconsidered.\nKey Insights:\n•\nIn the context of share transactions, the genuineness of the transactions does not solely rely on producing a broker, as long as the identity of the parties is clear, and payments are made through proper channels.\n•\nThe burden of proof regarding cash credits under Section 68 lies with the assessee, and failure to prove the creditworthiness of lenders can result in the amounts being taxed as income.\n•\nOnce the Tribunal's decision has become final, it is not open to challenge the conclusions regarding jurisdiction or other issues unless the remand order is contested through proper legal procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1805 and 1806 of 1986 (References Nos. 1236 and 1237 of 1986), decision dated: 20th February. 1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMAIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHAMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Ramakrishnan for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "M. S. P. SENTHIL KUMAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 196 = 2002 SLD 196 = 2002 PTD 1252 = (2000) 241 ITR 506 = (2000) 82 TAX 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Question concluded by earlier order of Tribunal cannot be re-agitated---Tribunal upholding jurisdiction of ITO to reopen assessment under S.147(b) and directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment---No application for reference or rectification against such order---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal from reassessment order-¬Validity of reassessment proceedings cannot be questioned---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 254.\nThe Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment of the asses see for the assessment year 1973-74 under section '147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and completed the assessments. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) but remitted the matter to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with certain directions given by it. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessments in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal. There were appeals preferred by the assessees before the first appellate authority. The assessee once again questioned the powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment. The appellate authority and the Tribunal held that this could not be done. On a reference:\nHeld, that it was clear that in the earlier order, the Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act and that order of the Tribunal had become final since the assessee had not filed any application either for reference or for rectification under sections 254(2) and 256(1). Therefore, it was not permissible for the assessee to re-agitation the question of reopening of assessment under section 147(b) before the same forum in a subsequent appeal against the assessment completed on the basis of the Tribunal's earlier directions.\nSenthil Kumar (M.S.P.) v. CIT (2000) 241 ITR.502 (Mad.) fol.\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) and Malhotra (R.K.), ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.509 to 515 of 1988 (References Nos.373 to 379 of 1988), decision dated: 26-03-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. GOWRI RAJES and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 197 = 2002 SLD 197 = 2002 PTD 1255 = (2000) 82 TAX 487 = (2000) 241 ITR 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Reference—Capital or revenue expenditure\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the expenditure of Rs.31,56,117 incurred by the assessee was to maintain and preserve an existing asset (the air conditioning plant), and no new asset was created. Therefore, the expenditure was allowed as a revenue expense.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure to be revenue in nature. No question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.\n(b) Income-tax—Investment allowance—Fire-fighting equipment\n•\nThe Tribunal determined that the fire-fighting equipment used by the assessee, involved in printing and publishing newspapers and magazines, qualified as part of the industrial undertaking under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, and thus the assessee was entitled to investment allowance.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision was justified, and no question of law arose from its order.\nKey Insight: In both cases, the Tribunal's findings were factual and did not raise legal questions, affirming the nature of the expenses or allowances as in line with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I T.C. No.47 of 1998, decision dated: 2-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARUN KUMAR AND D.K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHINDUSTAN TIMES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 198 = 2002 SLD 198 = 2002 PTD 1258 = (2000) 241 ITR 511 = (2000) 82 TAX 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Revision—Powers of CIT\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) exercised his revisional powers under Section 263 to examine matters not raised in the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of revision, stating that the order of assessment had merged with the order of the appellate authority.\n•\nHeld: The CIT’s jurisdiction under Section 263 was unaffected by the appeal, as the revision pertained to matters not covered in the appeal. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to examine the case on its merits.\n(b) Income-tax—Investment allowance—Revision\n•\nThe CIT withdrew the investment allowance for the manufacture of electric meters, concluding that it did not meet the requirements of Section 32A. The Tribunal set aside this revision order, citing lack of jurisdiction.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding on jurisdiction was incorrect. The case was remanded to the Tribunal to examine the matter on its merits.\nKey Insight: The Commissioner’s power to revise is not negated by appellate decisions if the issues under revision were not part of the appeal. The Tribunal was directed to examine the case on its merits, without focusing on jurisdictional aspects.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 138 of 1987 (Reference No.78 of 1987), decision dated: 16-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSIMCO METERS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 199 = 2002 SLD 199 = 2002 PTD 1260 = (2000) 241 ITR 517 = (2000) 82 TAX 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business expenditure—Accounting for fuel surcharge\n•\nThe assessee claimed a deduction for an additional fuel surcharge in respect of electricity consumption in the year 1981-82. Although the charge was quantified later, the agreement specified that the surcharge would form part of the monthly bill.\n•\nHeld: The liability for the additional fuel surcharge accrued when electricity was consumed, making the liability deductible in the assessment year 1981-82, despite the later quantification of the charge.\nKey Insight: Expenditure for electricity consumption, including fuel surcharge, is deductible in the year of consumption, even if the amount is quantified in a subsequent year.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 17 of 1988 and 148 of 1992, decision dated: 8-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "Y.R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.P. Khaitan for the Assessee. S.K. Mitra, R. Prasad, A.C. Moitra and S.K. Mukkerjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HUKUMCHAND JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 200 = 2002 SLD 200 = 2002 PTD 1267 = (2000) 241 ITR 523 = (2000) 82 TAX 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business expenditure—Gratuity\n•\nThe assessee was not entitled to a deduction for the provision made for gratuity unless the conditions specified under Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act were fulfilled.\n•\nHeld: Deductions for gratuity can only be allowed if the provisions of Section 40A(7) are complied with.\nKey Insight: For claiming a deduction for gratuity, the requirements of Section 40A(7) must be strictly followed, and deductions cannot be made on general principles.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.647 of 1981 (Reference No.302 of 1981), decision dated: 19-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Meenakshisundacam for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BALASUBRAMANIA FOUNDRY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 201 = 2002 SLD 201 = 2002 PTD 1270 = (2000) 82 TAX 499 = (2000) 241 ITR 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Agricultural income—Income from nurseries\n•\nThe assessee operated a nursery where fruit plants, flowers, vegetable plants, and seedlings were cultivated using various operations like cutting, grafting, and inarching. The plants were then placed in pots, greenhouses, or shaded areas before being sold. The assessee argued that the income from selling these plants and seeds should be considered agricultural income.\n•\nHeld: The income derived from the sale of plants grown in pots and seeds, which were cultivated through agricultural operations, qualifies as agricultural income under Section 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) was applied.\nKey Insight: Agricultural income includes the sale of plants grown through agricultural practices, even if they are later placed in pots or containers for sale.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.818 to 822 of 1992 (References Nos.382 to 386 of 1992), decision dated: 5-08-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R.V. Ramachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUNDARYA NURSERY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 202 = 2002 SLD 202 = 2002 PTD 1274 = (2000) 242 ITR 708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Non-Resident—Occasional shipping business—Representative assessee\n•\nThe assessee filed a return under Section 172 for a ship carrying goods to and from India. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under Section 147. The ITO attempted to treat the assessee as an agent of the non-resident principal without issuing a notice under Section 163, which is required to appoint an agent for a non-resident principal.\n•\nHeld: The reassessment was invalid because the ITO failed to issue the necessary notice under Section 163 to treat the assessee as an agent of the non-resident. The provisions under Section 172 were not applicable to the case as the ITO had not treated the assessee as an agent of the non-resident.\n(b) Income-tax—Reassessment—Limitation\n•\nThe assessment for the year 1974-75 was made under Section 172. After the assessment, the ITO issued a notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 for the same year, but the notice was issued in January 1978, beyond the limitation period.\n•\nHeld: The reassessment notice was time-barred because the notice should have been issued before March 31, 1977, for the assessment year 1974-75. Therefore, the notice issued in January 1978 was invalid.\nKey Insight: For non-resident shipping assessments under Section 172, reassessment can only be done if the correct procedure is followed, including issuing a notice under Section 163 to treat an assessee as an agent of the non-resident principal. Also, reassessment is subject to time limitations under Section 148.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=148,163,172 ", + "Case #": "Tax &se No.309 of 1984 (Reference No.258 of 1984), decision dated: 14-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS. G. SAMBANDAM & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 203 = 2002 SLD 203 = 2002 PTD 1285 = (2000) 242 ITR 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Income—Sales Tax Collected from Customers\n•\nThe assessee was a dealer in explosive detonators and safety fuses. It collected sales tax and also a deposit for potential sales tax and surcharge. While the tax was paid to the government, part of the amount was retained by the assessee.\n•\nThe assessee treated the retained part as a deposit and excluded it from its income. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax ordered the reassessment, including the retained amount in the income, as the amount was part of the sales tax liability.\n•\nHeld: The amounts collected were meant to meet the sales tax liability, and even if the assessee labeled part of it as a deposit, it was still a part of the trading receipt. The amount collected and retained, even under the guise of a deposit, forms part of the assessee's income.\n•\nReferences: Chowrringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973), CIT v. Assam Roller and Flour Mills (1994), CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1988 (References Nos.772 and 773 of 1988), decision dated: 17-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.V. Subramaniam for G.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.B. Sampath Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUTHERN EXPLOSIVES CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 204 = 2002 SLD 204 = 2002 PTD 1291 = (2000) 242 ITR 704", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Reference—Valuation of Stock—Change in Method of Valuation\n•\nThe assessee changed the method of valuing closing stock from market price to cost price, stating that cost was lower than market price. The change was regularly applied in subsequent years, and the Tribunal accepted the change as bona fide.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal’s finding that the change was bona fide and consistently followed was a factual finding. The method change was rightly allowed, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. No question of law arose in this matter.\n•\nReference: CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.51 of 1990, decision dated: 23rd December, 1998", + "Judge Name": "G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner Rameshwar Malik for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHARYANA MINERALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 205 = 2002 SLD 205 = 2002 PTD 1295 = (2000) 242 ITR 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Exemption for Director\n•\nA foreign technician director was entitled to an exemption under Section 10(6)(viia). The amount exempt from tax was not considered for calculating the ceiling under Section 40(c) read with Section 40A(5)(b).\n•\nReference: CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd. (1997).\n(b) Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Surtax\n•\nSurtax paid by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, should not be deducted while computing the income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: Smith Kline & French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996).\n(c) Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Mercantile System of Accounting—Provision for Compensation\n•\nThe assessee entered into contracts with the Electricity Board for supplying insulators. The contract had a clause for compensating the board if there was a delay in the supply. The assessee provided a provision in its books for this compensation. However, no actual demand for compensation had been made, and the assessee had not accepted liability.\n•\nHeld: The provision made by the assessee was not an accrued liability. There was no formal adjudication or claim for the compensation, and the entry in the books did not constitute a deductible liability under the mercantile system of accounting.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Lachhman Das Mathura Das (1980), Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.115 and 116 of 1989 (References Nos.42 and 43 of 1989), decision dated: 16-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSESHASAYEE INDUSTRIES LTD. (and vice versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 206 = 2002 SLD 206 = 2002 PTD 1301 = (2000) 242 ITR 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Capital or Revenue expenditure - General Principles\n•\nExpenditure on interior decoration of newly-constructed premises obtained on lease.\n•\nConclusion: The expenditure on items like wall papers, partition walls, and marble flooring was a revenue expenditure as they do not constitute assets that would remain with the business after vacating the premises.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC).\n(b) Income-tax: Loan to sister concern without interest\n•\nNo interest charged on loan to a sister concern, notional interest cannot be assessed.\n•\nConclusion: There is no provision in the Income-tax Act that mandates the assessment of notional interest on an interest-free loan between related parties, where no interest is charged or collected.\n•\nReference: Highways Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 702 (Gauhati).\n(c) Income-tax: Appeal Limitation\n•\nLimitation for filing appeals to Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nConclusion: Time taken to obtain certified copies of orders cannot be excluded in computing limitation, as per the Explanation to Rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.\n•\nReference: Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, Rule 9.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. l of 1996, decision dated: 10-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "BRIJESH KUMAR, C, J. AND P. G. AGARWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Gogoi and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "B AND A PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 207 = 2002 SLD 207 = 2002 PTD 1308 = (2000) 242 ITR 20 = (2000) 82 TAX 621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Charitable Purpose - Exemption for Donation to Another Charitable Trust\n•\nDonation made by a charitable trust to another charitable trust.\n•\nConclusion: Donations made by a trust to another charitable trust qualify as an application of income for charitable purposes, thus satisfying the exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Thanthi Trust (1982) 137 ITR 735 (Mad.).\n(b) Income-tax: Setting off Surplus Against Deficiency in Following Year\n•\nDeficiency of funds in the following year set off against earlier year's surplus.\n•\nConclusion: Deficiency of funds in a charitable trust can be set off against the earlier year's surplus under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (1987) 164 ITR 439 (Raj.) and CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 ITR 293 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.787 of 1990 (Reference No.337 of 1990), decision dated: 25-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMATRISEVA TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 208 = 2002 SLD 208 = 2002 PTD 1310 = (2001) 83 TAX 68 = (2000) 242 ITR 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Disallowance of Expenditure - Cash Payment Exceeding Limit\n•\nDisallowance of payments made in cash exceeding Rs.2,500 to lorry drivers.\n•\nConclusion: Payments made in cash to lorry drivers, reflected in account books, could not be disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provided they are made in accordance with Rule 6DD.\n•\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 40A(3) and Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 6DD.\n(b) Income-tax: Interest on Borrowed Capital\n•\nInterest paid on borrowed capital not deductible.\n•\nConclusion: Interest on loan advanced to a sister concern was not deductible since there was no evidence to prove that the loan was for business purposes.\n•\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.36.\n(c) Income-tax: Business Expenditure - Travel Expenses\n•\nDisallowance of travel expenses.\n•\nConclusion: The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh findings on whether the foreign travel was for business purposes or not.\n•\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.119 and 121 of 1992 and Matter No.2324 of 1992, decision dated: 17-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "Y.R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "TIRUPATI TRADING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 209 = 2002 SLD 209 = 2002 PTD 1317 = (2001) 83 TAX 199 = (2000) 242 ITR 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Depreciation on Technical Know-How\n•\nDepreciation on the cost of acquisition of technical know-how.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation is allowable on the cost of acquiring technical know-how under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: Scientific Engineering House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.39 of 1994, decision dated: 9-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for Petitioner A.K. Mittal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nESCORTS EMPLOYEES ANCILLARIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 210 = 2002 SLD 210 = 2002 PTD 1319 = (2000) 242 ITR 79 = (2001) 83 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Capital Gains - Sale of Machinery Obtained on Dissolution of Firm\n•\nSale of machinery obtained as capital contribution in a new firm after the dissolution of the old firm.\n•\nConclusion: The cost of machinery for capital gains should be computed based on its value in the books of the new firm, and not the written down value of the old firm.\n•\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 45, 48, 49 & 50.\n(b) Income-tax: Business Expenditure - Advertising Expenditure\n•\nAdvertising expenditure disallowed under section 37(3A).\n•\nConclusion: Advertising expenditure incurred after 1-4-1979 was disallowed under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was incurred after the subsection was inserted.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Bhupender Singh Atwal (1983) 140 ITR 928 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1546 and 1547 of 1984 (References Nos. 1135 and 1136 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Messrs Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KALI AERATED WATER WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 211 = 2002 SLD 211 = 2002 PTD 1324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Royalty as Revenue Expenditure\n•\nRoyalty paid for technical know-how under a five-year agreement.\n•\nConclusion: Royalty paid for technical know-how was treated as revenue expenditure as the payment did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset.\n•\nReference: Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC), CIT v. Aquapump Industries (1996) 218 ITR 427 (Mad.), and Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 342 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.982, 983. 1465 and 1536 of 1986 (References Nos.659, 660, 944 and 1015 of 1986), decision dated: 9-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.P.B. Sampath Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUTHERN PRESSINGS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 212 = 2002 SLD 212 = 2002 PTD 1330 = (2001) 83 TAX 210 = (2000) 242 ITR 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Business Income vs Capital Gains - Sale of Shares\n•\nProfit on sale of shares held as personal investment.\n•\nConclusion: The sale of shares held by the assessee as personal assets was treated as capital gains and not business income, with appropriate relief under section 54F.\n•\nReference: CIT v. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 15 of 1999, decision dated: 6-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "MRS. K. K. USHA AND R. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and George K. George.Nemo", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKETHAN KUMAR A. SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 213 = 2002 SLD 213 = 2002 PTD 1332 = (2000) 242 ITR 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Special Depreciation on Borewell Equipment\n•\nClaim for special depreciation on machinery used for drilling borewells.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee was not entitled to special depreciation for rigs and compressors mounted on a lorry used for drilling borewells.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Popular Borewell Service (1992) 194 ITR 12 (Mad.).\n(b) Income-tax: Investment Allowance on Borewell Equipment\n•\nInvestment allowance for machinery used for borewell business.\n•\nConclusion: Investment allowance was not applicable on the machinery used for digging borewells.\n•\nReference: CIT v. N. C. Budbaraja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) and CIT v. Popular Borewell Service (1992) 194 ITR 12 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.724 of 1989 (Reference No.384 of 1989), decision dated: 28-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. C. Chinnaswami for Haji Mohideen Gisthi and K. Sethuram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSIVAM & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 214 = 2002 SLD 214 = 2002 PTD 1336 = (2001) 83 TAX 212 = (2000) 242 ITR 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Capital or Revenue expenditure - Donation to Cricket Club\n•\nDonation to Gujarat Cricket Club treated as revenue expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the contribution of Rs.2,50,000 by the assessee to the Gujarat Cricket Club could not be treated as capital expenditure. The donation was made with the intention of promoting commercial expediency by providing benefits to the company's staff. The claim for 100% deduction under section 80G was upheld by the Tribunal, as there was no evidence of a proprietary right on the seats reserved for the directors and their families. The donation was not a capital expenditure because it did not create a lasting capital asset.\n•\nReference: Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. (1965) 58 ITR 241 (PC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.216 of 1999, decision dated: 24-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "B. C. PATEL AND K. M. MEHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Nayak with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. R.K. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nEMTICI ENGINEERING LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 215 = 2002 SLD 215 = 2002 PTD 1339 = (2000) 242 ITR 45 = (2000) 82 TAX 620", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Revision - Commissioner’s Scope of Powers - Penalty\n•\nPowers of the Commissioner under Section 263 to direct penalty proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal correctly held that the Commissioner could not direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) as a part of revision proceedings under section 263. Penalty proceedings are independent and not linked to assessment proceedings. The Commissioner's action was found to be beyond his scope of power in directing such penalties.\n•\nReference: CIT (Addl.) v. J.K. D'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 143 of 1978, decision dated: 20-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sanjiv Khanna for the Commissioner. S.K. Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNIHAL CHAND REKYAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 216 = 2002 SLD 216 = 2002 PTD 1341 = (2000) 242 ITR 29 = (2001) 83 TAX 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Penalty - Concealment of Income and Revised Return\n•\nPenalty for concealment of income when revised return is filed after books of account are impounded.\n•\nConclusion: The revised return filed by the assessee after the impounding of books of accounts was deemed to be non-voluntary, as it was filed only after the Department had initiated inquiries. The filing of the revised return was seen as an attempt to correct errors after the Department’s scrutiny, not a bona fide correction by the assessee. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was warranted for concealment of income, as the assessee's actions indicated that the initial return was inaccurate.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v. Krishna & Co. (1979) 120 ITR 144 (Mad.), and CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1983) 165 ITR 14 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 137 of 1996, decision dated: 1st November, 1999", + "Judge Name": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nA. SREENIVASA PAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 217 = 2002 SLD 217 = 2002 PTD 1351 = (2000) 242 ITR 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Business Expenditure - Traveling Expenses and Commission\n•\n(a) Traveling Expenses of Directors or Managing Directors\no\nCeiling on traveling expenses for employees and any other person. \no\nConclusion: Rule 6D(2) of the Income-tax Rules applies a ceiling on traveling expenses, which extends to any other person, including directors or managing directors. Hence, their traveling expenses can be disallowed if they exceed the prescribed limit.\no\nReference: CIT v. Autofin Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 741 (AP).\n•\n(b) Commission Paid to Employees\no\nCommission paid to employees for canvassing orders.\no\nConclusion: Commission paid to employees for canvassing orders on behalf of the employer is allowed as a business expense. However, the allowance depends on the facts of each assessment year. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of part of the commission after reviewing the facts for the specific assessment year.\no\nReference: CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 420 (Delhi) and CIT v. K.P.V. Shaik Muhammad Rowther & Co. (1999) 240 ITR 927 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 786 of 1989 (Reference No. 402 of 1989) decided on 23rd December, 1997", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN ANAL P THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for Messrs Subbaraya Iyer, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nK.P.V. SHAIK MOHAMED ROWTHER & COL (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 218 = 2002 SLD 218 = 2002 PTD 1366 = (2000) 242 ITR 734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Reference and Interest Tax\n•\n(a) Reference of Questions Decided by Multiple High Courts\no\nReference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act.\no\nConclusion: Since the question had been decided by three different High Courts, and none of the decisions had been appealed to the Supreme Court, the reference could not be made. The law had already been declared, and no further reference was necessary.\no\nReference: CIT v. State Bank of Indore (1988) 172 ITR 24 (MP), CIT v. Canara Bank (1989) 175 ITR 60 (Kar.) and CIT v. Federal Bank Ltd. (1991) 189 ITR 117 (Ken.).\n•\n(b) Interest Tax - Net Interest Taxable\no\nIntegrated transactions involving interest from banks.\no\nConclusion: The Tribunal rightly held that only net interest from integrated transactions involving borrowing from Agricultural Development and Refinance Corporation (ADFC) and Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) was taxable. No question of law arose as the transaction was treated as integrated, and net interest was taxable.\no\nReference: CIT v. Canara Bank (1989) 175 ITR 601 (Kar.), CIT v. Federal Bank Ltd. (1991) 189 ITR 117 (Ken.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C.P. No.649 of 1992, decision dated: 15-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER, OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKARUR VYSYA BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 219 = 2002 SLD 219 = 2002 PTD 1369 = (2000) 242 ITR 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Capital or Revenue Expenditure - Acquisition of Technical Know-How\n•\nExpenditure on technical know-how for better production.\n•\nConclusion: Since the payment for acquiring technical know-how did not result in acquiring a capital asset, the expenditure was correctly classified as revenue expenditure. The payment was wholly for the purpose of the business, and therefore, it was allowed as a deduction.\n•\nReference: N/A (Tribunal affirmed the order of Commissioner Appeals).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1638 of 1986 (Reference No. 1108 of 1986), decision dated: 24-03-1998", + "Judge Name": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for Messrs Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUTH INDIA EXPORTS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 220 = 2002 SLD 220 = 2002 PTD 1371 = (2000) 242 ITR 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Salary Perquisite - Interest Subsidy on Housing Loans\n•\nInterest subsidy on housing loans provided by the employer.\n•\nConclusion: The interest subsidy provided by the employer (BHEL) to its employees on house building loans from L.I.C./H.D.F.C. is taxable as a perquisite under section 17(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The employer’s circular confirming this treatment is valid, and tax must be recovered on such subsidies.\n•\nReference: N/A (Employer's Circular dated February 12, 1990).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3618 of 1990, decision dated: 21st August, 1998", + "Judge Name": "P. SATHASIVAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Reeta Chandrasekar for Messrs Aiyar and Dolia for Petitioners. S. V. Subramaniams Nos.1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "P. BHAVANI SHANKAR and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 221 = 2002 SLD 221 = 2002 PTD 1375 = (2000) 242 ITR 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Method of Accounting - Mixed System\n•\nMixed system of accounting for consignment sales.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s consistent method of accounting for consignment sales based on the receipt of sale pattials from consignees. The Tribunal allowed a 50% margin to account for the delay in the receipt of pattials, considering it a reasonable margin for the time gap. The finding was a factual determination, and no question of law arose for consideration.\n•\nReference: N/A (Tribunal’s factual determination).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.4 and 5 of 1997, decision dated: 25-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Memon and George K. George for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "WITTY TRADING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 222 = 2002 SLD 222 = 2002 PTD 1387 = (2000) 242 ITR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Appeal to High Court - Substantial Question of Law\n•\nAppeal to High Court after a concluded decision.\n•\nConclusion: If a question has already been conclusively decided by the High Court, the pendency of an appeal in the Supreme Court does not render the High Court's decision ineffective. An appeal to the High Court on the same question is not maintainable.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 285 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Appeal No.465 of 1999, decision dated: 1st September, 1999", + "Judge Name": "R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nVELLORE COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 223 = 2002 SLD 223 = 2002 PTD 1388 = (2000) 242 ITR 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Special Deduction - Contribution to Public Provident Fund\n•\nCondition for claiming deduction under Section 80C.\n•\nConclusion: The payment for deductions under Section 80C must come from income chargeable to tax. The deduction is only allowed if the payment is made from the assessee's income subject to tax.\n•\nReference: Inder Singh Gill (S.) v. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 284 (Bom.) and CIT v. Dr. Usharani Panda (1995) 212 ITR 119 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.89 of 1997, decision dated: 28-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nABRAHAM GEORGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 224 = 2002 SLD 224 = 2002 PTD 1390 = (2000) 242 ITR 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Re-assessment - Limitation\n•\nRe-assessment after the expiration of four years.\n•\nConclusion: In cases where there is no failure to file a return or disclose material facts, the limitation for re-assessment is four years. The re-assessment in the instant case, based on the refund of excise duty not being included in the original assessment, was time-barred because there was no failure to disclose material facts.\n•\nReference: Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos. 3357, 7143 and 7279 to 7281 of 1993, decision dated: 9-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "RAJESH BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. B.B. Naik and M.R. Bhatt", + "Party Name:": "ARVIND MILLS LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 225 = 2002 SLD 225 = 2002 PTD 1393 = (2000) 242 ITR 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Charitable Purposes – Application of Income by a Charitable Trust\nDetailed Conclusion: Under Section 11 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, repayment of debt incurred by a charitable trust for the purpose of constructing a commercial building, intended to augment the trust's income for its charitable objectives, constitutes an application of income for charitable purposes. The Tribunal held that this repayment is not merely a financial obligation but a purposeful use of the trust's funds aligned with its charitable intent. This ensures that funds borrowed and used to create income-generating assets are viewed within the broader framework of the trust’s charitable goals, maintaining compliance with statutory provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Janmabhumi Press Trust (2000) 242 ITR 457 (Kar.), where the principle of utilizing funds for income augmentation was upheld.\n•\nCIT v. St. George Forana Church (1988) 170 ITR 62 (Ker.) and CIT v. Kannika Prameswazi Devasthanam and Charities (1982) 133 ITR 779 (Mad.), which reinforced the principle of applying funds for charitable purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 14 of 1996, decision dated: 7-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.K. SINGHAL AND T.N. VADLINAYAGAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "E.R. Indrakumar for the Commissioner. S. Ganesh Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJANMABHOOMI PRESS TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 226 = 2002 SLD 226 = 2002 PTD 1394 = (2001) 83 TAX 66 = (2000) 242 ITR 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Capital Gains – Ownership and Long-term Capital Gains for Partners in Firms\nDetailed Conclusion: In cases where a firm owns property for more than 60 months and subsequently allots it to a partner, the property retains its status as a long-term capital asset. Any gains arising from its sale by the partner are categorized as long-term capital gains under Sections 2 and 45 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. This interpretation respects the continuity of ownership between the firm and its partners, recognizing the extended holding period as integral to classification.\nCitations: CIT v. Kamala Devi (1997) 227 ITR 701 (Mad.), which supported the treatment of the holding period at the firm level for long-term classification.\n(b) Income Tax – Powers of the Tribunal – Granting Relief in the Absence of a Specific Appeal\nDetailed Conclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the jurisdiction to consider facts presented before it to grant relief, even when there is no explicit appeal or cross-appeal by the assessee. This ensures justice and equitable application of the law, especially when the relief was initially sought at the Assessing Officer's stage.\nCitations: As above.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1110 of 1988 Reference No. 872 of 1988 decided on 23rd September, 1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 227 = 2002 SLD 227 = 2002 PTD 1396 = (2000) 242 ITR 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Reassessment and Audit Reports as Basis for Information\nDetailed Conclusion: Under Section 147(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, reassessment can be initiated if there is valid information indicating escaped income. However, the interpretation of law by an audit party cannot qualify as information for reassessment purposes. If an audit report merely highlights legal provisions, it may trigger reassessment. In this case, reassessment based on the audit party's interpretation of a Supreme Court decision (Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 796) was invalid, as the audit report ventured beyond its scope by interpreting law. The reassessment was quashed as being without jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC), which clarified the distinction between factual information and legal interpretation.\n•\nMalhotra (R.K.) ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1836 to, 1839 of 1986 (References Nos. 1267 to 1270 of 1986), decision dated: 27-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nASSEMBLY ROOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 228 = 2002 SLD 228 = 2002 PTD 1400 = (2000) 242 ITR 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Capital Gains – Bifurcation of Consolidated Sale Price for Separate Assets\nDetailed Conclusion: The sale of land and building as a single transaction does not negate the separability of these assets for tax purposes. Gains from the land, held for over three years, qualify as long-term capital gains, whereas the building, constructed and sold within a shorter time, is subject to short-term capital gains taxation under Section 45. This distinction ensures accurate tax treatment based on asset holding periods.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj.), which upheld the principle of separate treatment of land and building.\n•\nCIT v. Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao (1999) 236 ITR 51 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 111 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. K. SINGHAL AND T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "E.R. Iridra Kumar for the Commissioner. G. Sarangan for S. Parthasarathy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nC. R. SUBRAMANIAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 229 = 2002 SLD 229 = 2002 PTD 1403 = (2000) 242 ITR 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Business Expenditure and Deductions for Miscellaneous Finance Companies\nDetailed Conclusion: Sections 40A(8) and 58(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, which disallow certain interest payments, are inapplicable to miscellaneous finance companies. A prior ruling by the CIT confirmed this exemption, and subsequent years’ rulings extended the same benefit retrospectively. Deductions for interest payments were allowed, reinforcing the consistency of treatment for the assessee.\n(b) Income Tax – Rectification and Revision Powers under Section 154 and 264\nDetailed Conclusion: The Income Tax Officer’s (ITO) rejection of rectification petitions under Section 154 was incorrect. The assessee’s status as a miscellaneous financial company was not adequately considered. The CIT’s dismissal of the revision petition under Section 264 was also held to be illegal. The rulings recognized the applicability of Sections 40A(8) and 58(2) to exclude the assessee, necessitating rectifications in prior assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 8526 to 8530 of 1989, decision dated: 3rd July, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y. VENKATACHALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Petitioners. S. V Subramaniam for C. V. Rajans", + "Party Name:": "EMCETE & SONS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 230 = 2002 SLD 230 = 2002 PTD 1411 = (2001) 83 TAX 232 = (2000) 242 ITR 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Business Transactions vs. Investment\nDetailed Conclusion: Purchase and sale of land by a firm not in the real estate business were classified as investment activity. The absence of intent to trade in the property, evidenced by the lack of pre-arranged sale plans and the geographical disconnection of the property from the firm’s primary operations, led to the characterization of profits as capital gains rather than business income. This interpretation aligns with the principle that not all asset transactions are adventures in trade.\nCitations: G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 702 of 1984 (Reference No. 617 of 1984), decision dated: 9-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSAIRAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 231 = 2002 SLD 231 = 2002 PTD 1415 = (2000) 242 ITR 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Provident Fund Contributions – Timing of Deductions\nDetailed Conclusion: Contributions to provident funds are deductible only if paid within the statutory “due date” as defined in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Indian Income Tax Act. Payments made after this period are disallowed, even if subsequently paid. This ruling emphasizes the legislative intent to enforce timely compliance and avoid indefinite postponement of fund contributions, underscoring the mandatory nature of the proviso to Section 43B.\nCitations:\n•\nLocal Government Board v. South Stoneham Union (1909) AC 57 (HL).\n•\nMadras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality (1944) AIR 1944 PC 71.\n•\nMullins v. Treasurer of the Country of Surrey (1880) 5 QBD 170.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 17 of 1996, decision dated: 4-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAURISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for the Commissioner. P.R. Raman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 232 = 2002 SLD 232 = 2002 PTD 1421 = (2000) 242 ITR 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Accrual of Income – Interest on Hire Purchase\nDetailed Conclusion: The interest on hire purchase of machinery, loans, and penal interest is considered as having accrued during the relevant previous year, even if the payment dates fell after March 31 of that year. The Tribunal held that income accrues as soon as it is legally due, regardless of when payment is made. This principle reinforces the idea that income recognition depends on the legal right to receive it within the accounting period, ensuring accurate financial reporting.\nCitations:\n•\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC)\n•\nKerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (SC)\n(b) Income Tax – Business Expenditure – Contingent Liabilities\nDetailed Conclusion: Estimated interest on the cost of land taken by the assessee from the government, which was not paid during the relevant year and remained contingent, cannot be treated as deductible expenditure. For an item to qualify as a deductible business expense, the liability must be ascertained and payable within the same financial year. The Tribunal emphasized that contingent liabilities or mere estimations do not meet the deductibility criteria under Section 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act.\nCitations: Same as above.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1102 of 1983 (Reference No. 560 of 1983), decision dated: 17-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.B. Sampath Kumar for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 233 = 2002 SLD 233 = 2002 PTD 1424 = (2000) 242 ITR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure – Interest on Borrowed Capital\nDetailed Conclusion: Interest on borrowed funds used for modernizing existing business infrastructure qualifies as revenue expenditure, provided the modernization enhances productivity but does not result in the creation of a new asset or business. The Tribunal's finding that the funds were used for existing plants was deemed factual and unchallenged, leading to the dismissal of the reference application. This case reiterates the importance of the purpose of borrowing in determining whether the interest expense is revenue or capital in nature.\nCitations:\n•\nChallapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3) (1993) 200 ITR 341 (Delhi)\n•\nIndia Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.24 of 1998, decision dated: 13-01-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARUN KUMAR AND D.K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. Harihar Lal with Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, Ms. Mohana Madanlal, Ms. Pallavi Chaudhry for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nDALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 234 = 2002 SLD 234 = 2002 PTD 1428 = (2000) 242 ITR 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Benami Transactions – Ownership of Property\nDetailed Conclusion: The Revenue bears the burden of proving the benami nature of a property transaction. Mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is insufficient. Factors such as the source of funds, custody of title deeds, and behavior of the parties must be analyzed comprehensively. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate its claim, and income from the property could not be assessed in the hands of the alleged benamidar.\nCitations:\n•\nKarishananand Agnighotri v. State of M.P. (1977) AIR 1977 SC 796\n•\nJaydayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra (1974) AIR 1974 SC 171\n(b) Income Tax – General Principles on Benami Transactions\nDetailed Conclusion: Courts must rely on evidence and established facts, not mere suspicion, to determine the benami nature of a transaction. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and additions made to the assessee’s income for property-related improvements and rental income were deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 180 to 192 of 1997, decision dated: 8-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nK. MAHIM UDMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 235 = 2002 SLD 235 = 2002 PTD 1432 = (2000) 242 ITR 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Reassessment Based on Audit Party's Opinion\nDetailed Conclusion: An audit party's legal interpretation does not constitute information for reassessment purposes under Section 147(b). In this case, the reassessment was based solely on the audit's remarks about excessive commission paid to the Managing Director, without any independent assessment by the officer. The reassessment was invalidated, reinforcing that reassessments require substantive and independent evidence of income escapement.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 139 of 1984, (Reference 88 of 1984), decision dated: 10-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMETTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 236 = 2002 SLD 236 = 2002 PTD 1434 = (2000) 242 ITR 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Assessment and Penalty – Proper Service of Notice\nDetailed Conclusion: When an assessee claims that they were not served notice properly, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove otherwise. The Tribunal observed that insufficient evidence of proper service invalidates penalty proceedings. The impugned order was ambiguous, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. This case highlights the procedural necessity of serving notices correctly to uphold penalty orders.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 4220 and 4221 and Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 6203 of 1989, decision dated: 15-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. SATHASIVAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Hema for K. Ramgopal for Petitioners. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "VENKATA NAICKEN TRUST and another\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 237 = 2002 SLD 237 = 2002 PTD 1438 = (2000) 242 ITR 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Business Expenditure – Director’s Benefits\nDetailed Conclusion: Expenses such as medical reimbursements provided to directors must be included when calculating the ceiling under Section 40(c). These expenses, considered amenities or benefits, are subject to prescribed limits for deductibility, ensuring fairness in taxation.\nCitations: Rane (Madras) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 583 (Mad.)\n(b) Income Tax – Export Markets Development Allowance\nDetailed Conclusion: Weighted deductions under Section 35B are limited to expenditures directly related to export market development. Items like packing credit interest and inspection agency fees paid within India do not qualify. The Tribunal dissented from the broader interpretation given in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 558 (Cal.), underscoring a stricter adherence to the statutory framework.\nCitations:\n•\nLucas TVS Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 382 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1995 of 1984 (Reference No. 1460 of 1984), decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Messrs Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LUCAS TVS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 238 = 2002 SLD 238 = 2002 PTD 1443 = (2002) 86 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Exemption Certificates for Imported Books\nDetailed Conclusion: The complainant's application for an exemption certificate under S.R.O. No. 593(I)/91 was rejected due to the absence of a tax record, raising questions about the nature of the imports. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Revenue Division investigate whether the books were imported for personal study or commercial purposes. If no tax liability was determined, the complainant should receive the exemption certificate and a refund. This case emphasizes procedural fairness and verification in granting tax exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(1),11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.5-L of 2002, decision dated: 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farooq Khan for the Complainant Ghulam Rasool Malik", + "Party Name:": "MUJAHID AKBAR BOZDAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 239 = 2002 SLD 239 = 2002 PTD 1448 = (2002) 86 TAX 1 = (2003) 87 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Reference on Factual Controversies\nDetailed Conclusion: Questions of fact, such as the number of power looms operated by the assessee, must be raised before the Tribunal to be entertained by the High Court. Since the questions were not framed or ruled upon by the Tribunal, the High Court refused to entertain them. This case reinforces the principle that factual disputes must be resolved at the Tribunal level before proceeding to higher courts.\nIncome Tax – Arbitrary Assessment and Validity\nDetailed Conclusion: The Assessing Officer estimated net income arbitrarily based on past history and progressive business trends, even though there was no documented past history or inquiry to substantiate these assumptions. The Federal Tax Ombudsman deemed the assessment invalid due to its excessive and baseless nature. An ex parte assessment under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, must be passed judiciously, ensuring fairness and adequate evidence. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended recalling the assessment under Section 138 of the Ordinance and granting due relief to the taxpayer.\nCitations: None explicitly mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 113 of 1998, heard on 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs SH. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 240 = 2002 SLD 240 = 2002 PTD 1466 = (2002) 86 TAX 186 = (2002) 85 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 62, 138 & 63---Assessment---Arbitiary assessment--Net income was estimated on the basis of past history of the case and normal progressive increase to the business---Validity---Neither there was any past history nor anything in the assessment order to show that any enquiry was conducted to find out expansion in the quantum of business--Income assessed thus had no basis---Order passed by the Assessing Officer, was arbitrary and estimate of income was highly excessive--­Assessment order was to be passed judiciously even where it was passed ex parte under S. 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Commissioner of Income Tax should recall the order of Assessing Officer by invoking his jurisdiction under S.138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and allow the due relief.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,62,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint tvo.1516 of 2001. decided on 4-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSITCE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Dealing Officer. Muhammad Shahid Shafique, (Director Complainant, in person Haji Muhammad, I.A.C and Mazhar Iqbal, Special Officer", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD LATIF\nvs\nREVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 241 = 2002 SLD 241 = 2002 PTD 1484 = (2003) 87 TAX 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment and Imposition of Penalty\nDetailed Conclusion: The Revenue reopened the case under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, alleging that the assessee falsely declared income from poultry farming. However, the High Court held that questions related to the nature of income or business are factual and not legal controversies. Since these issues were neither raised nor ruled upon by the Tribunal, the High Court refused to entertain the reference. This case reinforces that reopening assessments or imposing penalties must be based on clear legal grounds and substantial evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nAl-Imtiaz Foundation (Regd.) v. I.T.O., Abbottabad 1992 PTD 1292\n•\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. 1997 SCMR 1256", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,136 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. l to 3 of 1995, heard on 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Mian Malik Muhammad Nawazs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALNOOR POULTRY & VEGETABLE FARM MUTTON MARKET, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD BENCH and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 242 = 2002 SLD 242 = 2002 PTD 1491 = (2003) 87 TAX 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Income from House Property and Self-requisition\nDetailed Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled that rent received from a self-requisitioned property leased out to the assessee’s employer was not taxable as income from house property. However, the High Court found this interpretation incorrect, holding that Section 19(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, applied to such cases, and the rent should be treated as taxable income. The reference was answered in the negative, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions in interpreting taxable income.\nCitations: 1989 PTD (Trib.) 917", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.6 of 1999, heard on 29-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nABRAR ALI FAZLI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 243 = 2002 SLD 243 = 2002 PTD 1496 = (2003) 87 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Disallowance Based on Stock Phrases and Revised Returns\nDetailed Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s revised return, citing partial unverifiability and personal use of assets without substantiating these claims. The High Court held that disallowance cannot rely on vague phrases without evidence. As the assessee failed to appeal the Appellate Authority's order, the question could not be treated as arising naturally from the Tribunal’s decision. This case underscores the need for specific evidence in disallowing deductions and the importance of procedural compliance by taxpayers.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.46 of 1996, heard on 30-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K. Dogar Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION through Warranex J. Carey, Country Manager\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (1&C), RANGEII, COMPANIES, ZONE1, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 244 = 2002 SLD 244 = 2002 PTD 1500 = (2002) 85 TAX 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Compensation for Delayed Refunds\nDetailed Conclusion: Taxpayers can claim compensation for undue delays in refunds caused by governmental maladministration under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a 15% annual compensation for delayed refunds, highlighting the principle that taxpayers should not bear financial losses due to administrative inefficiencies.\nCitations: 1993 PTD 1047; 1993 SCMR 1406\n(b) Time-barred Complaints and Ombudsman’s Discretion\nDetailed Conclusion: Even if complaints are time-barred, the Federal Tax Ombudsman may exercise discretion to allow investigation in cases involving significant justice issues. The taxpayer’s claim for refunds due to Supreme Court decisions was upheld, affirming that refunds and compensation can be granted under Section 102(2)(c) in cases of administrative delays or ambiguous laws.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,129,136,137,138 & 166(2)(L) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10(2)(3),9,14(6),22(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1320-K of 2002, decision dated: 18-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Masood Arif (of PSL) and Shahid Pervez Jami for the Complainant. S. Riaz-ud-Din, IAC and M. Saleem, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 245 = 2002 SLD 245 = 2002 PTCL 173 = 2002 PTD 1510 = (2002) 85 TAX 503 = (2003) 87 TAX 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Exemption for Wealth Tax Paid\nDetailed Conclusion: Wealth tax paid by assessees is deductible under Clause 129, Part I, Second Schedule, of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The addition of wealth tax back into assessments was deemed without lawful authority. This reinforces the statutory entitlement to deductions for wealth tax payments.\nCitations: Pak. Kuwait Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore v. C.I.T., Lahore CTR 80 of 1990\n(b) Interpretation of Law by Revenue Authorities\nDetailed Conclusion: Administrative authorities cannot interpret laws beyond their statutory mandate. Interpretation should be left to Appellate Authorities or superior courts, ensuring that tax assessments align with legal principles.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,62,66A,SecondSched.,cl.(129),PartI,2(3)(13),3,4,5 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.6056 and 6057 of 1996, heard on 22-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ziaullah Kayani for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "KAMRAN KHAN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 246 = 2002 SLD 246 = 2002 PTD 1523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Ex Parte Decisions and Merits of the Case\nDetailed Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority must examine the merits of a case, even in ex parte decisions. This ensures justice by addressing substantive issues raised by the assessee.\n(b) Income Tax – Jurisdictional Limitations\nDetailed Conclusion: Orders issued by Assessing Officers beyond their jurisdiction, such as those involving companies with capital below the prescribed threshold, are void. The Tribunal correctly canceled such orders, emphasizing adherence to jurisdictional boundaries.\nCitations: 2001 PTD (Trib.) 1480", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,52,86,50(4),80C,80CC,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4256/LB and 4257/LB of 2001, decision dated: 25-01-2002, hearing DATE : 4-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 247 = 2002 SLD 247 = 2002 PTD 1531", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Exemption Based on Past History\nDetailed Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the refusal of exemptions based on past history, affirming the Appellate Authority's findings that income earned through lease by an industrial undertaking was not eligible for exemption.\n(b) Disallowance of Machinery Repairs\nDetailed Conclusion: Expenses for machinery repairs not covered under lease agreements are disallowable. This ensures that deductions are strictly aligned with contractual obligations and substantiated claims.\n(c) Lease Income Additions\nDetailed Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions to declared lease income, recognizing that the declared income matched past records and required no further enhancement.\nCitations: 1991 PTD 488", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3355/LB and 3738/LB of 2000, decision dated: 21st February, 2002, hearing DATE : 29-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza M. Waheed Baig, A.R. (in I.T.A. No. 3355/LB of 2000). Iram Adrian, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 3355/LB of 2000). Iram Adrian, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 3738/LB of 2000). Mirza M. Waheed Baig, A.R. (in I.T.A. No. 3738/LB of 2000)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 248 = 2002 SLD 248 = 2002 PTD 1535 = (2003) 87 TAX 299 = 2003 PTCL 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Disallowance of Expenditure Without Evidence\nDetailed Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction to disallow 10% of claimed shop renovation expenses was unsupported by evidence. Disallowances must be grounded in factual inaccuracies, and arbitrary reductions are unjustified.\n(b) Expenditure on Foreign Training\nDetailed Conclusion: Expenditures disallowed under incorrect application of the maxim generalibus specialia derogant were reinstated. The principle applies only when laws govern similar subject matter, which was not the case here.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax East Pakistan, Dacca v. Messrs The Engineers Ltd., Dacca PLD 1967 SC 524", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(xviii),136 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),(xii),(xv),(xvi) ", + "Case #": "C.T.Rs. Nos. 79, 80, 82 and 101 of 1998, heard on 31st January, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood Mirza. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BATA PAKISTAN. LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 249 = 2002 SLD 249 = 2002 PTD 1539 = (2003) 87 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Additional Tax for Non-Payment of Advance Tax\nDetailed Conclusion: A complaint against an additional tax order under Section 87 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was dismissed due to procedural adherence. The complainant argued that the alleged default under Section 53 was not mentioned in the assessment order. However, the Federal Tax Ombudsman noted that the complainant did not deny the default under Section 53, rendering the refund-related plea irrelevant. As a result, no intervention was warranted, and the order stood.\n(b) Income Tax – Adjustment of Refunds and Additional Tax\nDetailed Conclusion: Additional tax was imposed under Section 89 for delayed payment in the assessment year 1990-91. However, refunds for earlier years (1988-89 and 1987-88) were available before the default period. The Ombudsman recommended rectifying the order under Section 156, adjusting the refunds against the demand to determine additional tax liability correctly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=87,89,104,135 & 156,53 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 27 of 2002, decision dated: 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, A.R., for the Complainant. Amjad Khattak, IAC Range-III, Companies Zone, Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OIL TRADE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 250 = 2002 SLD 250 = 2002 PTD 1560 = (2003) 87 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment under Self-Assessment Scheme\nDetailed Conclusion: The Revenue challenged an assessment under the Self-Assessment Scheme, despite the taxpayer fulfilling the conditions of immunity. The Tribunal favored the taxpayer, criticizing the Revenue for attempting to override its own promise. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that reopening such cases without justified grounds undermines the credibility of fiscal schemes.\n(b) Income Tax – Immunity Clauses in Fiscal Statutes\nDetailed Conclusion: Immunity clauses reflect the Revenue's inability to fully track tax leakage and provide concessions to encourage compliance. The Revenue must honor such clauses once the taxpayer meets all stipulated requirements. Attempts to circumvent these clauses harm the integrity of tax administration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61.65 & 136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A- No. 188 of 1998, derided on 18-02-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs NOOR TRADING COMPANY, PATTOKI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 251 = 2002 SLD 251 = 2002 PTD 1563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Compensation for Delayed Refunds\nDetailed Conclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that compensation under Section 102 applies to delayed refunds that are not adjusted against demands under Section 80D. In this case, the complainant failed to appeal the original adjustment order, and further compensation could not be recommended.\nCitations: Messrs Kohinoor Raiwind Mills' case 2000 PTD 3351", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,156,80D ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 75 of 2002, decision dated: 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Ashfaq, Chief Executive with Hamid Masood, F.C.A., Authorized Representative for the Complainant Mian Munawar Ghafoor, IAC, Panel 04, Special Zone, Lahore", + "Party Name:": "Complaint No. 75 of 2002, decided on 12th March, 2002\nMessrs MUSARAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 252 = 2002 SLD 252 = 2002 PTD 1572 = (2002) 86 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Adjustment of Refunds in Association of Persons (AOP)\nDetailed Conclusion: Refunds for an AOP can be adjusted against a member’s tax liability, but only to the extent of the member’s share in the AOP's income. The Ombudsman recommended issuing the refund to the complainant in compliance with Section 77(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=77,77(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 103 of 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saeed Rana for the Complainant Manzoor Ahmad, D.C.I.T., Circle 02, Sargodha", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MALIK BROS. KHAD DEALERS, MIANWALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 253 = 2002 SLD 253 = 2002 PTD 1580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Informer Rewards and Pending Cases\nDetailed Conclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Revenue Department to assign pending cases from the informer’s list to an honest officer. Rewards should be finalized and paid for cases resolved based on the informer’s input.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991= ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.60 of 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Raja MUKHTAR AHMAD KIANI, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 254 = 2002 SLD 254 = 2002 PTD 1581 = (2002) 85 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Finance Act – Corporate Assets Tax on Work in Progress\nDetailed Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess Corporate Assets Tax on work in progress after obtaining necessary asset details from the taxpayer.\nCitations: D.C.I.T. v. Messrs Fatima Enterprises, Multan I.T.A.T. No. 897/LB of 1998", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991=12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 987/LB, 988/LB of 1994; 2988/LB, 2989/LB, 3643/LB, 3644/LB of 1995 and 3286 of 1996, decision dated: 4-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDIMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Yazdani. Anwar, Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 255 = 2002 SLD 255 = 2002 PTD 1583 = (2002) 85 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Assessment Without Confrontation on Defects in Books\nDetailed Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority erred by setting aside, rather than annulling, an assessment where the Assessing Officer failed to confront the taxpayer on defects in their books. The Tribunal vacated the order as it violated Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3892; 1985 PTD (Trib.) 178", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62(1),129,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4403/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st December, 2001, hearing DATE : 11-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER END AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rasheed Gill, I.T.P. far Appellant. Mehboob Alam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 256 = 2002 SLD 256 = 2002 PTD 1591 = (2003) 87 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Exemptions for Directors Serving Honorarily\nDetailed Conclusion: A director serving multiple companies honorarily, while receiving salary and allowances from only one, was entitled to claim exemptions under the Income Tax Rules. The High Court upheld this position.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax Central Zone `A' v. S. Mazhar Hussain 1988 PTD 563\n(b) Income Tax – Reference to High Court on Factual Questions\nDetailed Conclusion: Questions that are primarily arguments, not legal controversies, are not entertained by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,62,66A,136(1),136 Income Tax Rules, 1982=3(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 118 of 1997, heard on 6-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax ASSESSMENT OF C.I.T. & WEALTH TAX COYS ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMAZHAR HAKEEM COREJA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 257 = 2002 SLD 257 = 2002 PTD 1593 = (2002) 86 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Rectification and Misrepresentation by Revenue\nDetailed Conclusion: The taxpayer suffered due to the Revenue's misrepresentation and withholding of facts in a rectification application. The Ombudsman recommended filing a miscellaneous application to rectify errors and directed an inquiry into the inaction of the concerned officials to ensure accountability.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(b),156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1174 of 2001, decision dated: 29-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARSHI CARPETS through Shahid Abbas, C/o Nazir Law Associates, Lahore\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE, DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 258 = 2002 SLD 258 = 2002 PTD 1599 = (2002) 85 TAX 522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Deduction of Tax on Sales Tax and Validity of Agreements\nDetailed Conclusion: Withholding tax applies even if the payment includes sales tax. Contracts attempting to exclude statutory provisions are void. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint as no mal-administration by the Revenue was established.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Sales Tax Act, 1990=3A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1349 of 2001, decision dated: 26-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khurshid A. Sheikh for the Complainant. Pervaiz Akhtar, Secretary (WHT), C.B.R.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CIROS ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 259 = 2002 SLD 259 = 2002 PTD 1610 = (2002) 85 TAX 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Deemed Income from Unappropriated Profits\nDetailed Conclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman clarified that Section 12(9A) does not apply to unappropriated profits if the company incurred losses in the relevant year. Directions were issued to drop proceedings against the complainant.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(9A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1484 of 2001, decision dated: 26-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant Khawaja Sardar Ali, DCIT, Circle 2, Company Zone, Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LTD., GADOON AMAZAI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 260 = 2002 SLD 260 = 2002 PTD 1612 = (2002) 85 TAX 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance – Filing of Frivolous Complaints\nDetailed Conclusion:\nA complaint filed by an Assessing Officer regarding the transfer of records from Lahore to Quetta was deemed frivolous. The complainant alleged malafide intentions behind the transfer, aiming to hinder the discovery of concealed income linked to a bank account. However, the Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the complaint served personal motives to facilitate a cash reward claim. This misuse of the complaint mechanism caused a significant waste of resources, including the time and energy of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat and Income Tax Department, as well as unnecessary travel expenses for departmental representatives.\nTo deter misuse, the Ombudsman invoked Section 14(4) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), imposing a compensation of Rs. 10,000 on the complainant. The amount was to be deducted from any cash reward due to the complainant, alongside reimbursement of travel expenses incurred for the Deputy Commissioner’s travel from Quetta to Lahore. This case underscores the Ombudsman’s authority to penalize frivolous complaints and protect administrative resources from misuse.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=14 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1508-L of 2001, decision dated: 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali for the Complainant. Parshotam Das, DCIT and Ahmad Ali, DCIT, Zone-B, Lahore", + "Party Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 261 = 2002 SLD 261 = 2002 PTD 1631 = (2000) 242 ITR 263 = (2001) 83 TAX 235 = (1999) 80 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Right of Appeal and Retrospective Application of Law\nDetailed Conclusion:\nA dispute arose regarding the admissibility of an appeal after a change in law effective April 1, 1989. Before the amendment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could condone non-payment of admitted tax. Post-amendment, this power was revoked. The case pertained to the assessment year 1986-87, with assessment completed on March 30, 1989, and the appeal filed on April 26, 1989.\nThe Tribunal and High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the right to appeal is substantive and linked to the legal framework at the time of initiation of proceedings, not subsequent amendments. The amendment did not have retrospective effect, and the Commissioner validly admitted the appeal, condoning the tax payment delay. This decision emphasizes the inviolability of pre-existing rights and the principle that substantive legal rights cannot be overridden by procedural amendments unless explicitly stated.\nCitations:\n•\nGarikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Chowdhry (1957) AIR 1957 SC 540\n•\nHoosem Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1953) AIR 1953 SC 221\n•\nSpecial Military Estates Officer v. Munivenkataramiah (1990) AIR 1990 SC 499", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 174 of 1997 and 111 of 1998, decision dated: 29-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Memon and N.R.K. Nair of the Commissioner C. Kochumin Nair, S. Vinod Kumar and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKERALA TRANSPORT CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 262 = 2002 SLD 262 = 2002 PTD 1638 = (2000) 242 ITR 289 = (2001) 83 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Recovery of Tax – Priority of Capital Gains Tax in Liquidation\nDetailed Conclusion:\nCapital gains tax arising from the sale of assets during liquidation does not take precedence over workers' dues. Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, give workers and secured creditors priority over Revenue claims. Tax liabilities are not considered part of liquidation costs under Section 178 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(b) Recovery of Tax – Applicability of Section 178 Post-Winding Up\nDetailed Conclusion:\nSection 178 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to income accrued before a company’s winding-up order, not post-winding-up proceedings. Tax authorities cannot claim preferential treatment for capital gains tax during liquidation.\nCitations:\n•\nBeni Felkai Mining Co., in re (1934) 2 ITR 309\n•\nITO v. Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 77", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Company Petition No.44 of 1986, decision dated: 19-12-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. P. SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K.B. Bhujle with Y.P. Trivedi for the Official Liquidator. P.S. Gajwani with B.B. Parekh for the Workers. T.U. Khatri for the Income-tax Department", + "Party Name:": "POLYOLEFINS INDUSTRIES LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)\nvs\nKOSMEK PLASTICS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 263 = 2002 SLD 263 = 2002 PTD 1644 = (2000) 242 ITR 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax – Priority Between Secured Creditors and Tax Authorities\nDetailed Conclusion:\nSection 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, prioritizes the rights of secured creditors and workers over tax authorities’ claims. The Income Tax Act, 1961, does not override this provision, ensuring secured creditors' precedence in liquidation proceedings. The case reaffirmed that tax claims rank below workers’ and secured creditors’ dues in insolvency matters.\nCitations:\n•\nImperial Chit Funds (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (1996) 219 ITR 498 (SC)\n•\nBuilders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (1965) 56 ITR 91", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Company Applications Nos.116 and 117 of 1998 in Company Petitions No.459 of 1989, decision dated: 5-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): F.I. REBELLO, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Virag Tulzapurkar, instructed by Kanga & Co. for Applicants S.C. Gupta, Deputy Official Liquidator in person", + "Party Name:": "SYNDICATE BANK and another\nvs\nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, WESTER WORKS ENGINEERS LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 264 = 2002 SLD 264 = 2002 PTD 1653 = (2000) 242 ITR 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Business Expenditure – Deductibility of Betterment Charges\nDetailed Conclusion:\nBetterment charges are capital in nature and not deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These charges relate to asset enhancement rather than recurring business operations.\n(b) Business Expenditure – Bank Guarantee Commission\nDetailed Conclusion:\nBank guarantee commissions are revenue expenditures, as they relate to routine financial operations and are deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Rohit Mills Ltd. (1976) 104 ITR 132\n•\nCIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 465", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.72 and 73 of 1984, decision dated: 24th June 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C. K. THAKKAR AND M. C. PATEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Manish J. Shah for J.P. Shah for the Assessee. P.G. Desai with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "VIKRAM MILLS LTD. (now known as Amruta Mills Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 265 = 2002 SLD 265 = 2002 PTD 1657 = (2000) 242 ITR 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue Expenditure – Professional Fees for Business Reorganization\nDetailed Conclusion:\nExpenditure on consultants for improving business efficiency or reorganization is classified as revenue expenditure. These expenses aim to enhance existing operations rather than create new capital assets. The Tribunal correctly allowed such expenditures as deductible under the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1092 of 1982 (Reference No.653 of 1982), decision dated: 25-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCROMPTON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. (now Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 266 = 2002 SLD 266 = 2002 PTD 1659 = (2000) 242 ITR 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Development Rebate – Applicability of Section 33\nDetailed Conclusion:\nExtra depreciation allowances under Section 33 were unaffected by the withdrawal of the development rebate on June 1, 1974. An assessee fulfilling Section 33’s conditions, such as securing Central Government approval, remained eligible for additional depreciation. This case clarified that development rebate withdrawal did not nullify extra depreciation benefits under the Income Tax Rules, 1962.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 269 of 1988 (Reference No. 202 of 1988), decision dated: 15-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COVELONG BEACH HOTEL (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 267 = 2002 SLD 267 = 2002 PTD 1661 = (2000) 242 ITR 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Refund – Delay in Application and Condonation under Section 119\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe petitioner paid Rs. 14,300 as advance tax for the assessment year 1982-83 but was delayed in filing the return due to unavoidable circumstances. Despite the Government of India introducing an Amnesty Scheme for such situations, the petitioner’s application for a refund of Rs. 14,280 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, was rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The rejection lacked reasoning, contravening natural justice principles, as CBDT’s quasi-judicial powers under Section 119 require well-reasoned decisions. The High Court quashed the CBDT's cryptic rejection, emphasizing that applications must be addressed with due diligence and proper consideration of relevant facts.\nCitations:\n•\nAnantharamaiah (H.S.) v. CBDT (1993) 201 ITR 526 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. (1993) 204 ITR 154 (Cal.)\n•\nJaswant Rai v. CBDT and Revenue (1998) 231 ITR 745 (SC)\n(b) Income Tax – CBDT Powers under Section 119\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe High Court emphasized that CBDT's powers under Section 119 are quasi-judicial and must adhere to natural justice principles. Orders rejecting applications must include clear and cogent reasons. Arbitrary decisions erode taxpayer confidence in the legal system.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos. 5305 and 5306 of 1991, decision dated: 2-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C. K THAKKER AND M. C. PATEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.N. Soparkar for Petitioner. B.B. Naik for R.P. Bhatts", + "Party Name:": "KUSUMBEN M. PARIKH and another\nvs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 268 = 2002 SLD 268 = 2002 PTD 1667 = (2000) 242 ITR 478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Valuation of Capital Assets – Use of Books of Account vs. District Valuation Officer\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer referred the valuation of a hotel constructed by the assessee to the District Valuation Officer, who estimated a higher construction cost, leading to an addition of Rs. 6,30,807 for unexplained investment. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee’s regular books of account and vouchers, supported by a registered valuer’s report, were sufficient and reliable for determining the asset's value. The court ruled that such references to valuation officers are unwarranted unless books show significant infirmities. This ensures that assessments are based on credible evidence rather than assumptions.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 84 of 1998, decision dated: 5-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. N. MATHUR AND A. K. SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sundeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Suresh Ojha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHOTEL JOSHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 269 = 2002 SLD 269 = 2002 PTD 1674 = (2000) 242 ITR 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Valuation of Closing Stock on Dissolution of a Firm\nDetailed Conclusion:\nOn the dissolution of a firm due to a partner's death, the Tribunal directed the valuation of closing stock as on the dissolution date (February 6, 1984) at market value, regardless of the firm’s reconstitution the next day. The court affirmed that valuation at market value aligns with principles of fair assessment and ensures accurate income determination for the dissolved firm.\nCitations:\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 954 of 1992 (Reference No. 500 of 1992), decision dated: 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BAHU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHAMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSAKTHI TRADING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 270 = 2002 SLD 270 = 2002 PTD 1677 = (2000) 242 ITR 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Business Expenditure – Sales Incentives or Profit Distribution\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee claimed Rs. 66,820 as sales promotion expenditure, allegedly incurred for distributing articles as sales incentives. The Income Tax Officer and Tribunal disallowed the deduction, finding it a disguised distribution of profits among members and ex-members. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that genuine business expenses must have a clear and direct purpose aligned with business objectives, and not for personal or member benefits.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 597 of 1989 (Reference No. 312 of 1989), decision dated: 8-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHAMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Janakiraman for the Assessee. S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SALEM DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 271 = 2002 SLD 271 = 2002 PTD 1679 = (2000) 242 ITR 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Application of Income by Charitable Trusts\nDetailed Conclusion:\nA charitable trust utilized borrowed funds to construct a building, intending to augment its income. The repayment of such debt was deemed an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This aligns with the principle that income, whether directly or indirectly applied, must further the trust’s charitable objectives.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. St. George Forana Church (1988) 170 ITR 62 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Cases Nos. 100 to 102 of 1993, decision dated: 9-08-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RAJENDRA BABU AND KUMAR RAJARATNAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H.L. Dattu for the Commissioner. S. Ganesh Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJANMABHUMI PRESS TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 272 = 2002 SLD 272 = 2002 PTD 1681 = (2000) 242 ITR 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Sugar Manufacturing – Deduction for Molasses Storage Fund\nDetailed Conclusion:\nAmounts set aside for a molasses storage fund were deemed deductible, as these reserves are mandated for compliance with statutory requirements in the sugar industry. This deduction ensures that such statutory provisions do not unfairly inflate taxable income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 285 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 156 of 158 to 1987 (References Nos. 96 to 98 of 1987), decision dated: 29-07-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND K. P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 273 = 2002 SLD 273 = 2002 PTD 1682 = (2000) 242 ITR 593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Business Loss Due to Employee Defalcation\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee claimed a deduction for Rs. 68,434, which an employee defalcated while entrusted with wage payments. The Tribunal initially disallowed the deduction, but the court allowed it, affirming that losses directly linked to business operations are deductible. Entrusting employees with operational tasks, including financial handling, inherently involves risks incidental to the business.\nCitations:\n•\nBadidas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)\n•\nChurakulam Tea Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 457 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 72 of 1997, decision dated: 10-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMONWEALTH TRUST (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 274 = 2002 SLD 274 = 2002 PTD 1686 = (2000) 242 ITR 592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Exemption for Foreign Technicians\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee, a Japanese citizen, was engaged in supplying capital goods and installing machinery for an Indian company. The company reimbursed lodging, boarding, and entertainment expenses incurred during the assessee's stay in India. These amounts were initially taxed but later deemed exempt under Section 10(14) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the reimbursements were wholly and exclusively incurred for professional duties, and the finding was upheld as valid. The court ruled that reimbursements of this nature qualify for exemption under Section 10(14), provided they are directly tied to duties performed in India.\nReference:\n•\nSection 10(14) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 195 of 1990 (Reference No. 118- of 1990), decision dated: 27-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Sivaraman for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHIGERU BABA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 275 = 2002 SLD 275 = 2002 PTD 1687 = (2000) 242 ITR 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Capital Gains and Cost of Improvement\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee sold land to the Bombay Municipal Corporation after evicting hutment dwellers, which enhanced the land’s value. The compensation paid for eviction was claimed as a deduction under cost of improvement in Section 48(ii). The Tribunal allowed the deduction, recognizing that the eviction directly contributed to increasing the land’s marketability. The High Court upheld the decision, emphasizing that such expenditures enhance the value of an asset and qualify as allowable deductions.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom.)\n•\nHardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 598 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 554 of 1987, decision dated: 8-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMiss PIROJA C. PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 276 = 2002 SLD 276 = 2002 PTD 1690 = (2000) 242 ITR 576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Business Expenditure on Brochures and Industrial Promotion\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee, a government company, incurred Rs. 42,059 on brochures for promoting industrial development in Andhra Pradesh. The Income Tax Officer treated the expenditure as publicity and disallowed 10% under Section 37(3-A). The Tribunal, however, noted that the expenses were promotional, not advertising, as they facilitated the growth of small-scale industries. The High Court ruled that Section 37(3-A) was inapplicable because the expenditure was for broader industrial development rather than advertisement or sales promotion.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37(3-A).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 70 of 1990, decision dated: 27-08-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nA.P. SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 277 = 2002 SLD 277 = 2002 PTD 1692 = (2000) 242 ITR 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Diversion of Income by Overriding Title\nDetailed Conclusion:\nAmounts collected for a molasses storage tank fund under the Molasses Control Order were considered diverted by overriding title and not includible in the assessee’s income. This ensured compliance with the regulatory framework, which mandates the fund’s allocation for storage infrastructure.\n(b) Income Tax – Depreciation for Extra Shift Allowance\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee, a sugar manufacturer, claimed extra shift depreciation allowance for molasses storage tanks under Appendix I, Part I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal allowed the claim, highlighting that storage tanks are eligible for depreciation unless owned by mineral oil concerns. This decision aligned with established depreciation rules for non-mineral oil manufacturers.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 285 (Mad.)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32; Income Tax Rules, 1962, Appendix I, Part I.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 943 and 944 of 1992 (References Nos. 489 and 490 of 1992), decision dated: 27-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Sivaraman for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 278 = 2002 SLD 278 = 2002 PTD 1695 = (2000) 242 ITR 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Rectification of Mistakes in Returns\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee, a public limited company, filed returns signed by an unauthorized person under Section 140. The Assessing Officer declared the returns non-est under Section 154. However, the Tribunal held that Section 292-B cures procedural defects if returns substantively conform to the Act. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, affirming that procedural lapses do not invalidate returns unless they contravene the Act’s intent.\nReference:\n•\nBalaram (T.S.), ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 140, 154, and 292-B.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 126 of 1997,. decided on 15-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMASONEILAN (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 279 = 2002 SLD 279 = 2002 PTD 1702 = (2000) 242 ITR 434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Penalty for Late Filing of Returns\nDetailed Conclusion:\nA registered firm failed to file returns on time, and the penalty was computed as if it were an unregistered firm under Section 271(2). The Tribunal incorrectly deducted hypothetical advance tax instead of actual payments. The court clarified that only actual advance tax paid can be deducted when calculating penalties.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Palaniappa Transports (1980) 124 ITR 634 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred Nos.4 of 1991 and 110 of 1997, decision dated: 3rd November, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND V. ESWARAIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.V. Prasad for the Commissioner Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nLOHIYA TRADING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 280 = 2002 SLD 280 = 2002 PTD 1708 = (2000) 242 ITR 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Business Expenditure Limits for Managing Directors\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe court held that all remuneration and perquisites to managing directors, including commissions, must adhere to Section 40(c)’s expenditure limit. The Tribunal was correct in disallowing amounts exceeding Rs. 72,000.\n(b) Income Tax – Surtax Non-Deductibility\nDetailed Conclusion:\nSurtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not deductible when computing business income under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\n•\nSmith Kline & French (L) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No., 1893 of 1984 (Reference No. 1376 of 1984), decision dated: 3rd August, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 281 = 2002 SLD 281 = 2002 PTD 1710 = (2000) 242 ITR 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Business Expenditure for Hospitality to Foreign Clients\nDetailed Conclusion:\nFor the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee claimed deductions for hosting foreign clients in hotels. The court ruled that such hospitality was essential for business purposes and not lavish entertainment. The Tribunal allowed the expenditure as deductible under Section 37(2-A), consistent with the nature of the business.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 424 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.5 and 6 of 1982, decision dated: 22-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARUN KUMAR AND MANMOHAN SARIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sanjeev Khanna for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHIRA LAL & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 282 = 2002 SLD 282 = 2002 PTD 1715 = (2000) 242 ITR 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Deduction for Gratuity Payments under Other Sources \nDetailed Conclusion:\nAfter the Bihar Government took over the assessee’s business, some employees continued working to help generate interest income under other sources. The gratuity payments made to these employees were claimed as deductions. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal approved it, emphasizing the direct connection between the gratuity payments and income generation. The court upheld this conclusion, affirming that such gratuity expenses were allowable deductions under Section 57 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation (1967) 65 ITR 643 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Rampur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All.)\n•\nVijaya Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 641 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 131 of 1991, decision dated: 5-01-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y. R. MEENA AND G. C. DE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mitra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSIJUA (JHERIA) ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 283 = 2002 SLD 283 = 2002 PTD 1718 = (2000) 242 ITR 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Levy of Interest for Delay in Filing Returns and Non-Payment of Advance Tax\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee failed to file a return for AY 1976-77, prompting the Income Tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 148. After the return was filed, the assessment was completed under Sections 143(3) and 147, including interest penalties under Sections 139(8) and 217. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal deleted these penalties. However, the High Court held that the first assessment, even under Section 147, constitutes a regular assessment, justifying the imposition of interest under Sections 139 and 217.\nReference:\n•\nK. Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Fifth Addl. ITO (1963) 49 ITR 322 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Pratap Singh of Nabha (1982) 138 ITR 27 (Delhi)\n•\nDeviprasad Kejriwal v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 180 (Bom.)\n•\nCharles D' Souza v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 694 (Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C No.1253 of 1987 (Reference No. 762 of 1987), decision dated: 14-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS. ANTONY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 284 = 2002 SLD 284 = 2002 PTD 1721 = (2000) 242 ITR 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Income from Undisclosed Sources\nDetailed Conclusion:\nA block assessment included Rs. 1.14 crore as undisclosed income. Upon appeal, the Tribunal deleted portions, including alleged unexplained share capital investments, citing lack of evidence that the funds belonged to the company's directors. The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, finding no substantial question of law. The Tribunal's conclusions were based on evidence, and it emphasized that the burden was on the Revenue to prove the funds were unaccounted income of the directors.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 260A.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Tribunal Appeal No.26 of 1999, decision dated: 8-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. VENKATARAMA REDAI AND V. ESWARAIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner Nemo appeared for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nLANCO INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 285 = 2002 SLD 285 = 2002 PTD 1725 = (2000) 82 TAX 588 = (2000) 242 ITR 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Classification of Interest Income as Business or Other Sources\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Tribunal referred to the High Court the question of whether interest income from fixed deposits, temporary loans, and arrears of sales deposits constitutes business income or income from other sources. The matter was deemed a valid question of law under Sections 28 and 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 28, 56, and 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos.6131 and 6132 of 1995, decision dated: 22-02-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. P. WADHWA AND M. B. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Rjappa, S.R. Sharma and Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate (Rustom B. Hathikhanwala, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "C.As. Nos.6131 and 6132 of 1995, decided on 22nd February, 2000\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHARIBHAI ESTATE PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 286 = 2002 SLD 286 = 2002 PTD 1727 = (2000) 242 ITR 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Revisional Powers of Commissioner on Assessments Directed by IAC\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax invoked Section 263 to revise an assessment order based on directions issued under Section 144B by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal's objection, citing merger of orders, was overruled. The High Court affirmed the Commissioner’s authority under Section 263 to revise assessments for rectifying errors prejudicial to Revenue interests.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Shanmugham (V.V.A.) (1999) 236 ITR 878 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1044 of 1987 .(Reference No.629 of 1987), decision dated: 22-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. Miss Maya J. Nichani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTIRUPUR KARUR TRANSPORTS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 287 = 2002 SLD 287 = 2002 PTD 1729 = (2000) 242 ITR 539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – CBDT’s Powers Under Section 119(2)(b)\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) rejected an application for refund without providing reasons. The High Court emphasized that the CBDT must exercise its quasi-judicial powers judiciously, adhering to natural justice principles. The matter was remanded to the CBDT for reconsideration, ensuring due diligence and transparency.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 119 and 237.\n•\nConstitution of India, Article 226.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8513 of 1991, decision dated: 27-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU, J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. Srinivasan for Petitioner. C.V. Rajans", + "Party Name:": "TIAM HOUSE SERVICE LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 288 = 2002 SLD 288 = 2002 PTD 1733 = (2000) 242 ITR 636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Deduction of Commission Payments\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that commissions paid were legitimate business expenditures, supported by documentary evidence and recipient confirmations. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the payments were genuine and commercially expedient, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of a substantial question of law.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 37 and 256.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.6 of 1998, decision dated: 20-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA AND N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. Nemo of the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNEW KRISHNA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 289 = 2002 SLD 289 = 2002 PTD 1736 = (2000) 242 ITR 690", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Revisional Powers of Commissioner – Directing Fresh Assessments\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Commissioner’s powers under Section 263 allow revision of assessments, including directing fresh assessments. The High Court ruled that it is unnecessary for the Commissioner to record final conclusions on every issue, emphasizing the importance of addressing Revenue prejudices.\n(b) Revisional Powers Over Assessments Directed by IAC\nDetailed Conclusion:\nEven assessments finalized per IAC directions under Section 144B are revisable under Section 263, as confirmed by the High Court.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. V.V.A. Shanmugham (1999) 236 ITR 878 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.642 and 643 of 1985 (References Nos.342 and 343 of 1985), decision dated: 30-04-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.JAYASIMHA BABU AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSESHASAYEE PAPER & BOARDS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 290 = 2002 SLD 290 = 2002 PTD 1748 = (2000) 242 ITR 558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Accounting for Closing Stock in Cash System\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe assessee, engaged in a subscription scheme, sought to deduct gift article values from gross receipts. The court held that incomplete subscription cycles did not create liabilities, making the gift articles part of closing stock. The court emphasized that gross receipts should account for all subscriber payments, and deductions should align with incurred obligations.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 597 and 1834 of 1986 (References Nos. 432 and 1265 of 1986), decision dated: 26-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S. Shanmugam for N. Inbarajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS. AYYADURAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 291 = 2002 SLD 291 = 2002 PTD 1753 = (2000) 242 ITR 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Reassessment and Notice for Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 148 for reassessment based on an affidavit by the assessee's daughter, revealing undisclosed expenditures on her marriage. The affidavit provided prima facie grounds for believing income had escaped assessment. The court upheld the notice, emphasizing that the jurisdiction to reopen assessments is valid when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting non-disclosure of material facts. The sufficiency of these grounds is not subject to judicial review.\n(b) Writ Petition Against Reassessment Notice\nDetailed Conclusion:\nWhile reassessment disputes generally fall under the appellate framework of the Income Tax Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing reassessment notices. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Assessing Officer’s actions were lawful.\nReference:\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)\n•\nITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 880 of 1999, decision dated: 28-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N.K. SUD AND N. K. SODHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Ajay Mittal for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "JAGAN NATH SINGHAL\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 292 = 2002 SLD 292 = 2002 PTD 1757 = (2000) 242 ITR 647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax – Waiver or Reduction of Interest for Delay in Paying Taxes\nDetailed Conclusion:\nSections 215 and 220 of the Income Tax Act outline conditions for imposing and waiving interest on unpaid taxes. The court emphasized that waiver under Section 220(2A) is contingent on proving genuine hardship, uncontrollable circumstances, and cooperation with tax authorities. The Commissioner’s finding that no uncontrollable circumstances justified the delay was upheld. However, the court directed the Commissioner to reconsider whether delays in issuing refunds contributed to the taxpayer’s default.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 215, 220\n•\nConstitution of India, Article 226", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2009 of 1991(R), decision dated: 4-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Moitra and S.K. Dutta for the.Assessee. Debi Prasad and K.K. Jhunjhunwalas", + "Party Name:": "METALLURGICAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 293 = 2002 SLD 293 = 2002 PTD 1764 = (2000) 242 ITR 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Minor’s Income in Parent’s Income – Constitutional Validity\nDetailed Conclusion:\nSection 64(1A) of the Income Tax Act mandates including a minor’s income in the parent’s total income. The court upheld the provision's constitutional validity, emphasizing its objective to prevent tax evasion. The classification under Section 64(1A) does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is a reasonable measure targeting specific tax evasion practices.\nReference:\n•\nBalaji v. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 393 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 27324 of 1992, connected with Writ Petitions Nos. 31467, 35370, 35526 of 1992, 17451 and 35740 of 1994, decision dated: 2-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.K. SINGHAL AND T.N VALLINAYAGAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Murthy, Kumar, Dr. R.B. Krishna and S. Parthasarathi for petitioner. M. V. Seshachala and S. Sujathas", + "Party Name:": "K.V. KUPPA RAJU and others\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 294 = 2002 SLD 294 = 2002 PTD 1780 = (2000) 242 ITR 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Hotel Buildings – Classification as Plant or Building\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe court ruled that hotel buildings, though designed for specific use, remain classified as buildings for depreciation purposes. A subsequent amendment allowing higher depreciation rates for hotel buildings (effective AY 1988-89) was not retroactive. The court declined to classify hotel buildings as plants for earlier years.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 561 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.949 and 166 of 1988 and 130 of 1989 (References Nos.728 and 105 of 1988 and 49 of 1989), decision dated: 15-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nN. SATHYANATHAN & SONS (P.) LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 295 = 2002 SLD 295 = 2002 PTD 1788 = (2000) 242 ITR 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment – Validity of Notice for Producing Documents Already Submitted\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 cannot demand documents already submitted during the original assessment. However, the Assessing Officer retains the authority to request new, undisclosed documents.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Thanthi Trust (1996) 217 ITR 198 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 204 of 1989 and Writ Miscellaneous Petition No: 206 of 1989, decision dated: 27-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Janakiraman for V. Shanmugham for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for Mrs. Kala Ramesh", + "Party Name:": "THANTHI TRUST\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 296 = 2002 SLD 296 = 2002 PTD 1792 = (2000) 242 ITR 669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe court upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a), noting the assessee's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for a 12-month delay in filing returns. The penalty calculation aligned with statutory provisions.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1971) 80 ITR 14 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 347 of 1984, decision dated: 5-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND MS. PRATIBHA D. UPASANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.D. Mistry instructed by Pathare Dhru & Co. for t e Assessee. R.V Desai with B.M Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MCKENZIES LTD. AND ORIENTAL TIMBER TRADING CORPORATION (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 297 = 2002 SLD 297 = 2002 PTD 1795 = (2002) 85 TAX 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Federal Tax Ombudsman – Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving Maladministration\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Ombudsman retains jurisdiction over maladministration complaints even when statutory remedies like appeals exist. In this case, procedural delays and arbitrary decisions justified intervention.\n(b) Condonation of Delay in Filing Complaints\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe court acknowledged the nascent stage of the Ombudsman’s institution and condoned delays in filing complaints.\nReference:\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Sections 9, 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1287 of 2001, decision dated: 15-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwarul Haq for the Complainant. Anwarul Haq Gilani, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NUMAN INDUSTRIES, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 298 = 2002 SLD 298 = 2002 PTD 1808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Revising Assessment Orders\nDetailed Conclusion:\nA notice issued under Section 66-A for revising an assessment beyond four years was declared invalid. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory timelines.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 66-A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15093 of 1997, heard on 8-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Mukhtar Ahmed Butt for Petitioner. M. Saeed and M. Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAUBHAR BOTTLING CO. (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RANGEII, GUJRANWALA and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 299 = 2002 SLD 299 = 2002 PTD 1810 = (2002) 86 TAX 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Recovery of Tax – Arrest as a Last Resort\nDetailed Conclusion:\nArresting an assessee for tax recovery is the harshest measure and must be a last resort, employed only when no property is available for recovery or when the assessee attempts to evade dues.\n(b) Allegations of Corruption and Harassment by Tax Officials\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman validated allegations of corruption and harassment against tax officials, recommending disciplinary actions and procedural reforms.\nReference:\n•\nGovernment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=93(3),50(1);54,85 & 93 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.715 of 2001, decision dated: 21st March, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. Behzad Saqlain, Income Tax Inspector, Sialkot", + "Party Name:": "Malik MUHAMMAD SHANNAF, OFFICER OF MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., SIALKOT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 300 = 2002 SLD 300 = 2002 PTD 1816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Turnover in Tax Assessment\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe court remanded the case to the Commissioner for interpreting turnover under the Income Tax Ordinance, emphasizing its role in determining advance tax liabilities.\nReference:\n•\nMessrs Central Insurance Co. v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad (1993 SCMR 1232)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,53(1)(b),53(2)(ii),138 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.26549 of 1998 and 1157 of 1999, heard on 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Zahid.Hamid for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 301 = 2002 SLD 301 = 2002 PTD 1828 = (2002) 85 TAX 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Federal Tax Ombudsman – Maladministration Due to Arbitrary Decisions\nDetailed Conclusion:\nArbitrary assessments by tax authorities constituted maladministration under Section 2(3)(i)(b) of the Ombudsman Ordinance.\n(b) Relief for Senior Citizens Under Self-Assessment Scheme\nDetailed Conclusion:\nThe Ombudsman recommended revisiting and potentially withdrawing departmental appeals in cases of evident maladministration.\nReference:\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Sections 9, 2(3)(i)(b)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(b),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1292 of 2001, decision dated: 17-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.M. ABDULLAH & SONS, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 302 = 2002 SLD 302 = 2002 PTD 1831 = (2002) 85 TAX 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Super Tax – Rebate Entitlement\nDetailed Conclusion:\nApplying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal denied the assessee a 5% rebate on super tax.\nReference:\n•\nUnion Council Ali Wahan, Sukkur v. Associated Cements (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993 SCMR 468)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3977/LB to 3979/LB of 1996, 2462/LB to 2466/LB of 1998, 408/LB to 410/LB, 6600/LB, 7017/LB of 1992-93, 4666/LB to 4668/LB of 1997, 128/LB. 2480/LB and 2481/LB of 1998, decision dated: 31st December, 2001, hearing DATE : 22-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Haider Rizvi (in I.T.As. Nos.3977/LB to 3979/LB of 1996 and 2462/LB to 2466/LB of 1998)\nNemo (in I.T.As. Nos.3977/LB to 3979 of 1996 and 2462/LB to 2466/LB of 1998).\nN.emo (in I.T.As. Nos.408/LB to 410/LB, 6600/LB, 7017/LB of 199293, 4666/LB to 4668/LB of 1997, 128/LB, 2480/LB and 2481./LB of 1998)\nZia Haider Riavi (in I.T.As. Nos.408/LB to 410/LB, 6600/LB, 7017/LB of 199293, 4666/LB to 4668/LB of 1997, 128/LB, 2480/LB and 2481/LB of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 303 = 2002 SLD 303 = 2002 PTD 1834 = (2002) 85 TAX 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Independent Identity of Each Assessment Year\nConclusion:\nEvery assessment year is distinct, and its assessment must be based solely on the facts and circumstances relevant to that particular year.\n(b) Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities – Place of Assessment\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, taxpayers cannot choose their place of assessment. After a change in the notification dated August 4, 1979, taxpayers, except public companies, are assessed at their place of business. The taxpayer must declare their place of business or residence, and the department assigns jurisdiction accordingly.\n(c) Maladministration and Place of Assessment for Private Companies\nConclusion:\nA complaint about the transfer of assessment from the registered office's location (L) to the place of business (R) was dismissed. The Federal Tax Ombudsman held that the Central Board of Revenue acted within the law and did not engage in maladministration. The inconvenience caused to the taxpayer does not constitute discrimination, as jurisdiction is determined based on business location.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(c),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1364 of 2001, decision dated: 7-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Hassan Mehmood Sial for the Complainant. Muhammad Ali Khan, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Complaint No.1364 of 2001, decided on 7th January, 2002\nMessrs LEGHARI BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 304 = 2002 SLD 304 = 2002 PTD 1841 = (2002) 86 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Additional Assessment and Jurisdiction under Section 65\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer initiated additional assessment under Section 65 based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 12(18) and failed to consider objections under Section 80C(4). The First Appellate Authority also dismissed the taxpayer's objections without proper evaluation.\n(b) Immunity Under Section 80C(4)\nConclusion:\nThe appellate tribunal highlighted procedural lapses in handling objections, emphasizing that immunity claims under Section 80C(4) must be addressed substantively and not dismissed summarily.\n(c) Deemed Income and Additional Assessment\nConclusion:\nShare deposit money exceeding authorized capital, received before the amendment of Section 12(18), was incorrectly treated as a loan. The tribunal ruled the orders unsustainable, citing procedural errors, misinterpretation of case law, and failure to address the taxpayer's objections properly.\nReference:\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2880 distinguished.\n•\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 141; 2001 PTD 1180.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,65,12(18),80C(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3084/LB of 2001, decision dated: 26-11-2001, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Bashir. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 305 = 2002 SLD 305 = 2002 PTD 1854 = (2002) 85 TAX 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman – Tax Amnesty Scheme\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction over complaints about the rejection of declarations under the Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000, where allegations of arbitrary or unjust actions exist. Such complaints are distinguishable from disputes about income assessment.\n(b) Rejection of Declarations Under Tax Amnesty Scheme\nConclusion:\nThe rejection of declarations based on a pending appeal was deemed illegal. The circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue could not impose adverse conditions beyond the scheme's provisions. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended accepting the declaration and canceling proceedings based on its rejection.\nReference:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 14 of 2000, dated 28-6-2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,62,65,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1433/L to 1435/L of 2001, decision dated: 15-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naeem Shah. Ahmed Ali, D.C.I.T. and Liaqat Ali, S.O.", + "Party Name:": "Mirza MUHAMMAD NAZIR and another\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 306 = 2002 SLD 306 = 2002 PTD 1858", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income – Question of Fact\nConclusion:\nDisputes about amounts classified as loans versus capital contributions involve questions of fact, not law. The tribunal's decision that Section 12(18) did not apply was upheld, as the amount was not claimed as a loan.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),136(1) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 177 of 2001, decision dated: 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE taxI WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs MOHSIN & CO, RICE DEALER, LAHORE ROAD, CHINIOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 307 = 2002 SLD 307 = 2002 PTD 1861 = (2002) 85 TAX 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Complaint Maintainability – Pending Reference in High Court\nConclusion:\nComplaints before the Federal Tax Ombudsman are not maintainable if the same issue is already under reference in the High Court unless there are additional allegations of maladministration independent of the issue.\n(b) Limitation for Fresh Assessments\nConclusion:\nFor set-aside assessments, the limitation period under Section 66(1)(c) does not apply, as fresh assessments must await the High Court's decision.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,66(1)(c),134 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1365 of 2001, decision dated: 15th November 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKTEL LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 308 = 2002 SLD 308 = 2002 PTD 1865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme – Appeal to High Court\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal's conclusion in favor of the taxpayer under the Self-Assessment Scheme was a finding of fact, not law. No substantial legal controversy existed, and the High Court dismissed the reference in limine.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Messrs Imminan International, Lahore.\n•\nThe Lungla (Sythet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, 1970 SCMR 872.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 176 of 2001, decision dated: 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSh. MUHAMMAD ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 309 = 2002 SLD 309 = 2002 PTD 1870", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revising of Assessment and Tribunal's Findings\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal found the revision of assessment under Section 66-A unjustified, as the Assessing Officer had already addressed the issues during the original assessment. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial legal question arose.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,.59(1B),66A,136(1),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 129 of 1998, decision dated: 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES Zone-III, LAHORE\nvs\nDR. FAROOQ SAEED KHAN, C/O FAROOQ HOSPITAL, ALLAMA IQBAL TOWN, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 310 = 2002 SLD 310 = 2002 PTD 1874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Post-Amendment\nConclusion:\nThe Revenue filed an appeal under the amended provisions of Section 136(2) instead of the prior procedure. The High Court declined to entertain the appeal, as the order in question was issued when referable jurisdiction applied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 129 of 1998, decision dated: 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE TAX, WATER COMPANIES ZONE III, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs STATE LIFE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 311 = 2002 SLD 311 = 2002 PTD 1875 = (2002) 86 TAX 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Maladministration – Penalty Imposed Despite Filing Statement\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that negligence in maintaining records led to a penalty for the taxpayer, despite the timely submission of documents. Recommendations included rectifying the penalty period, instituting an inquiry, and identifying responsible officials.\n(b) Administrative Failures in Record Maintenance\nConclusion:\nThe lack of administrative oversight and record maintenance was deemed maladministration. The Ombudsman called for disciplinary measures and rectification of errors in the penalty order.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,116,139,156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 101 of 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Mahmood, A.R. for the Complainant Ahmad Hussain Khan, D.C.I.T. Circle 7, Chiniot", + "Party Name:": "Mehr MUHAMMAD AMIR, CHINIOT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 312 = 2002 SLD 312 = 2002 PTD 1878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal to High Court – Scope (Pre-1997 Amendment)\nConclusion:\nBefore the 1997 amendment, appeals to the High Court under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, were limited to questions of law arising from Tribunal orders made under Section 135. Post-amendment, appeals still follow the same principle.\n(b) Rectification of Orders and Limitation\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal has the power to rectify its orders under Section 156 within four years. Refusal to rectify an order does not affect the original order under Section 135, nor does it create a new cause of action or legal controversy for appeal.\n(c) Doctrine of Merger – Applicability\nConclusion:\nThe principle of merger does not apply when the Tribunal refuses to rectify an order. Only actual modifications to an order can be considered part of the rectified order.\n(d) Appeals to High Court – Restriction to Questions of Law\nConclusion:\nThe High Court's jurisdiction is confined to legal questions arising directly from Tribunal orders under Section 135. The legislature explicitly restricts appeals to these orders alone.\n(e) Rectification Orders and Appeals\nConclusion:\nRectified orders affecting liability or entitlement can be appealed. Refusal to rectify, however, does not create grounds for appeal.\n(f) Precondition for Appeals\nConclusion:\nAppeals must arise from a legal question related to an order under Section 135. Any rectified order prejudicial to either party forms part of the appealable order.\n(g) Right of Appeal – Scope\nConclusion:\nAppeals are permissible only for orders made under the specific provision granting the right. Appeals beyond this scope are inadmissible.\n(h) High Court's Reference Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 136 is limited to legal questions that were considered by the Tribunal or naturally arose from its order. This jurisdiction differs from general appellate or revisional powers.\n(i) Fresh Cause of Action from Rectification\nConclusion:\nA rectification order prejudicial to any party creates a fresh cause of action and resets the limitation period. Refusal to rectify does not have this effect.\n(j) Refusal of Rectification – Effect on Original Order\nConclusion:\nA refusal to rectify leaves the original order intact and does not integrate into it. Such refusals do not create grounds for reference or appeal.\n(k) Appeal Limitation and Cause of Action\nConclusion:\nWhere a rectification prejudices either party, it creates a fresh cause of action. Unsuccessful rectification applications do not extend the original appeal period or create new questions of law.\n(l) Conversion of Appeal into Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\nAppeals based on questions of fact, such as turnover assessments, cannot be converted into constitutional petitions. Such appeals lack a legal basis and are inadmissible.\nReferences:\n•\nGlaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and four others, 1992 PTD 82.\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Lahore v. Gauhar Ayyub, 1995 PTD 1074.\n•\nMessrs Ahmad Karachi Halwa Merchants and Ahmad Food Products v. Commissioner of Income Tax, South Zone Karachi, 1982 SCMR 489.\n•\nMessrs Pakistan Electric Fittings Manufacturing Co. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2000 PTD 2407.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,136,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 384 of 1998, decision dated: 13-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, .JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Latif Ahmad Oureshi. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HONG KONG CHINESE RESTAURANT, MAIN BOULEVARD GULBERG, LAHORE\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 313 = 2002 SLD 313 = 2002 PTD 1895", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Selection for Audit Post Deadline\nConclusion:\nThe selection of cases for audit after the target date (April 5, 1991) violated the Central Board of Revenue's instructions. The audit-based assessment was set aside.\n(b) Suspicion of Understatement of Income\nConclusion:\nSelection of cases for audit based on vague or general grounds, such as comparisons with others in similar businesses, is invalid. There must be definite information or material evidence to support such actions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59,136(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 130 of 1998, heard on 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid. \nMuhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Mian KAMAL ANWAR, SARGODHA ROAD FAISALABAD\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 314 = 2002 SLD 314 = 2002 PTD 1898 = (2002) 86 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Accrued Interest on Securities – Taxability\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld that accrued interest on securities is taxable under Section 17, rejecting claims that tax applies only upon receipt.\n(b) Bad Debts – Premature Write-Off\nConclusion:\nThe State Bank’s non-certification does not invalidate bad debt write-offs. Banks are best positioned to judge when debts are irrecoverable.\n(c) Interest Credited to Suspense Account\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal remanded the issue for reassessment, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if interest was already included in the accounts.\n(d) Dividend Taxation Rate\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal reduced the tax rate on dividends from 30% to 5%.\n(e) Allowances and Perquisites – Bald Estimations\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal set aside arbitrary additions and directed detailed reviews before imposing any additions.\n(f) Deduction at Source on Accrued Interest\nConclusion:\nTax deducted at source on accrued interest must be considered, and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify and adjust accordingly.\nReferences:\n•\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 1051.\n•\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 1878.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,23(1)(x),24(i),SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2449/LB of 1999, decision dated: 12-04-2000, hearing DATE : 11-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ikramul Haq Sh. Muhammad Hanif, D.R., Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A. and Dr. Samra Ashraf, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 315 = 2002 SLD 315 = 2002 PTD 1918 = (2002) 85 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Non-Service of Assessment Order and Demand Notice\nConclusion:\nDiscrepancies in signatures and missing records suggested maladministration, prompting recommendations for rectification and accountability.\n(b) Arbitrary Sales Estimations\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer’s inflated sales estimates were deemed unreasonable and oppressive, constituting maladministration.\n(c) Legislative Intent\nConclusion:\nStatutory interpretation must align with legislative intent, favoring clarity and fairness.\n(d) Object of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance\nConclusion:\nThe Ordinance aims to address maladministration, promote accountability, and restore public trust in tax administration.\n(e) Definition of Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe Ordinance broadly defines maladministration, encompassing actions contrary to law, arbitrary decisions, and administrative failures.\n(f) Bar on Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is barred only for matters sub judice before other competent authorities, except where maladministration allegations are independent.\n(g) Limited Scope of Bar on Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nA literal interpretation of Section 9(2)(b) that limits jurisdiction contradicts the Ordinance’s purpose of addressing maladministration.\n(h) Interpretation Principles\nConclusion:\nInterpretations must reflect the legislative purpose, avoiding absurd or contradictory outcomes.\n(i) Lost Documents and Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended rectification and accountability for lost assessment orders and demand notices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,138 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1250 of 2001, decision dated: 27-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Ahmad Ali, D.C.I.T. and. Anwarul Haq, Special Officer", + "Party Name:": "Sh. SHANEELAHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 316 = 2002 SLD 316 = 2002 PTD 1930 = (2002) 85 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Tax Deduction Rate for Bed Linen Exports\nConclusion:\nFor the assessment years 1994-95 to 2000-01, bed linen was categorized under Part I of the Eighth Schedule, which allowed a tax deduction rate of 0.50%. A deduction at 0.75% was unjustified.\n(b) Withholding Tax on Export Proceeds\nConclusion:\nTribunal held that the correct withholding tax rate was 0.50%. Additional charges at 0.75% were invalid, as any default was due to the withholding agent and not the assessee.\n(c) Additional Tax for Withholding Errors\nConclusion:\nCharging additional tax for a withholding agent's failure was declared unjustified. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee could not be penalized for such defaults.\n(d) Deduction of Tax on Custom Rebates\nConclusion:\nCustom rebates, being compensations from the government and not export proceeds, were exempt from withholding tax.\n(e) Professional Tax\nConclusion:\nProfessional tax falls under provincial jurisdiction and is not within the purview of the Income Tax Department. The charge was declared invalid.\nReferences:\n•\n1988 PTD (Trib.) 1206\n•\nPTCL 1995 CL 1 (SC of Pakistan)\n•\nPTCL 1997 CL 213", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80CC,143,13,62,50(5),52 & EighthSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2613/LB to 2619/1 13 of 2001, decision dated: 13th October; 2001, hearing DATE :26-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Siraj Khalid and Ehsan Sheikh, I.T.P. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 317 = 2002 SLD 317 = 2002 PTD 1941 = (2002) 85 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner under Section 66A\nConclusion:\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner cannot revise issues decided by the First Appellate Authority. The correct recourse for the department is to file an appeal with the Tribunal. The assessment order merges with the appellate order, leaving no jurisdiction under Section 66A.\nReferences:\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 2294\n•\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 492\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 401", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2069/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 31st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 21st June, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Hassan Naeem, I.T.P.. Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 318 = 2002 SLD 318 = 2002 PTD 1949 = (2002) 85 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 66A\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal annulled the Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s order under Section 66A, as no formal assessment order existed. Invocation of jurisdiction was deemed a nullity.\nReferences:\n•\n(1990) 80 Tax 43 (Trib.)\n•\n1993 SCMR 1232", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3462/LB of 2001, decision dated: 14-03-2001, hearing DATE : 13-03-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Abid Raza Kazmi. Ahmad Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 319 = 2002 SLD 319 = 2002 PTD 1952 = (2002) 85 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rectification of Salary Expenses\nConclusion:\nRectification disallowing salary expenses was void as the assessee had complied with tax payment requirements. Such provisions should apply only where relevant facts and circumstances justify.\n(b) Interpretation of the Term Sum \nConclusion:\nThe term sum refers to payments in cash and not in kind. Goods distributed as incentives do not fall under the definition.\n(c) Deduction for Goods Distribution\nConclusion:\nDistributing goods like ballpoint pens to distributors does not constitute a sum paid and thus does not attract the provisions of Sections 24(c) or 50(4)(a).\n(d) Appeal Limitation and Delay Condonation\nConclusion:\nLimitation for appeal starts from the service of the order. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the appeal as the affidavit and supporting evidence justified it.\nReferences:\n•\n1968 PTD 724\n•\n1984 PTD (Trib.) 143\n•\n2000 PTD 344", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,24(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4204/LB of 2000, 442/LB, 1239/LB, 1240/LB of 2001, decision dated: 14-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Zafarullah Shah, F.C.A./Assessee. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R./Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 320 = 2002 SLD 320 = 2002 PTD 1957 = (2002) 86 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Self-Assessment – Selection for Audit\nConclusion:\nIncome from salary exceeding 50% of total income does not exempt taxpayers from selection for special audit. CBR directives permitted such audits for the relevant assessment year.\n(b) Special Audit for Doctors\nConclusion:\nDoctors were rightfully selected for special audits, even if their income comprised more than 50% salary, as they were categorized as a specific class subject to special scrutiny.\nReferences:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 183", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 2025/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-02-2002, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Kamal, D. R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 321 = 2002 SLD 321 = 2002 PTD 1962", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Unexplained Investment in Property\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority found that the property was purchased in a constructed form, and the addition under Section 13(1)(aa) was invalid. The department's appeal was rejected.\n(b) Non-Cooperation by Assessee\nConclusion:\nAssessing Officers have penal provisions to address non-cooperation but cannot make harsh assessments or attribute income not belonging to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),129,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3068/LB of 1994, decision dated: 26-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.. Shahid Umer", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 322 = 2002 SLD 322 = 2002 PTD 1964 = (2002) 85 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal upheld rejection due to unverified production records and wastage.\n(b) Claim Under BMR\nConclusion:\nIncidental expenses are excluded from the BMR category. The Tribunal confirmed the restriction to machinery costs.\n(c) Disallowed Expenses\nConclusion:\nDisallowances for unverifiable expenses (travel, conveyance, telephone) were deemed reasonable.\n(d) Yield Rates for Yarn\nConclusion:\nDeclared yield rates were accepted based on historical consistency. The Assessing Officer must provide strong reasons to deviate from past decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 9821/LB and 9781/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 24th May 2001, hearing DATE : 16-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRYACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 323 = 2002 SLD 323 = 2002 PTD 1974 = (2002) 86 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Federal Tax Ombudsman and Sub Judice Matters\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman declined interference in matters sub judice before the Tribunal, as the issues raised in the complaint were already being addressed.\n(b) Maladministration and Response to Taxpayer Letters\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman highlighted maladministration due to the Central Board of Revenue (CBR)'s failure to acknowledge or respond to taxpayer correspondence within stipulated timeframes. General recommendations were made to ensure timely responses.\n(c) Classification of Security Services Business\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the CBR Chairman or relevant members provide the complainant an opportunity to explain their case and address grievances regarding the classification of security services under tax laws. The failure to respond to taxpayer representations was deemed a serious omission.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=80C,61,66A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1522 of 2001, decision dated: 28-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Brig. (R) Aftab Ahmed. Qasim Samad Khan D.C.IT.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BUSINESS SECURITY TECHNOLOGY (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 324 = 2002 SLD 324 = 2002 PTD 1978 = (2002) 86 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Heir Tax Assessment and Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe assessment attributing the entire property tax liability to a single legal heir was declared illegal. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reassessment involving all legal heirs according to their shares and disciplinary action against the Assessing Officer for procedural violations.\nReferences:\n•\nBegum Nusrat Bhutto v. Income-tax Officer, 1981 SCMR 1192\n•\nSyed Ghulam Abbas Shah v. Income-tax Officer, Mirpur, 1985 CLC 1581", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85,138 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1754 of 2001, decision dated: 31st January, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sher Mast Khan for the Complainant. \nFaridullah Jan, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD NASIR, LAKKY MARWAT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 325 = 2002 SLD 325 = 2002 PTD 1982 = (2002) 85 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Corporate Assets Tax and Limitation Period\nConclusion:\nThe provisions of Section 17A of the Wealth Tax Act were inapplicable to the Corporate Assets Tax. No limitation was prescribed, as it was a one-time levy.\n(b) Penalty for Late Filing of Corporate Assets Tax Returns\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal canceled the penalty after verifying that the returns were filed on time.\n(c) Additional Tax on Corporate Assets Tax\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax was deleted due to ambiguities in CBR guidelines.\nReferences:\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2964", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991=12,12(1),12(7),12(9),12(10) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 1338/LB of 2000, decision dated: 30-01-2002, hearing DATE : 19-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Muhammad Iqbal and Kh. Faisal Iqbal, F.C.A.. \nMuhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 326 = 2002 SLD 326 = 2002 PTD 1993 = (2002) 86 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax and Refund\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, ruling that the provisions of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, did not protect the complainant's claim under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1997 SC 582\n•\n1997 PTD 1555", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1282 of 2001, decision dated: 30-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Waheed Baig for the Complainant. Habib Ahmad, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Complaint No. 1282 of 2001, decided on 30th November, 2001\nMessrs MIAN SONS COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD., RAHIM YAR KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 327 = 2002 SLD 327 = 2002 PTD 1997 = (2002) 85 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Short-Term Borrowings\nConclusion:\nInterest on bank loans used for business purposes was allowed as a deduction. The loan to the sister concern was unrelated to the borrowed capital, and disallowance was invalid.\nReferences:\n•\n1995 PTD (Trib.) 677\n•\n1986 SCMR 968\n•\nPackages Limited v. CIT (1993)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2983/LB and 3901/LB of 2001, decision dated: 7-02-2002, hearing DATE : 12-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja and Faisal Iqbal, F.C.A.. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 328 = 2002 SLD 328 = 2002 PTD 2011 = (2002) 85 TAX 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reward to Informers and Detecting Staff\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman rejected the claim for a reward, as the complainant failed to substantiate their role or the informer’s identity in detecting tax evasion.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Reward Rules, 1973=2,3 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-772/L of 2001, decision dated: 30-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. Imtiaz Ahmed Khan, Additional Collector Custom, Rawalpindi", + "Party Name:": "M.A. RAZA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 329 = 2002 SLD 329 = 2002 PTD 2024 = (2002) 86 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Simultaneous Departmental and Criminal Proceedings\nConclusion:\nThe department must pursue criminal proceedings for corruption alongside departmental inquiries, as the latter is not a substitute for criminal action.\n(b) Fraudulent Tax Assessments\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reassessments for disputed periods, correction of the taxpayer's status, and initiation of criminal proceedings against officials and third parties involved in fraudulent refunds and assessments.\nReferences:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommendations emphasized accountability and swift action against fraud.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,66A,143B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.37 of 2002, decision dated: 20-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Lt.-Col. (R) Najam Hameed and Lt.-Col. (R) Shahid Hameed for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, I.A.C. and Javed Badar, A.C.I.T. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Lt.Col. (R) NAJAM HAMEED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 330 = 2002 SLD 330 = 2002 PTD 2032 = (2000) 243 ITR 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Closing Stock and Excise Duty\nConclusion:\nExcise duty liability should not be included in the valuation of closing stock. The liability is deductible for calculating profits but cannot be treated as part of the closing stock value.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No.835 of 1997, decision dated: 9-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Sundaresan for Petitioner V. Ramachandran for Ms. Anita Sumanth", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nENGLISH ELECTRIC CO. OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 331 = 2002 SLD 331 = 2002 PTD 2034 = (2000) 243 ITR 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income from Sub-Leased Property\nConclusion:\nIncome from sub-leased property could not be taxed as the assessee's income during the period the property was under the possession of a third party. The rental income during this period was not taxable in the hands of the assessee.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)\n•\nPark Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 60 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.88 of 1986, decision dated: 2-02-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y. R. MEENA AND G. C. DE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Prosad Pal and A.K. Roy Chowdhury, S.K. Ray, S. Roy Chowdhury and Aniruddha Ray for the Assessee. P.K. Mullick with J.C. Saha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PARK HOTEL (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 332 = 2002 SLD 332 = 2002 PTD 2040 = (2000) 243 ITR 540", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Validity of Notices\nConclusion:\nReassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 were quashed due to the lack of specific information or material to justify the belief that income had escaped assessment. Notices issued without a prima facie basis were deemed without jurisdiction.\nReferences:\n•\nChhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)\n•\nITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.6491 of 1998, decision dated: 16-03-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. K. PATNAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Pal and Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and S.K. Agarwal for Petitioner. K.P. Sarma and D. Sur", + "Party Name:": "EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD\nvs\nJOINT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 333 = 2002 SLD 333 = 2002 PTD 2058 = (2000) 243 ITR 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowability of Business Expenditures Post-Acquisition\nConclusion:\nExpenditures incurred by an assessee maintaining operations while contesting the acquisition of its business were allowable as business expenses. The intention to resume operations if the appeal succeeded justified the deductions.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1243 to 1247 of 1988 (Reference Nos.984 to 988 of 1988), decision dated: 10-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Sivaraman for the Commissioner P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmandabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONEROF IncomE tax\nvs\nVELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 334 = 2002 SLD 334 = 2002 PTD 2061 = (2000) 243 ITR 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Income Post-Business Discontinuance\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 176(3A), income received after the discontinuance of a business, such as arbitration awards for pre-dissolution activities, is taxable as income of the erstwhile entity. The firm's income, though received post-dissolution, was assessable as it related to prior operations.\nReferences:\n•\nInterpretation of Taxation Laws (Amendments) Act, 1975 and Section 176(3A).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 146 of 1996, decision dated: 1st November, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARIJIT PASAYAT, C, J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for the Commissioner. P.G.K. Warriyar and P. Balakrishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPAILY PILLAI & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 335 = 2002 SLD 335 = 2002 PTD 2065 = (2000) 243 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Choice of Previous Year for Income Assessment\nConclusion:\nSalaried individuals may choose a previous year different from the financial year under Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, provided there is a tangible reason for doing so, such as convenience in maintaining accounts. The statement accompanying the return is sufficient evidence of maintaining accounts for this purpose.\nReferences:\n•\nBhailal Tribhovandas & Co. v. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 136 (Guj.)\n•\nAdditional CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao (1981) 127 ITR 414 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 709 to 712 of 1988 (References Nos.548 to 551 of 1988), decision dated: 10-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJOHN PETER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 336 = 2002 SLD 336 = 2002 PTD 2070 = (2000) 243 ITR 683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Taxation of Dividends from Foreign Companies\nConclusion:\nGross dividend income from companies in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) is chargeable to tax, not the net amount after deducting tax at source or costs related to foreign exchange certificates.\nTopic 2: Exemption of Daily Allowances\nConclusion:\nDaily allowances received by a director for performing duties at an office are not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are not considered travel allowances.\nReference:\n•\nMrs. Meherbai N. Sethna v. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 453 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.217 of 1988, decision dated: 24-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashok Kotangale instructed by Shobha Jagtiani for the Assessee B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MADHAVRAO J. SCINDIA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 337 = 2002 SLD 337 = 2002 PTD 2072 = (2002) 85 TAX 431", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Misuse of Official Position\nConclusion:\nSelective and mala fide issuance of notices by income tax officials targeting specific individuals for personal gain constitutes maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended cancellation of such notices and directed the authorities to issue instructions preventing such discriminatory actions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=17 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1440-L of 2001, decision dated: 16-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. Ghulam Rasool, D.C T. and Aurangzeb, S.O.", + "Party Name:": "RAIS KHAN, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CENTRAL CIVIL CIRCLE, PAKISTAN PWD, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 338 = 2002 SLD 338 = 2002 PTD 2098 = (2002) 86 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Receiver’s Remuneration in Tax Recovery Cases\nConclusion:\nA Receiver is entitled to remuneration for services rendered, even if the department later claims their role was minimal. The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) to establish a fair scale for determining such remuneration.\nTopic 2: Jurisdiction and Complaints by Tax Employees\nConclusion:\nThe Receiver in this case did not fall under the definition of a tax employee; hence, their complaint for unpaid remuneration was valid under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nRecommendations:\n•\nCBR was directed to pay Rs.25,000 to the Receiver for their services.\n•\nFresh rules for remuneration of Receivers were advised to ensure consistency and fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=R-158,160,159,161,117 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1348-L of 2001, decision dated: 30-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Awais Sheikh for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AWAIS LAW ASSOCIATES, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 339 = 2002 SLD 339 = 2002 PTD 2106 = (2003) 87 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Gross Profit Rate Adjustment\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer deviated without justification from the historical gross profit rate of 15% applied to contractual receipts in previous years. The Appellate Tribunal restored the gross profit rate of 15%, directing the officer to align with historical precedents.\nTopic 2: Deemed Income and Wealth Statement\nConclusion:\nAddition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was deemed invalid as the taxpayer did not maintain books of accounts. The Tribunal deleted the addition, citing that the provision was misapplied and not legally sustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3041/LB of 1994, decision dated: 18-04-2002, hearing DATE : 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 340 = 2002 SLD 340 = 2002 PTD 2110 = (2002) 85 TAX 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Self-Assessment and Refund Issues\nConclusion:\nThe action under Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to revise self-assessments and withhold refunds was lawful, as it was initiated based on discrepancies identified before the complaint. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that refunds, if due after reassessment, should be determined and paid without delay.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1431-L of 2001, decision dated: 20-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali Babar for the Complainant Miss Laila Ghafoor, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "MUNIR HUSSAIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 341 = 2002 SLD 341 = 2002 PTD 2112 = (2002) 86 TAX 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) and Presumptive Taxation\nConclusion:\nIndustrial establishments under Section 80CC of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are not liable for the Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) levy under Section 4 of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971. The presumptive tax regime does not align with the computation basis required for the WWF levy, rendering the charge unenforceable for such establishments.\nPrinciples and Interpretation:\n•\nLiteral Approach: Fiscal statutes are interpreted literally unless doing so leads to manifest absurdity.\n•\nDeeming Provisions: These must be strictly confined to their legislative intent and cannot extend beyond their defined scope.\n•\nJudicial Role: Courts cannot rectify legislative deficiencies or fill gaps in statutory language.\nReferences:\n•\nLt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1961 SC 119\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Blackwood Hodge (India) (P.) Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 807\nTopic 2: High Court's Appellate Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of law arising from Tribunal orders. The High Court declined to consider a question framed by the Tribunal that lacked objections from the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(24),2(44),5(b),15(BB),50,55,55(1),80,80CC(2),80CC(4),80CC(5),136(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4,4(3),4(4),4(7),4(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.447 of 1998 and 716 of 2000, decision dated: 1st April, 2002, hearing DATE : 6-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Mian Yusuf Umar and Rana Munir Hussain (in I.T.A. 716 of 2000). Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi, Zia Haider Rizvi, Latif Ahmad Qureshi, Sh. Muhammad Ilyas, Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Shahid Abbas, Munawar Ahmad Warraich, Qazi Habib-ur-Rehman Zubari, Mian Muhammad Jameel, Aurangzeb Mirza and Siraj-ud-Din Khalids.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT\nvs\nMessrs THAPUR (PVT.), SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 342 = 2002 SLD 342 = 2002 PTD 2133 = (2003) 87 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Deemed Income and Share Deposit Money\nConclusion:\nSection 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not apply to amounts shown as share deposit money unless unequivocally proven by the department as loans. The Tribunal ruled that misclassification of entries cannot override the substance of the transaction. Additions based on misapplication of Section 12(18) were deleted.\nPrinciples of Interpretation:\n•\nIn cases of ambiguity, interpretations favorable to the taxpayer are adopted.\n•\nDeeming provisions in taxation require precise application, adhering to legislative intent.\nReferences:\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 2315\n•\nCIT, North Zone (West Pakistan), Lahore v. Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Lahore 1973 PTD 375", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1557/LB of 2000, decision dated: 18-04-2002, hearing DATE : 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh. Javed ur Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 343 = 2002 SLD 343 = 2002 PTD 2142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal and Grant of Stay\nConclusion:\nFor a stay during appeal proceedings, proof of payment of 15% of the total demand is mandatory. The stay is contingent upon verification of payment through the Registrar.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "M. As. (Stay) Nos.169/KB and 170/KB of 2001-2002, decision dated: 11-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 344 = 2002 SLD 344 = 2002 PTD 2151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal dismissed rectification applications filed by the Department under Sections 156 and 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as no apparent mistakes were found in its orders.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,156,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Rect) Nos.80/KB, 81/KB of 2002 in Reference I.T.As. Nos.685 and 712 of 2000-2001, decision dated: 9-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sultan Wazir, D.R.. Abdul Tahir, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 345 = 2002 SLD 345 = 2002 PTD 2156 = (2002) 86 TAX 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss from Capital Gains and Set-Off\nConclusion:\nLosses from stock and share dealings classified under capital gains cannot be set off against income from other heads, per Section 34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation, rejecting rectification applications.\nReferences:\n•\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 283", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,34,37,2(12),(24),(44),14,16,17,19,22,23,27,28,30,49,FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "M. As. (Rect.) Nos. 34/KB to 36/KB of 2002 in I. T. As. Nos. 1486/KB to 1488/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 2-02-2002, hearing DATE : 1st February, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari and Muhammad Aleem. Mahfooz-ur-Rehman Pasha, I.A.C. and Inayatullah Kashani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 346 = 2002 SLD 346 = 2002 PTD 2159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Use of Electricity and Cancellation of Assessment\nConclusion:\nCancellation of assessment due to increased electricity usage was disapproved as it lacked factual or legal justification. The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer’s order.\nTopic 2: Non-Deduction of Tax on Rent and Commission\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal found no merit in the cancellation of the assessment due to non-deduction of tax on rent and commission, as the taxpayer had already complied with tax obligations.\nReferences:\n•\n1999 PTD 2172", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,24(c) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 124/LB of 2002, decision dated: 4-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir Ijaz and Shahid Abbas. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 347 = 2002 SLD 347 = 2002 PTD 2169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Depreciation Allowance on Sale of Factory Building\nConclusion:\nDepreciation on buildings, regardless of category, is governed by Rule 8 of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal’s distinction among building categories was overruled as it deviated from statutory definitions. The High Court clarified that sale proceeds refer to the lower of original cost, sale price, or fair market value.\nPrinciples of Interpretation:\n•\nCourts must interpret statutes as written, without modifying or adding terms.\n•\nStatutory definitions must be adhered to strictly across the statute.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 400\n•\nLt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1961 SC 119\nTopic 2: Depreciation Principles\nConclusion:\nDepreciation is a deviation from standard expense rules, accounting for asset value reduction over time. Legislative provisions govern its computation as a notional allowance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,23(1)(v),136(1),(1)(2)(3)(3A),2,(1)(2)(3)(3A),I,II,IIA,6,7(b)(i)(ii),8(5) & ThirdSched, ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.218 of 1991, decision dated: 30-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAHID KURBAN ALVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Pasha for Applicant. Jawad Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INDUS BASIN & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 348 = 2002 SLD 348 = 2002 PTD 2185 = (2002) 85 TAX 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Industrial Undertaking and Revision of Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction in canceling the Assessing Officer’s order granting exemption under clauses (118C) and (118H) of the Second Schedule, Part I, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Assessing Officer had carefully evaluated the facts and adhered to the legal provisions. Ownership by a holding company or shared services with a sister concern does not disqualify the undertaking from claiming exemptions, provided statutory requirements are met.\nPrinciples:\n•\nNo provision bars a company formed by a holding company from claiming exemptions.\n•\nSubstitution of opinion cannot form the basis for revising a valid order.\n•\nA company validly incorporated cannot be deprived of its statutory rights based on ownership or management arrangements.\nReferences:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 2137\n•\nUnited Builders Corporation and CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3498/LB to 3501/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11-12-2001, hearing DATE ; 27-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Faleh Ali Villani. Javed-ur-Rehman, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 349 = 2002 SLD 349 = 2002 PTD 2192 = (2002) 86 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of Appeals without Appeal Fee\nConclusion:\nA memorandum of appeal can be filed without payment of the appeal fee, but it will not be considered properly filed until the fee is paid. Dismissing an appeal without pointing out the deficiency and giving an opportunity to rectify it violates principles of justice. The Tribunal remanded the case for re-adjudication, allowing 15 days for fee payment.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1984 SC 289\n•\nMuhammad Nawaz Khan’s case 1970 SCMR 319", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,129,134,130 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 521/KB to 525/KB of 2001, decision dated: 14-03-2002, hearing DATE : 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Afzal Hashmi, ITP. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 350 = 2002 SLD 350 = 2002 PTD 2198 = (2002) 86 TAX 364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of Chartered Accountant for Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal upheld the legality of the appointment of a Chartered Accountant as a special officer under the directions of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR). The appointment was made in accordance with Sections 4(2) and 5(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and did not contravene any statutory provisions.\nReferences:\n•\nRegional Commissioner of Agriculture Income-tax v. B.W.M. Abdul Rehman, Manager, Tak Bara Taraf Wards Estate 1973 SCMR 445", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4,4(1)(2),5(1)(1)(c) & 2(17A) Central Board of Revenue Act, 1924=4,3 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1052/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 31st October, 2001, hearing DATE : 18-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi. Umer Faroque, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 351 = 2002 SLD 351 = 2002 PTD 2222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax on Exempt Units\nConclusion:\nThe High Court held that the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) has no jurisdiction to interpret the law and that such matters are for judicial forums to decide. It set aside the CBR’s prohibition of refunds for turnover tax paid by exempt units, directing that the application for a refund be decided independently of CBR instructions.\nReferences:\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3,3(a),80D & SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1293 of 1998, decision dated: 7-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Fatal Hussain for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SKINTREND INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD through Chief Executive\nvs\nSECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 352 = 2002 SLD 352 = 2002 PTD 2223 = (2002) 86 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration Pending Before Appellate Forum\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman clarified that issues constituting maladministration cannot be entertained if they are already raised before an appellate forum. However, if these issues were not raised in the appeal or revision, they could be agitated before the Ombudsman.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1189-L of 2001, decision dated: 25-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja Khan for the Complainant. Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.C.I.T. Com-Zone-I, Lahore", + "Party Name:": "Dr. ZAHID AHMAD KHAN, RADIOLOGIST, SERVICE HOSPITAL, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 353 = 2002 SLD 353 = 2002 PTD 2228 = (2002) 86 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Senior Citizen Rebate\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended granting the senior citizen rebate under First Schedule, Part I, para (A), proviso (b)(iv) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, contingent on furnishing requisite evidence. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner agreed to take necessary action to allow the rebate.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.3 of 2002, decision dated: 18-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "HIDAYAT ULLAH DAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 354 = 2002 SLD 354 = 2002 PTD 2230 = (2002) 86 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Powers of Revising Authority Under Section 66-A(1A):\nConclusion: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner can revise an order under Section 66-A(1A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provided the issue in question was not the subject matter of any prior appeal or reference. Directions must be independent of and consistent with determinations made by appellate authorities.\nReference: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 492 distinguished.\n(b) Doctrine of Merger and Revising Authority:\nConclusion: The doctrine of merger did not apply because the issues raised by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner were not part of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority.\n(c) Depreciation Adjustment:\nConclusion: Depreciation is a statutory allowance, and any errors in its allowance must be corrected via rectification under Section 156, not through Section 66-A.\n(d) Sales Tax Expense Adjustment:\nConclusion: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner acted within jurisdiction to cancel the assessment, where sales tax was incorrectly treated as a Profit and Loss expense instead of being deducted from gross sales.\n(e) Gross Profit Rate Adjustment:\nConclusion: The Tribunal directed a recalculation of the trading account, ensuring the Gross Profit rate aligned with parallel cases.\nReference: 2002 PTD 275.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3332/LB and 3333/LB of 2001, decision dated: 3rd April, 2002, hearing DATE : 2-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas and Muhammad Hamid. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 355 = 2002 SLD 355 = 2002 PTD 2250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deduction of Head Office Expenditure for Non-Resident Banking Companies:\nConclusion: Deduction under Rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982, must adhere to the lower of either the average or actual Head Office expenditure, calculated in Pakistan currency.\n(b) Importance of Sovereign Currency:\nConclusion: Tax computations must rely on the currency of the sovereign state (Pakistan), as per fiscal law.\n(c) Calculation of Average Head Office Expenditure:\nConclusion: The High Court upheld the decision to calculate the average expenditure in Pakistan currency based on the past three years’ expenditure.\nReference: 1999 SCMR 1213.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,20,24(e),136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.32 of 1992, decision dated: 7-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIGUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fazle Ghani Khan for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CITIBANK N. A., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES1, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 356 = 2002 SLD 356 = 2002 PTD 2265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman:\nConclusion: If an issue constituting maladministration is not directly raised in pending appellate proceedings, the Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain and decide complaints.\n(b) Delay in Implementation of Court Orders:\nConclusion: Delay in implementing High Court or Supreme Court orders without sufficient cause constitutes maladministration under Section 2(3)(ii) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No C-944-K of 2001, decision dated: 27-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Ahmad Khan for the Complainant. Zaheer Ahmad Khan representing G.A. Khan & Co. for Petitioner. Mumtaz Ali Khoso, Deputy Collector, Customs; Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad. Muhammad. Aslam Khan, Deputy Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERNATIONAL BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD, . HYDERABAD through. G. A. Khan & Advocates; Karachi\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 357 = 2002 SLD 357 = 2002 PTD 2272 = (2002) 86 TAX 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Issuing Tax Certificates:\nConclusion: A tax certificate incorrectly stating payment deadlines constituted maladministration. Following an apology from the tax authorities, the Federal Tax Ombudsman closed the complaint, recommending greater care in issuing certificates to safeguard taxpayers’ rights.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.207 of 2002, decision dated: 25-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Safdar Hussain Shah for the Complainant. Muhammad Azam, I. T.O. , Jehlum", + "Party Name:": "SULTAN MANZOOR AHMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 358 = 2002 SLD 358 = 2002 PTD 2281 = (2003) 87 TAX 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Errors in PRAL-Generated Tax Profiles:\nConclusion: The Commissioner of Income Tax canceled erroneous assessments based on incorrect PRAL data, ensuring de novo proceedings. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that PRAL be manned by knowledgeable staff to avoid such issues.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.260 of 2002, decision dated: 29-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Shazia Abid for the Complainant. Mian Muhammad Akram", + "Party Name:": "IFTIKHAR AHMED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 359 = 2002 SLD 359 = 2002 PTD 2282 = (2002) 86 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Filing of Salary Deduction Statements:\nConclusion: The Branch Manager of a bank, being responsible for paying salaries and deducting taxes, must file the required salary deduction statements. The Federal Tax Ombudsman dismissed the manager’s claim of non-responsibility.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),139,50(1)(8);116,2(34)(x) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(4) Income Tax Rules, 1982=8,197 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 191 of 2001, decision dated: 27-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.). SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Ahmad Hussain Khan, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Syed IKRAM UD DIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 360 = 2002 SLD 360 = 2002 PTD 2285 = (2002) 85 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit Selection:\nConclusion: Once a case is selected for total audit, the Income Tax Ordinance provisions apply in full, allowing the department to assess the total income, including unexplained capital. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to revise his capital declaration.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11.2(44),13,62,63,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2951/LB and . 2952/LB of 1995, decision dated: 9-02-2002, hearing DATE : 8-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDIMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.. M.A. Malik, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 361 = 2002 SLD 361 = 2002 PTD 2287 = (2003) 87 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund for Double Taxation on Imports and Supplies:\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that taxing both imports and supplies under Sections 50(4) and 50(5) was against the presumptive taxation scheme. Refund of the tax paid under Section 50(4) was recommended.\nReference: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 532; Messrs Elahi Cotton Mill’s case 1997 PTD 582.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C143B,50(5)(4),55,102,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 120 of 2002, decision dated: 24-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmad and Mansoor Sattar, A.Rs. for the Complainant. Mrs. Fareena Mazhar, I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "FAISAL ISHAQUE LODHI, PROPRIETOR, TAIF TRADING COMPANY, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 362 = 2002 SLD 362 = 2002 PTD 2299 = (2002) 86 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration by Assessing Officer in Violating Tribunal Directions\n•\nIssue: Additions were made in the hands of A.O.P. members, violating directions of the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal's orders. The Department falsely claimed that the Tribunal's order was not received, despite evidence from the Dispatch Register confirming its receipt.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found clear maladministration. Recommendations included:\n1.\nAn inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973, to identify those responsible for the unlawful order.\n2.\nThe Zonal Commissioner was directed to use revisional powers under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to cancel the erroneous assessments and ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.\n•\nReferences: Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973; Section 138, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),62,134(3),138,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.484 of 2001, decision dated: 8-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, D.C.I.T. Circle 14-Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CITY HEART PLAZA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 363 = 2002 SLD 363 = 2002 PTD 2302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability and Exemptions for Various Allowances and Funds\n(a) Taxability of Compensation, Leave Encashment, G.P. Fund, and Medical Allowance\n•\nIssue: The taxability of several allowances received by a bank employee.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the taxability of compensation, leave encashment, G.P. fund, and medical allowance.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Exemption on Pension Commutation\n•\nIssue: Whether the addition under the head pension commutation was taxable.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal deleted the addition as the amount was from a pension fund approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax and qualified for exemption under Clause 26 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nReferences: Clause 26, Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Exemption for Benevolent Fund\n•\nIssue: Taxability of payments received from a benevolent fund.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal directed verification of the certificate to ensure compliance with Clause 26A of the Second Schedule. If verified, the exemption should be allowed.\n•\nReferences: Clause 26A, Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2245/KB of 2001, decision dated: 9-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P.. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 364 = 2002 SLD 364 = 2002 PTD 2307 = (2002) 86 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Refund During Appeal by the Department\n(a) Withholding Refund Without Specified Period\n•\nIssue: Refund created after the appeal was accepted, but withholding was ordered during the Department's second appeal.\n•\nConclusion: The Commissioner’s approval for withholding refund under Section 103 suffered legal infirmities. Withholding was deemed unjustified, amounting to maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended issuing the refund within 30 days unless a stay order was obtained from the Tribunal.\n•\nReferences: Section 103, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; 1995 PTD 749.\n(b) Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\n•\nIssue: Whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to address withholding of refund during a pending second appeal.\n•\nConclusion: The complaint was within jurisdiction as the issue of refund was independent of the appeal. The Department had no stay order from the Tribunal, and withholding was not justified under Section 103.\n•\nReferences: Section 103, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Section 9(2)(a), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=103,129,134 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.6-L of 2002, decision dated: 6-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Iftikhar Shabbir, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Miss Laila Ghafoor, D.C.I.T. Circle 24, Zone A, Lahore Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, PROPRIETOR, ALMURTAZA HOTEL, 19A ABBOTT ROAD, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 365 = 2002 SLD 365 = 2002 PTD 2318 = (2002) 85 TAX 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers, Depreciation, and Procedural Violations\n(a) Opportunity of Being Heard\n•\nIssue: Whether submitting a written reply satisfies the requirement for an opportunity of being heard under Section 66-A.\n•\nConclusion: Written responses fulfill the legal requirement for being heard. Physical appearance is not mandatory.\n•\nReferences: Section 66-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Quality of Assessment\n•\nIssue: Cancellation of an assessment based on its alleged quality and insufficient inquiry.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that quality of assessment or suspicion of higher revenue does not justify cancellation. Such actions violate the spirit of the law.\n•\nReferences: Section 66-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Depreciation Not Claimed\n•\nIssue: Whether the absence of a depreciation claim can result in the cancellation of the assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Taxpayers are not obligated to claim depreciation. If not claimed, it does not prejudice revenue, and cancellation of the order was not justified.\n•\nReferences: Section 66-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4071/LB of 2000, decision dated: 7-02-2002, hearing DATE : 22-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDIMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sher Muhammad Gondal. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 366 = 2002 SLD 366 = 2002 PTD 2332 = (2002) 86 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Repeated Inquiries on the Same Issue\n•\nIssue: Multiple inquiries initiated without new evidence, allegedly to harass the taxpayer at the behest of an official.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman held that repetitive inquiries without new facts or evidence constitute maladministration. Recommendations included:\n1.\nFuture complaints should be scrutinized by the Regional Commissioner.\n2.\nThe Department should report actions against baseless complaints and reasons if no action was taken.\n•\nReferences: Section 9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1573-L of 2001, decision dated: 3rd April, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. Muhammad Naeem, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Prof. Dr. IQBAL AHMAD CHAUDHRY\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 367 = 2002 SLD 367 = 2002 PTD 2335 = (2002) 85 TAX 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Association of Persons (A.O.P.) and Revenue Loss\n(a) Alienation of Shares in A.O.P.\n•\nIssue: Whether alienation of shares by individual members changes the A.O.P.’s status.\n•\nConclusion: Alienation of shares does not alter the A.O.P.'s collective character, which remains a commercial venture.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Revisionary Action for Revenue Loss\n•\nIssue: Cancellation of assessment due to income from an A.O.P. being assessed in the hands of individuals.\n•\nConclusion: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner correctly exercised powers under Section 66-A, as the order caused a revenue loss by treating A.O.P. income as individual income.\n•\nReferences: Sections 66-A, 62, and 13(2)(d), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62,13(2)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3811/LB to 3815/LB of 1997, decision dated: 23rd June, 2000, hearing DATE : 21st June, 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt alongwith Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A. alongwith Mrs. Talat Altaf, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 368 = 2002 SLD 368 = 2002 PTD 2355 = (2002) 86 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Additional Tax for Failure to Pay Tax on Time\n(a) Mandatory Nature of Additional Tax\n•\nIssue: Whether the imposition of additional tax for failure to pay tax on time under Sections 86-89 is mandatory or discretionary.\n•\nConclusion: The imposition of additional tax is mandatory. The Assessing Officer has no discretion to waive or remit additional tax for late payment, even if the taxpayer has a valid explanation.\n•\nReference: Sections 88, 116, 86-89, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Right to Be Heard\n•\nIssue: Whether the right to be heard applies before imposing additional tax.\n•\nConclusion: Taxpayers must be given the opportunity to be heard. In this case, the Assessing Officer provided such an opportunity before imposing additional tax, which was upheld by the Tribunal.\n•\nReference: Sections 88, 156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Retrospective Application of Explanation to Section 54\n•\nIssue: Whether the explanation to Section 54 applies retrospectively.\n•\nConclusion: The explanation, added by the Finance Act, 1993, is retrospective in nature. The taxpayer’s argument against its retrospective application was rejected.\n•\nReference: Section 54, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(d) Additional Tax as a Mandatory Obligation\n•\nIssue: Whether additional tax can be avoided based on discretion or equitable considerations.\n•\nConclusion: Additional tax is obligatory for failure to pay due taxes within the prescribed time, irrespective of circumstances.\n•\nReference: Sections 86-89, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,86,87,88,89,54 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2758/LB of 1995, decision dated: 19-03-2002, hearing DATE : 9-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Iqbal Hhshmi. Ahmad Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 369 = 2002 SLD 369 = 2002 PTD 2364 = (2002) 86 TAX 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Procedural Irregularities\n(a) Limitation for Assessments in Certain Cases\n•\nIssue: Whether time consumed in appeal before the High Court affects the limitation period for assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Time spent in appeals before the High Court must be excluded when computing the limitation period.\n•\nReference: Sections 66(1)(c), 134, 136, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Admissibility of Statements Without Cross-Examination\n•\nIssue: Can statements where cross-examination is denied be relied upon?\n•\nConclusion: Statements lacking cross-examination are inadmissible as evidence.\n•\nReference: Section 66(1)(c), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Service of Notice and Substituted Service\n•\nIssue: Whether substituted service is valid when the taxpayer regularly attends proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Substituted service is improper if regular attendance is established.\n•\nReference: Tribunal decisions.\n(d) Opportunity of Cross-Examination\n•\nIssue: Whether failure to provide cross-examination invalidates an order.\n•\nConclusion: Orders must be set aside if cross-examination is denied.\n•\nReference: Tribunal decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66(1)(c),134,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 653/KB and 654/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 19-03-2002, hearing DATE : 2-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 370 = 2002 SLD 370 = 2002 PTD 2378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Municipal Committee’s Additional Tax Liability\n•\nIssue: Whether a Municipal Committee can be held liable for additional tax due to delayed advance tax payment by the contractor.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declared the demand illegal, as the Assessing Officer allowed installment payments and issued clearance certificates.\n•\nReference: Sections 50(7-A), 86, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7A),86 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4603 of 1997, heard on 31st May, 2002, hearing DATE : 31st May, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Jahangir A. Jojha for Petitioner. Mian Ashiq Hussains", + "Party Name:": "MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MURIDKE, DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE 22, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 371 = 2002 SLD 371 = 2002 PTD 2379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Order and Re-Assessment\n(a) Re-Assessment Orders Contrary to Tribunal Directions\n•\nIssue: Whether re-assessment orders violated Tribunal’s prior orders.\n•\nConclusion: Re-assessment was declared ultra vires. The Tribunal’s order, not challenged in the High Court, was final and binding.\n•\nReference: Sections 59(1), 62, 65, 13(1)(aa), 135, 136, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Finality of Tribunal’s Orders\n•\nIssue: Whether Tribunal orders unchallenged in the High Court are final.\n•\nConclusion: Such orders must be honored.\n•\nReference: Section 135, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,59(1),62,65,13(1)(aa),135,136 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.253 of 2001, decision dated: 17-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAH, JEHAN KHAN AND SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Ghulam Rauf. Eid Muhammad Khattaks Nos. 1, 2 and 4 Abdul Shakir Khan. No. 3", + "Party Name:": "SAEEDUR-REHMAN\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE 16, ABBOTTABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 372 = 2002 SLD 372 = 2002 PTD 2384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund Demand Under Presumptive Tax Regime\n•\nIssue: Whether Workers’ Welfare Fund demand is valid under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declared the demand illegal. Under Section 80-CC, the taxpayer was exempt from filing returns, and the tax deducted was deemed final.\n•\nReference: Sections 55, 80-CC, Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,80CC Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(3)(7) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.468 of 1998, heard on 22-05-2002. dates of hearing: 9th, 13th and 22-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ilyas Zafar with Shughufta Jabeen for Petitioner. Waseem Majid Malik", + "Party Name:": "RICHA LEATHERS\nvs\nSPECIAL OFFICER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX CIRCLE 6, SIALKOT and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 373 = 2002 SLD 373 = 2002 PTD 2386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit Selection\n•\nIssue: Whether the case selection for total audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme could be challenged in appeal.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal rejected the appeal, holding that acceptance of returns under the Self-Assessment Scheme did not raise a substantive question of law.\n•\nReference: Sections 59, 62, 136(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59,62,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.61 of 2002, decision dated: 10-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aneel Sagar for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM PROPRIETOR OF AKRAM GENERAL STORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 374 = 2002 SLD 374 = 2002 PTD 2395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Short Deduction and Liability for Non-Deduction\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessee can be treated as in default when the short-deducted tax has been paid by the supplier.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee cannot be treated as in default if the supplier pays the tax. Additional tax may be charged for the delay.\n•\nReference: Sections 52, 50, 86, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 185/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 26-07-1999, hearing DATE : 20-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Riaz-ud-Din, D.R.. Z. H. Jaffery", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 375 = 2002 SLD 375 = 2002 PTD 2396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Proceedings and Injunctions\n(a) Exclusion of Period During Stay Orders\n•\nIssue: Whether time during stay orders by the Court can be excluded for limitation purposes.\n•\nConclusion: Time during which proceedings are stayed must be excluded from the limitation period.\n•\nReference: Section 160(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Interim Injunction and Revenue Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Whether interim injunctions affect revenue matters.\n•\nConclusion: No party should suffer due to Court injunctions, and time should be excluded from limitation.\n•\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Additional Assessment\n•\nIssue: Whether additional assessments annulled due to time-bar can be reopened.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s annulment of additional assessments was incorrect, and the appeal was remanded for merit-based adjudication.\n•\nReference: Sections 65, 136(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=160,65,136(1),160(b) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.7 of 1999, heard on 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nCh. M.S. SHAD, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 376 = 2002 SLD 376 = 2002 PTD 2418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Immovable Property\n(a) Valuation Procedure\n•\nIssue: How is the valuation of immovable property determined under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?\n•\nConclusion: Valuation is determined as per Rule 207-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.\n•\nReference: Section 13, Rule 207-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Agricultural Land Valuation\n•\nIssue: Whether land previously used for agriculture but later abandoned could be valued as per agricultural land rates.\n•\nConclusion: The land was evaluated under Rule 207-A(ii), which considers values notified under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899.\n•\nReference: Section 13, Rule 207-A(ii), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Section 27-A, Stamp Act, 1899.\n(c) Consideration of Vicinity\n•\nIssue: Should the existence of factories in the vicinity influence land valuation?\n•\nConclusion: The presence of nearby factories is irrelevant for determining the value of the land purchased.\n•\nReference: 2000 PTD 374.\n(d) Industrial Use Valuation\n•\nIssue: Whether agricultural land converted for industrial purposes should be valued at industrial rates.\n•\nConclusion: High Court disapproved the valuation based on industrial rates, directing adherence to rates specified by the District Collector under the Stamp Act.\n•\nReference: Sections 13, 136(2), Rule 207-A(ii), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,136(2) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 142 of 2001, decision dated: 29th May. 2002, hearing DATE : 9-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Arshad. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "ASAD HUSSAIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 377 = 2002 SLD 377 = 2002 PTD 2422 = (2002) 86 TAX 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\n(a) Circular Application\n•\nIssue: Was rectification under Circular No. 23 of 1988 valid?\n•\nConclusion: Rectification based on the circular was unjustified as the circular was declared ultra vires.\n•\nReference: 1992 PTD 570.\n(b) Retrospective Amendments\n•\nIssue: Could amendments in Rule 3A of the Third Schedule be applied retrospectively?\n•\nConclusion: Amendments made in 1992 could not be applied to the assessment year 1991-92. The Assessing Officer's rectification was invalid.\n•\nReference: Sections 156(2), Rule 3A, Third Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; 1992 PTD 570.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,156(2),ThirdSehed., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2304/KB to 2307/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 27-04-2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Ahmed Barakzai, D.R.. Arshad Siraj", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 378 = 2002 SLD 378 = 2002 PTD 2428 = (2002) 86 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Rate on Contractual Payments\n•\nIssue: Whether the rate of tax deduction (5% or 6%) depends on the value of contracts exceeding Rs. 30 million.\n•\nConclusion: The determining factor is the value of each individual contract, not the aggregate payments. In this case, the 5% rate was applicable.\n•\nReference: First Schedule, Part I, Para CCC, Sections 52A, 88, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched,52A,88 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1442/KB/DB of 2001, decision dated: 24-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Siddique, I.T.P.. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 379 = 2002 SLD 379 = 2002 PTD 2431 = (2002) 86 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Revisional Orders\n•\nIssue: When does the limitation period for revisional orders start in cases of rectified assessments?\n•\nConclusion: The limitation starts from the date of the rectified order, not the original assessment order.\n•\nReference: Sections 66-A(2), 62, 156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,66A(2),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.902/KB/DB to 904/KB/DB of 2000-2001 decided on 20-03-2002, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hassan Naeem, ITP. Imtiaz Barakzai, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 380 = 2002 SLD 380 = 2002 PTD 2472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Questions of Law vs. Questions of Fact\n(a) Nature of Questions\n•\nIssue: How to distinguish between questions of law and fact in assessments?\n•\nConclusion: Questions based on record appreciation are factual, while unsupported assessments become legal questions.\n•\nReference: N.A. Concern v. CIT 1938 6 ITR 518.\n(b) Arbitrary Assessments\n•\nIssue: Whether arbitrary assessments without basis are valid.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments must have a basis. Ex parte assessments made arbitrarily were set aside with directions for fresh proceedings.\n•\nReference: 1989 PTD 177.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59(1),61,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.281 of 1991 and I.T.C. No.35 of 1992, decision dated: 20-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EASTERN DISTRIBUTORS, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 381 = 2002 SLD 381 = 2002 PTD 2538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeals Under Amended Provisions\n•\nIssue: Whether appeals filed under amended provisions of Section 136(1) are maintainable for orders passed before the amendment.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals against pre-amendment orders are not maintainable. Authorities were directed to seek references for legal questions.\n•\nReference: Section 136(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Finance Act, 1997=136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 101 of 1997, decision dated: 16-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Illyas Khan. Khalil Ahmad Rao", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs OLYMPIA-INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 382 = 2002 SLD 382 = 2002 PTD 2539 = (2002) 86 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Assessment on Existing Records\n(a) Validity of Reassessment\n•\nIssue: Whether reassessment can be initiated based on material already considered in the original assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment based on previously considered material is invalid.\n•\nReference: Section 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Jurisdiction and Consent\n•\nIssue: Can filing a return under protest waive the right to challenge jurisdiction?\n•\nConclusion: Filing a return does not preclude the assessee from challenging jurisdiction.\n•\nReference: Section 154(6), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,154(6) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5870/LBof 1995, decision dated: 18-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Misri Landhani, D.R.. M.H. Bokhari", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 383 = 2002 SLD 383 = 2002 PTD 2542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Borrowing and Allowance Claims\n(a) Borrowing Conditions\n•\nIssue: What conditions must be met to claim borrowing allowances?\n•\nConclusion: Borrowing must be genuine and for business purposes, with interest paid on borrowed capital.\n•\nReference: 1992 PTD 954.\n(b) Surplus Funds\n•\nIssue: Can surplus funds affect borrowing decisions?\n•\nConclusion: Availability of surplus funds does not prevent legitimate borrowing.\n•\nReference: 1992 PTD 954.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(iii) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.23 of 1998, heard on 8-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs UNIGOHAR TRADERS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 384 = 2002 SLD 384 = 2002 PTD 2545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Without Notice\n•\nIssue: Whether income tax recovery without notice violates legal procedures.\n•\nConclusion: Recovery without notice or hearing is invalid. Authorities must provide notice before making a demand.\n•\nReference: Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7247 of 1992, decision dated: 25-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan with M. Safdar, A.C. Income-tax, Gujranwala", + "Party Name:": "GENERAL CABLES (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE7, ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 385 = 2002 SLD 385 = 2002 PTD 2546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Proceedings in Absence of Assessee\n•\nIssue: Can High Court address questions in the absence of the assessee?\n•\nConclusion: Questions referred in the absence of the assessee were declined by the High Court.\n•\nReference: Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons Karachi v. CIT (1967) 16-Tax 43.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.42 of 1996, decision dated: 12-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ILYAS FOUNDRY WORKS, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 386 = 2002 SLD 386 = 2002 PTD 2549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income - Share Deposit Money\n•\nIssue: Whether share deposit money qualifies as a loan under Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: Share deposit money is not considered a loan under Section 12(18) unless it is explicitly claimed as such by the assessee. The provision applies only when both criteria (existence of a loan and its claim) are met.\n•\nReference: Messrs Micropak (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 2001 PTD 1180.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.77 of 1997, decision dated: 11-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Ibrar Majal. Mian Ashiq Hussains", + "Party Name:": "QUALITY CASTING (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER (COMPANIES), LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 387 = 2002 SLD 387 = 2002 PTD 2550 = (2002) 86 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Excessive Estimation and Capital Gain\n(a) Excessive Estimation of Receipts\n•\nIssue: Appropriateness of excessive estimation of commission receipts.\n•\nConclusion: First Appellate Authority reduced the excessive estimation realistically, and the Tribunal upheld this decision.\n•\nReference: None specified.\n(b) Verification of Expenses\n•\nIssue: Validity of additions maintained for unverifiable expenses.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal remanded the matter for re-examination and directed that no additions be made if expenses are verifiable and business-related.\n•\nReference: None specified.\n(c) Capital Gain Misclassification\n•\nIssue: Whether a transaction related to a shop constitutes a capital gain or business income.\n•\nConclusion: The transaction was not a capital gain as immovable property does not qualify under Sections 27 & 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It was instead classified as income from other sources due to its nature as a casual receipt.\n•\nReference: Sections 27, 28, Second Schedule, Part I, Clause (65), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27,28;SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos.1184/KB/DB to 1185/KB/DB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 26-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ianayatullah Kashani D.R.. Amanullah C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 388 = 2002 SLD 388 = 2002 PTD 2562", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Additional Assessment\n(a) Harassment Through Repeated Show-Cause Notices\n•\nIssue: Legitimacy of issuing multiple show-cause notices under Section 65 based on the same grounds.\n•\nConclusion: Issuing repeated notices without new information constitutes harassment and maladministration under Section 2(3)(i) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nReference: None specified.\n(b) Self-Assessment Finality\n•\nIssue: Whether self-assessment under Section 59(1) is equivalent to assessment under Section 62.\n•\nConclusion: Self-assessments finalized under Section 59(1) are considered equivalent to those under Section 62.\n•\nReference: None specified.\n(c) Jurisdiction on Maladministration\n•\nIssue: Whether Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate maladministration allegations.\n•\nConclusion: Maladministration can be independently investigated, even if the subject matter pertains to tax assessments.\n•\nReference: Section 9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59(1),62,103 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3)(i) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.50-L of 2002, decision dated: 3rd June, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas for the Complainant. Ms. Nabila Iqbal, DCIT alongwith Muhammad Umar Zulfiqar, ACIT", + "Party Name:": "Mst. RUKHSANA AMJAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 389 = 2002 SLD 389 = 2002 PTD 2594 = (2003) 87 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Share Deposit Money and Section 12(18)\n(a) Applicability of Section 12(18)\n•\nIssue: Treatment of assets taken over by a company as share deposit money.\n•\nConclusion: Section 12(18) applies to loans or advances, not to investments representing fixed assets or capitalized expenses. Misapplication of the provision was identified as maladministration.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 63; Black's Law Dictionary, Concise Oxford Dictionary.\n(b) Intent Behind Section 12(18)\n•\nIssue: Whether Section 12(18) covers fictitious advances and gifts.\n•\nConclusion: Originally designed to address fictitious loans, the provision was expanded to cover fictitious advances and gifts. However, no fictitious element was found in this case.\n•\nReference: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),13 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 154-L of 2002, decision dated: 8-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim Adviser, Dealing Officer", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FATEH FOOD (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 390 = 2002 SLD 390 = 2002 PTD 2603 = (2003) 87 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Definite Information\n(a) Jurisdiction on Maladministration\n•\nIssue: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s jurisdiction when legal remedies are available.\n•\nConclusion: Allegations of maladministration fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, independent of the legal remedies for tax assessments.\n•\nReference: Sections 9(2)(b), 2(3), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n(b) Assessment Based on Presumptions\n•\nIssue: Validity of additions based on photocopies of cheques without proof.\n•\nConclusion: Additions lacked definitive evidence. The proceedings were deemed arbitrary and void, requiring rectification.\n•\nReference: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,9(2)(b) & 2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint-No.C-1607-K of 2001, decision dated: 19-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Athar Saeed for the Complainant. Basharat Ahmed Qureshi, I.A.C. Dr. Nasir Gunjua, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "FAKIR S. AYAZUDDIN, PARAMOUNT AVIATION (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIESI, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 391 = 2002 SLD 391 = 2002 PTD 2609 = (2002) 86 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Procedural Amendments\n(a) Retrospective Application of Provisions\n•\nIssue: Whether procedural provisions in Section 56 apply retrospectively.\n•\nConclusion: Procedural provisions are retrospective unless stated otherwise.\n•\nReference: None specified.\n(b) Limitation on Issuance of Notice\n•\nIssue: Validity of notices issued beyond the five-year limit under Section 56.\n•\nConclusion: Notices issued beyond five years are invalid. The Legislature’s intention to suppress misuse was evident in the Finance Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nReference: 2001 PTD 1998; 1985 PTD 276; 1993 SCMR 73.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,62,65,13(1)(d),13(2),30(2)(c),108,110,111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 820(113) to 822(113) and 826(IB) of 1999-2000, decision dated: 30-11-2001, hearing DATE : 15-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. Habib Fakhr-ud-Din, F. C. A. and Hafiz Muhammad Idrees", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 392 = 2002 SLD 392 = 2002 PTD 2617 = (2002) 86 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Refunds\n(a) Maladministration: Non-Service of Orders\n•\nIssue: Delays or failure to serve tax orders.\n•\nConclusion: Orders passed without notice or with unreasonable delays in serving copies are illegal and constitute maladministration.\n•\nReference: Section 2(3), Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n(b) Delay in Revisional Orders\n•\nIssue: Whether a delayed but detailed revisional order indicates mala fides.\n•\nConclusion: Detailed orders, even if delayed, do not indicate mala fides if due process is followed.\n•\nReference: Sections 66A, 96, and 102, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Non-Issuance of Refunds\n•\nIssue: Failure to issue refunds.\n•\nConclusion: Refunds due must be issued promptly with compensation under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Officials responsible for errors must be warned.\n•\nReference: Section 102, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,96,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 161.8-L of 2001, decision dated: 16-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Warraich, ITP for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasul Malik, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMJAD SALEEM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 393 = 2002 SLD 393 = 2002 PTD 2626 = (2002) 86 TAX 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax and Administrative Oversight\n•\nIssue: Validity of an invalid demand notice and accumulation of tax arrears.\n•\nConclusion: Issuance of an invalid notice and lack of supervision over arrears reflect maladministration. Effective steps should be taken for recovery and elimination of bogus arrears.\n•\nReference: Section 93(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Section 9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=93,93(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1769 of 2001, decision dated: 7-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Ms. Shazia Abid, DCIT arid Ahsan Ali Shah, ACITs", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 394 = 2002 SLD 394 = 2002 PTD 2638 = (2002) 86 TAX 317 = (2003) 87 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\n(a) Delay in Rectification\n•\nIssue: Inordinate delay in passing rectification orders.\n•\nConclusion: Delays in rectification without justification amount to maladministration. Prompt disposal of cases is essential.\n•\nReference: Section 156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Denial of Hearing in Rectification\n•\nIssue: Rejection of rectification request without a hearing.\n•\nConclusion: Orders passed without a hearing violate statutory rights and constitute maladministration.\n•\nReference: Section 156(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Jurisdiction and Maladministration\n•\nIssue: Whether maladministration affects jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Gross maladministration overrides objections to jurisdiction under Section 9(2)(b) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nReference: Sections 156, 138, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(2),SecondSched.,(118D) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,9(2)(b),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-38-K of 2002 or C-40-K of 2002, decision dated: 19-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Ms. Lubna Pervez for the Complainant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, IAC, Special Zone and Mrs. Lubna Ayub Asif, DCIT Circle, Special Zone, Karachis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LATIF COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 395 = 2002 SLD 395 = 2002 PTD 2642 = (2002) 86 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Assets Tax\n•\nIssue: Basis for calculating Corporate Assets Tax.\n•\nConclusion: Corporate Assets Tax is charged on the value of fixed assets shown in the balance sheet. Neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer can alter this value based on cost, written-down value, or revaluation.\n•\nReference: Sections 12(6), Finance Act, 1991.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991=12(1)(2),(6) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 1249/LB of 2000, decision dated: 12-12-2001, hearing DATE : 8-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Kamal, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 396 = 2002 SLD 396 = 2002 PTD 2646 = (2002) 86 TAX 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Execution of Court Orders\n(a) Jurisdictional Bar\n•\nIssue: Whether pending appeals oust Federal Tax Ombudsman jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Jurisdiction is not ousted if no appeal or petition for leave to appeal was filed when the complaint was submitted.\n•\nReference: Section 9(2)(a), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n(b) Litigation Costs\n•\nIssue: Whether Federal Tax Ombudsman can intervene in litigation cost claims denied by the High Court.\n•\nConclusion: Intervention is improper where the High Court has refused to grant costs.\n•\nReference: Section 9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n(c) Execution of High Court Orders\n•\nIssue: Non-execution of orders granting exemption.\n•\nConclusion: Orders must be implemented unless stayed by the Supreme Court. The department should execute High Court orders within 30 days.\n•\nReference: Section 14, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 ", + "Case #": "Petition No. 1-P of 2002, decision dated: 20-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Yahya and Nija-ud-Din, Law Officer for the Complainant. Sadiqullah Khan, Deputy Collector, Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHYBER SPINNING MILLS, GADOON\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 397 = 2002 SLD 397 = 2002 PTD 2662 = (2002) 86 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Surcharge\n(a) Levy of Surcharge\n•\nIssue: Applicability of surcharge on minimum tax under Section 80D.\n•\nConclusion: Surcharge applies to income tax payable under Section 80D unless explicitly excluded. Section 80D is not among exclusions listed in Paragraph C of Part III of the First Schedule.\n•\nReference: Section 80D, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Meaning of Tax \n•\nIssue: Interpretation of tax under Section 80D.\n•\nConclusion: The term tax in Section 80D does not preclude penalties or additional taxes. Acceptance of the assessee's interpretation would create immunity from further liabilities.\n•\nReference: Sections 80D, 2(43), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,FirstSched.,2(43) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A.- No.23/KB of 2002, decision dated: 17-05-2002, hearing DATE : 15-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arshad, C.A.. Bakht Zaman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 398 = 2002 SLD 398 = 2002 PTD 2670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rate of Tax on Contracts\n•\nIssue: Determination of tax rate based on the value of contracts.\n•\nConclusion: Contracts valued below Rs. 30 million attract a 5% tax rate, while those exceeding Rs. 30 million are taxed at 6%.\n•\nReference: First Schedule, Part I, Clause CCC(a)(i), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; I.T.A. No. 1555/KB of 1999-2000.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.537/KB and 538/KB of 2002, decision dated: 23rd May, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir, I. T. P.. Sajjad Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 399 = 2002 SLD 399 = 2002 PTD 2679 = (2002) 86 TAX 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Technical Services and Double Taxation\n(a) Fee for Technical Services\n•\nIssue: Whether the explanation in Section 12(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 mandates the physical presence of technical personnel in Pakistan.\n•\nConclusion: The explanation is inclusive, not exhaustive. Technical services do not necessarily require the physical presence of personnel. Services can still qualify as technical services without deputation in Pakistan.\n•\nReference: Section 12(5), Explanation, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Taxation of Fees under Double Taxation Treaty\n•\nIssue: Classification of fees from satellite services as fees for technical services. \n•\nConclusion: Fees from transponder use are not classified as fees for technical services. Instead, they constitute commercial profits as they involve providing a standard facility without passing technical knowledge. The appeal was allowed, and the department's orders were canceled.\n•\nReferences: Sections 80AA, 12(5), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Treaty for Avoidance of Double Taxation (USA-Pakistan), Article III.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(5),80AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2081/KB of 2001, decision dated: 4-05-2002, hearing DATE : 2-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Fateh Ali W. Vellani and Khaliqur Rehman; FCA. Dr. Najeeb Ahmed Memon, ACIT", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 400 = 2002 SLD 400 = 2002 PTD 2694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Rectification and Refund\n•\nIssue: Unjustified delay in rectification of I.T. 30 and issuance of refunds.\n•\nConclusion: The delay was deemed unreasonable and constituted maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended completing the process within 45 days.\n•\nReference: Sections 156, 96, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Section 9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.54-L of 2002, decision dated: 24-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasul Dat", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PIONEER TRADERS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 401 = 2002 SLD 401 = 2002 PTD 2700 = (2003) 87 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Demand for Gratification and Maladministration\n•\nIssue: Illegal gratification demanded by a factory clerk for completing tax assessments.\n•\nConclusion: Such acts damage the reputation of the tax department. The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed assessments to be completed within one month and orders to be delivered directly to assessees, bypassing intermediaries.\n•\nReference: Section 9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1494/K of 2001, decision dated: 6-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL HAFEEZ QURESHI and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 402 = 2002 SLD 402 = 2002 PTD 2703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court in Absence of Assessee\n•\nIssue: Whether questions referred to the High Court can be addressed in the absence of the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to answer the questions as the assessee, at whose instance the questions were referred, was absent.\n•\nReferences: Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 16 Tax 43; M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 123 of 1993, decision dated: 18-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Petitioner. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "NASREEN ASAD HAYAT\nvs\nC.I.T., CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 403 = 2002 SLD 403 = 2002 PTD 2705 = (2002) 86 TAX 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Laws and Limitation\n(a) Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\n•\nIssue: Principle for interpreting fiscal laws.\n•\nConclusion: Fiscal statutes are interpreted strictly, ensuring consistency across provisions.\n•\nReference: General principles of statutory interpretation.\n(b) Limitation and Setting Aside of Assessments\n•\nIssue: Applicability of limitation under Section 66(1)(c) for setting aside assessments.\n•\nConclusion: Section 66(1)(c) applies only to assessment orders, not to instructions from appellate authorities. Tribunal upheld the validity of orders beyond one year if related to appellate instructions.\n•\nReferences: Sections 66(1)(c), 52, 86, 132, and 135, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Default in Tax Deduction\n•\nIssue: Responsibility of withholding agents and the concept of assessee in default. \n•\nConclusion: Withholding agents can be treated as defaulting only if tax was not paid by the recipient. Assessments must ensure no double taxation.\n•\nReference: Sections 52, 86, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,66(1)(c),52,86,132(a),135(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos. 595/KB to 597/KB of 2002, decision dated: 1st June, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadim Tirmizi and Khaliq-ur-Rehman, FCAs. Muhammad Farid, Legal Advisor of Respondent and Inayatullah Kashani, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 404 = 2002 SLD 404 = 2002 PTD 2714", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Welfare Fund\n•\nIssue: Whether questions related to the Workers' Welfare Fund could be referred after a Supreme Court decision.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal and High Court declined to entertain the appeal as the matter was already decided by the Supreme Court.\n•\nReference: Civil Petitions Nos. 38, 156–524 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 138 of 2001, heard on 8-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs FAROOQ MUMTAZ COTTON GINNING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., GUJRAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 405 = 2002 SLD 405 = 2002 PTD 2716 = (2002) 86 TAX 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\n(a) Jurisdiction over Maladministration\n•\nIssue: Whether maladministration under the Documentation of National Economy Ordinance falls under the Federal Tax Ombudsman's jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction over maladministration by the Revenue Division, even under non-tax-specific legislation like the Documentation of National Economy Ordinance.\n•\nReferences: Sections 9, 2(6), and 2(7), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n(b) Review Petition Against Recommendations\n•\nIssue: Review of Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendations regarding survey documentation.\n•\nConclusion: The review was rejected as there was no error in the recommendation, which was made after due consideration.\n•\nReference: Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. PLD 1997 SC 865.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(6) ", + "Case #": "Review Application No.1 of 2002 in Complaints Nos. 582 to 603, 663 to 670, 1233 and 1236 of 2001, decision dated: 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.), J SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nazim Saleem, Chief (Sales Tax), C.B.R Abdul Hameed Memon for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nZAHEERUDDIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 406 = 2002 SLD 406 = 2002 PTD 2732", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income and Notional Interest\n•\nIssue: Whether the transfer of stock and stores to a sister concern can be treated as a loan or advance under Section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal rightly held that the transfer was neither a loan nor an advance, and the addition of notional interest was unwarranted. The High Court affirmed that the provision applies to real loans or advances, not notional transactions.\n•\nReference: Section 12(7), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(7),136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 101 of 1993, decision dated: 16-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CH. TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 407 = 2002 SLD 407 = 2002 PTD 2734 = (2002) 86 TAX 322 = (2003) 87 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Show-Cause Notices\n(a) Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers\n•\nIssue: Legitimacy of a show-cause notice issued under Section 66-A alleging that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman highlighted deficiencies in the process. The notice lacked specific evidence of revenue prejudice. Filing a return vested jurisdiction in the officer, and no error existed in the assessment.\n•\nReferences: Sections 66-A, 59(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Maladministration and Preventive Steps\n•\nIssue: Tactics to forestall refunds through proceedings under Sections 65 and 66-A.\n•\nConclusion: The Ombudsman recommended a systematic review of cases initiated under these sections to evaluate the bona fides and effectiveness of such actions, emphasizing the inefficiencies and harassment faced by taxpayers.\n•\nReferences: Sections 65, 66-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66A,5(5),59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 65-L of 2002, decision dated: 14-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasool Malik, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARID FLOUR MILLS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 408 = 2002 SLD 408 = 2002 PTD 2739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Surcharge\n•\nIssue: Whether taxes payable under Section 13(1) can be treated as a levy of surcharge.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that taxes payable could be termed as a levy of surcharge.\n•\nReference: PLD 1993 SC 257; Section 13(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 115 of 1993, decision dated: 7-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 409 = 2002 SLD 409 = 2002 PTD 2740 = (2003) 87 TAX 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices and Record Maintenance\n(a) Improper Service of Notices\n•\nIssue: Impact of improper service of assessment orders and demand notices.\n•\nConclusion: Improper service invalidated the taxpayer's ability to appeal. The lack of proper record maintenance constituted maladministration.\n•\nReferences: Sections 65, 63, 13(1)(aa), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Federal Tax Ombudsman's Recommendations\n•\nConclusion: The Ombudsman recommended canceling the flawed assessment and conducting a fresh assessment in compliance with the law.\n•\nReference: Section 138, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,63,13(1)(aa) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 210 of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "HABIBULLAH MULLAH\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 410 = 2002 SLD 410 = 2002 PTD 2743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Service Methods\n(a) Service by Afixation\n•\nIssue: Whether an officer can order service by affixture without first attempting service by post.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to answer, stating it was not a substantial question of law.\n•\nReference: PLD 1983 SC 358.\n(b) Remand of Appeals\n•\nIssue: Validity of remand orders by appellate authorities.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, confirming that remand was lawful and aligned with case facts.\n•\nReference: Section 136(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.374 of 1991, decision dated: 21st December, 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashim for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAFIQ\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 411 = 2002 SLD 411 = 2002 PTD 2746 = (2002) 86 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Question of Law vs. Fact\n(a) Nature of Questions\n•\nIssue: Whether inferences drawn from facts constitute questions of law.\n•\nConclusion: Inferences based on established facts and legal principles are deemed questions of law.\n•\nReferences: 1986 SCMR 1917; 2001 PTD 900.\n(b) Bifurcation of Royalty and Technical Fees\n•\nIssue: Validity of the Tribunal's bifurcation of royalty into technical fees and royalty payments.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal's decision was case-specific, not of general applicability. The reference application was rejected.\n•\nReference: Convention between Pakistan and Japan for Avoidance of Double Taxation, Article VII.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "R. As. Nos. 266/KB to 273/KB of 2002, decision dated: 24-06-2002, hearing DATE : 21st June, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mazhar Jaffri, A.R.. Bakht Zaman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 412 = 2002 SLD 412 = 2002 PTD 2759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Section 12(18)\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 12(18) concerning income deemed to accrue.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court affirmed its earlier ruling that Section 12(18) did not apply, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.\n•\nReferences: I.T.As. Nos.491, 492, 677, 678, and 321 of 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.243 of 2000, decision dated: 15-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Mahmood Sheikh for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AIRMECH ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 413 = 2002 SLD 413 = 2002 PTD 2761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Cases\n(a) Reopening Based on Audit Reports\n•\nIssue: Legitimacy of reopening assessments based on audit reports.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court found no material evidence supporting reopening and upheld the Tribunal's decision against reopening.\n•\nReferences: Sections 136, 13(c), and 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Appeal Dismissal\n•\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed as no jurisdictional or procedural errors were found.\n•\nReferences: Edulji Dinsham Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 1990 PTD 155; Messrs Central Insurance Company v. CBR 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,136,13(c),65 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.1 and 2 of 1998, decision dated: 23rd January, 2002, hearing DATE : 6-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Saleem Jan Khan for Appellant. Eid Muhammad K1lan Khattak", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KURRAM ENTERPRISES MEDICINES DEALER, BANNU\nvs\nSPECIAL OFFICER IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE24, BANNU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 414 = 2002 SLD 414 = 2002 PTD 2768 = (2002) 86 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual and Taxation of Savings Schemes\n•\nIssue: Applicability of withholding tax on profits from National Savings Schemes for account holders in Tribal Areas of Pakistan.\n•\nConclusion: Income from savings schemes, even in Tribal Areas, is deemed to accrue in Pakistan as per Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The basis of taxation is the location of income accrual, not the residence of the taxpayer. Withholding tax deductions were upheld.\n•\nReferences: Sections 12(3)(6), 17, and 50(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Regular Income Certificate Rules, 1993.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(3)(6),17,50(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.755-K of 2001, decision dated: 26-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "ALLAH DITTA ZAHID\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 415 = 2002 SLD 415 = 2002 PTD 2791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal of Appeals on Procedural Grounds\n•\nIssue: Legitimacy of dismissing an appeal for failure to file a certified copy of the impugned order.\n•\nConclusion: Dismissal without following procedural requirements under Rule 15 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, was unjust. The High Court held that appeals should not be dismissed on technicalities without providing the appellant an opportunity to rectify the issue.\n•\nReferences: Rules 11 and 15, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.89 of 1993, decision dated: 11-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nALMUSLIM ICE FACTORY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 416 = 2002 SLD 416 = 2002 PTD 2793 = (2003) 87 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Adjustments\n(a) Withdrawal of Petition\n•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman after withdrawal of a constitutional petition.\n•\nConclusion: Complaint was resolved on merits after withdrawal of the constitutional petition.\n(b) Refund Retention\n•\nIssue: Legality of retaining refund amounts for verification or adjustment.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended issuing refunds within 30 days and paying compensation for delays under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nReferences: Sections 96 and 102, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-100-K of 2002, decision dated: 27-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana M. Shamim and Mrs. Munawwar Sultana for the Complainant. Rana Jawaid Iqbal, I.A.C. Range-11, Cos. Zone-II and Dr. Malik Muhammad, DCIT, Circle 7, Cos. Zone-IIs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INDUS JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 417 = 2002 SLD 417 = 2002 PTD 2797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Conditional Appeals\n(a) Constitutionality of Appeal Conditions\n•\nIssue: Validity of conditions imposed for filing appeals under Section 129(2).\n•\nConclusion: The legislature is competent to impose such conditions. The constitutional petition challenging the condition was dismissed.\n•\nReferences: Sections 129 and 130, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Legislative Competence\n•\nConclusion: The legislature can impose reasonable conditions on appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,130 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10165 of 1994, heard on 20-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDNR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Aziz for petitioner. Kh. Muhammad Saeed on behalf of Muhammad Ilyas Khan for", + "Party Name:": "AASHI PACKAGES (PVT.) LIMITED, BAGHBANPURA, LAHORE through Director, Hassan Kamal\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 418 = 2002 SLD 418 = 2002 PTD 2799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Taxes During Appeal\n(a) Public Functionaries' Obligations\n•\nIssue: Duties of public functionaries in redressing grievances.\n•\nConclusion: Authorities must act reasonably and provide justifications for their actions.\n•\nReference: Section 24A, General Clauses Act, 1897.\n(b) Recovery During Appeals\n•\nIssue: Legality of recovery during pending appeals.\n•\nConclusion: High Court held that disputed amounts could not be recovered while the appeal was pending. Demand notices were held in abeyance.\n•\nReferences: Section 134, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2002, decision dated: 2-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan, Legal Advisors", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB PROVINCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., LAHORE\nvs \nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE II, COMPANY ZONE I, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 419 = 2002 SLD 419 = 2002 PTD 2802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nIssue: Reopening of cases under Section 62.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding the reopening unjustified under the Self-Assessment Scheme. High Court declined to answer as no substantial legal controversy was raised.\n•\nReferences: Sections 136(2) and 62, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),62 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 25 of 2002, decision dated: 11-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs NEW MEHBOOB FINISHING AND BLEACHING PLANT, SAMUNDRI ROAD, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 420 = 2002 SLD 420 = 2002 PTD 2804 = (2003) 88 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Refunds\n•\nIssue: Non-payment of refunds for over four years.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate issuance of refunds, compensation at 15% for delays, and reprimand of responsible officers.\n•\nReferences: Sections 96 and 102, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,102 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),22 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 234 of 2002, decision dated: 1st July, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "None appeared for the Complainant. Habib Ahmad, D-CIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHAIRULSANAT COTTON GINNERS, PRIVATE LIMITED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 421 = 2002 SLD 421 = 2002 PTD 2806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Savings Certificates\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for exemption under Clause 78E for reinvested savings certificates.\n•\nConclusion: Reinvestment did not meet the criteria for exemption as the certificates were not created from foreign currency account conversions. Exemption was denied.\n•\nReferences: Clause 78E, Part I, Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "Complaint ho. 375/L of 2002, decision dated: 31st July, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "RIAZ GUL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 422 = 2002 SLD 422 = 2002 PTD 2809 = (2003) 88 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Assessments\n•\nIssue: Reopening of assessments on the grounds of an error in declaring the nature of business.\n•\nConclusion: Proceedings under Section 65 were deemed illegal as no new facts emerged, and the reopening was based on a change of opinion.\n•\nReferences: Sections 65 and 59(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65,59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.233-L of 2002, decision dated: 9-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Riaz Hussain and Mr. Moeen-ud-Din for the Complainant. Haroon Waqar Malik, A-CIT", + "Party Name:": "NEW SAKHAWAT JEWELLERS\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 423 = 2002 SLD 423 = 2002 PTD 2813 = (2003) 87 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Senior Citizen Rebate\n•\nIssue: Rejection of senior citizen tax rebate under the Universal Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended rectifying the assessment to allow the rebate as per the provisions of the First Schedule.\n•\nReferences: Section 59(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.516 of 2002, decision dated: 31st July, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX-OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saeed Rana for the Complainant. Manzoor Ahmad; DCIT. Muhammad Saeed Rana for the Complainant Manzoor Ahmad, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Haji ABDUL KAREEM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 424 = 2002 SLD 424 = 2002 PTD 2816 = (2003) 88 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Government Bodies\n•\nIssue: Withdrawal of exemption for the Federal Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reinstating exemptions, citing the Board's integral government function.\n•\nReferences: Clause 185A, Part I, Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.217 OF 2002, decision dated: 24-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf, Deputy Secretary Finance (FBISE). Ms. Fareena Mahzar, Additional Commissioner, Islamabad", + "Party Name:": "SECRETARY, FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 425 = 2002 SLD 425 = 2002 PTD 2821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme Exclusion\n(a) Jurisdiction of Ombudsman\n•\nIssue: Validity of excluding cases from the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman held jurisdiction to investigate.\n(b) Principal Place of Business\n•\nConclusion: A single principal place of business must be maintained for all tax purposes.\n(c) Prorating of Expenses\n•\nConclusion: Adjustments could be made under Section 59(3) without excluding the return from the Scheme.\n•\nReferences: Sections 59(1), 59(3), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,50.59(1)(3)(4),11(20(b),143B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 392 of 2002, decision dated: 13-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Masood Ishaque, Advocate and Nasir Khurshid, ITP for the Complainant. Ahsan Raza, ACIT", + "Party Name:": "SOFIA NAVEED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 426 = 2002 SLD 426 = 2002 PTD 2829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Audit Selection\n(a) Reference to High Court\n•\nIssue: Whether a case could be selected for total audit under the self-assessment scheme.\n•\nConclusion: The question of whether a return qualifies for self-assessment is a factual one and does not raise a substantial legal controversy. High Court declined to answer the reference.\n•\nReferences: Sections 59, 62, and 136(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Scope of Reference\n•\nConclusion: Only questions of substantial legal importance should be referred to the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59,62,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P. T. Reference No. 28 of 2002, decision dated: 11-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs GULSHAN TRADING CO., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 427 = 2002 SLD 427 = 2002 PTD 2832", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Educational Institutions\n(a) Essential Conditions\n•\nIssue: Conditions for granting tax exemption to educational institutions.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption is granted if the institution is established for educational purposes and not for profit.\n(b) Refusal of Exemption\n•\nIssue: Refusal of exemption due to surplus funds and commercial activities.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption cannot be denied unless it is proven that the institution was established primarily for profit. Tribunal's rejection was overturned.\n•\nReference: Mehran Girls College v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 2001 PTD 987.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 157 of 2001, decision dated: 5-06-2002, hearing DATE : 27-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "QUAIDIAZAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, LAHORE through Chairman\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COYS-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 428 = 2002 SLD 428 = 2002 PTD 2836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation and Tax Assessment\n•\nIssue: Whether the valuation of a shop should follow the Stamp Act valuation or Rule 207-A of Income Tax Rules, 1982.\n•\nConclusion: Rule 207-A, being a beneficial provision, should have been applied even if introduced after the filing of returns. The High Court accepted the constitutional petition and ordered a reassessment.\n•\nReferences: Rule 207-A, Income Tax Rules, 1982; Stamp Act, 1899.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,138 Stamp Act, of 1899=27A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 508 of 1999, heard on 15-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Syed QALLANDAR HUSSAIN\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RANGEII, COMPANY ZONE I; LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 429 = 2002 SLD 429 = 2002 PTD 2904 = (2002) 86 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legality of Pre-Show-Cause Notices\n(a) Disciplinary Proceedings for Unauthorized Notices\n•\nIssue: Legality of pre-show-cause notices under Section 65.\n•\nConclusion: Pre-show-cause notices without prior approval of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner are illegal. Disciplinary actions were recommended against the responsible officers.\n•\nReferences: Section 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Invalid Practices\n•\nConclusion: Illegal practices cannot validate actions contrary to law.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-711 of 2001, decision dated: 26-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUFI RESTAURANT, MELODY MARKET MAIN CIVICS CENTRE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 430 = 2002 SLD 430 = 2002 PTD 2906 = (2002) 86 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability of Agents\n(a) Liability Under Section 78\n•\nIssue: Whether an agent can be assessed if the non-resident principal has already been assessed.\n•\nConclusion: Assessing both the agent and the principal for the same income is invalid. Orders against the agent were canceled.\n•\nReferences: Section 78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Non-Resident Taxation\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal held that income tax on non-residents for technical fees should follow the exemption certificate terms, and assessments on agents were void.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=78,78(4)(a)(ii)(iii),78(4)(c),80AA,50(3),50(3A)FirstSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2600/LB to 2602/LB of 2000, decision dated: 29-09-2001, hearing DATE ;18-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sohail Hassan, F.C.A. and Iqbal Chughtai, I.T.P.. Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad and Noor-ul-Amin Hotiana, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 431 = 2002 SLD 431 = 2002 PTD 2938 = (2003) 87 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Genuineness of Lease Arrangements\n•\nIssue: Assessment based on lease agreements contested for authenticity.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments must be based on proper inquiries. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended setting aside the assessments and conducting fresh inquiries.\n•\nReferences: Section 62, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.552 of 2002, decision dated: 18-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Bashir Malik. A.R. for the Complainant Rajab-ud-Din, I.A.C. Range-I, Companies Zone", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BRISTAL FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 432 = 2002 SLD 432 = 2002 PTD 2942", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Errors\n(a) Invalid Orders\n•\nIssue: Validity of orders passed without jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Orders passed without jurisdiction should be canceled, not set aside.\n(b) Jurisdictional Conflict\n•\nConclusion: Assessment by an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction was deemed void ab initio.\n•\nReferences: Sections 5 and 56, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,56 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3496/LB of 2001, decision dated: 18-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 433 = 2002 SLD 433 = 2002 PTD 2948 = (2002) 86 TAX 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Adjustments\n(a) Adjustment Principles\n•\nIssue: Legality of adjusting refunds against non-existing demands.\n•\nConclusion: Adjustments against subsequent demands were illegal.\n(b) Delayed Refund Compensation\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal directed compensation for delayed refunds starting from the original refund creation date.\n•\nReferences: Sections 104 and 102(2)(a), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,104 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As, Nos. 777/LB and 778/LB of 2000, decision dated: 21st May, 2002, hearing DATE : 5-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Rauf, I.T.P. and Faisal Zaman. Mehboob Alam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 434 = 2002 SLD 434 = 2002 PTD 2954", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability in Northern Areas\n•\nIssue: Tax on salaries paid in areas exempt from the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Salaries paid by state enterprises are taxable under Section 12(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regardless of territorial exemptions.\n•\nReferences: Section 12(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,50 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 514 of 2002, decision dated: 9-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainants. Malik Ghulam Rasool, DCIT, Circle 15, Zone B, Lahore", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNAS and another\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 435 = 2002 SLD 435 = 2002 PTD 2984 = (2003) 87 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Maladministration in Tax Notices\n(a) Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\n•\nIssue: Whether the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) could investigate maladministration in cases where statutory remedies existed.\n•\nConclusion: The FTO can investigate allegations of maladministration even if statutory remedies are available, as long as these issues are distinct from the legal merits of the case. Recommendations of the FTO are binding under Section 12(2) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n(b) Defective Notices Under Section 65\n•\nIssue: Issuance of notices under Section 65 without indicating grounds for reopening the case.\n•\nConclusion: Notices lacking specific grounds create confusion and amount to maladministration. However, such notices are not void if statutory preconditions are met. The FTO recommended issuing detailed circulars for proper notice issuance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=92(b),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 140-L of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Siddiq for the Complainant. Zain-ul-Abideen", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MODerN BABY CYCLE STORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 436 = 2002 SLD 436 = 2002 PTD 2988 = (2003) 87 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accounting and Sales Tax in Profit Calculation\n(a) Method of Accounting\n•\nIssue: Inclusion of sales tax in sales and claiming it as an expense in the profit and loss account.\n•\nConclusion: This method is incorrect as sales tax is a government levy collected as an agent. Such an accounting approach justifies rejection under Section 32(3).\n(b) Gross Profit Adjustment\n•\nConclusion: When recasting trading accounts, historical gross profit rates lose significance and should be suitably adjusted.\n(c) Revision of Assessment\n•\nIssue: Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner under Section 66-A.\n•\nConclusion: The revision was justified, but to prevent further prolonged litigation, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment instead of canceling it.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1441/LB to 1444/LB of 2002; decided on 27-06-2002, hearing DATE : 4-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal Khan, F.C.A.. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 437 = 2002 SLD 437 = 2002 PTD 3000 = (2003) 87 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gain vs. Revenue Gain\n•\nIssue: Whether the sale of a plot by a retired government servant constitutes capital gain or revenue gain.\n•\nConclusion: The intention at the time of acquisition determines the nature of gain. The Tribunal held that the plot was acquired for business purposes, making the gain revenue in nature. Discriminatory treatment between parties to the same transaction was avoided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1828/KB and 2090/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 6-07-2002, hearing DATE : 29-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Bakht Zaman, D.R.. Mazharul Hassan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 438 = 2002 SLD 438 = 2002 PTD 3003 = (2003) 87 TAX 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Fairness in Tax Assessments\n•\nIssue: Allegations of improper proceedings under Section 65.\n•\nConclusion: The FTO directed the Assessing Officer to ensure a fair hearing with a speaking order addressing all contentions. A timeline for resolution was set to ensure compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 212/L of 2002, decision dated: 30-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL FLAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saadat Farooq Ahmed, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax for the Department. Dr. Ilyas Zafar for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ABSON DIFFUSION (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 439 = 2002 SLD 439 = 2002 PTD 3006 = (2003) 87 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax on Trusts\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 80-D on a trust operating a school.\n•\nConclusion: Donations are not part of turnover and are exempt from minimum tax. However, tuition fees and other receipts connected to education services are taxable under Section 80-D.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,2(6)(bb) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2358/LB to 2360/LB of 2001, decision dated: 24-04-2002, hearing DATE : 20-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 440 = 2002 SLD 440 = 2002 PTD 3010 = (2003) 87 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Adjustment in Self-Assessment\n(a) Adjustment Framework\n•\nIssue: Whether refunds can be adjusted against tax liabilities under self-assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Adjustments are permissible under Section 104 and do not require explicit inclusion in self-assessment schemes.\n(b) Exclusion from Scheme\n•\nIssue: Exclusion due to incomplete tax payment.\n•\nConclusion: The FTO recommended accepting the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme and adjusting refunds accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),104 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 147 of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal for the Complainant. Zafar Abbas, DCIT and Zulfiqar Ahmad, S.O. Circle II, Sahiwal", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALMAKKAH COLD STORAGE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 441 = 2002 SLD 441 = 2002 PTD 3027 = (2003) 87 TAX 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Resident Companies\n(a) Onshore vs. Offshore Income\n•\nIssue: Taxability of offshore income connected to a permanent establishment in Pakistan.\n•\nConclusion: Only income attributable to the permanent establishment in Pakistan is taxable under Section 12(2) and relevant international agreements. The action under Section 66-A was deemed uncalled for.\n(b) Expense Allowance Without Income\n•\nConclusion: Expenses are allowable even if no income is declared, provided they are justified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62,11,12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 307/PB of 2001-02, decision dated: 27-05-2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Anjum A. Sheikh, F.C.A.. Qaiser Ali, D.R. and Abdul Wadood, I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 442 = 2002 SLD 442 = 2002 PTD 3039", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Assessments\n•\nIssue: Revising assessments under Section 66-A when the matter has been previously adjudicated.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that Section 66-A could not be invoked for issues already addressed by appellate authorities. The matter involved questions of fact, not law, making the Revenue's reference applications invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),66A,62/135,50(4)(5) ", + "Case #": "M.A. Conds. Nos.507/LB to 509/LB and R.As. Nos.286/LB to 288/LB, of 2002, decision dated: 30-07-2002, hearing DATE : 24-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R.. Haroon Mirza", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 443 = 2002 SLD 443 = 2002 PTD 3047 = (2003) 87 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation Discrepancy Between Income Tax and Wealth Tax\n•\nIssue: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner invoked Section 66-A to revise an income tax assessment based on a higher valuation of property assessed later in wealth tax proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the income tax valuation under Section 13 and the wealth tax valuation under Rule 8(3) are distinct and cannot be interchanged. Subsequent events in wealth tax proceedings cannot render the original income tax assessment erroneous or prejudicial. The action under Section 66-A was annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,66A,13(2),59(1) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=16(3),8(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3054/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-05-2002, hearing DATE : 6-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHCTRIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Azeem. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 444 = 2002 SLD 444 = 2002 PTD 3072 = (2003) 87 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Loan and Gift Under Section 12(18A)\n(a) Deemed Income from Loan\n•\nIssue: Whether a loan appearing in the wealth statement of 1987 could be assessed as income for the assessment year 1993-94.\n•\nConclusion: Action under Section 12(18A) could only be taken if the loan was unpaid by June 30, 1994. Thus, action in the assessment year 1993-94 was premature and invalid.\n(b) Conversion of Loan into Gift\n•\nIssue: Taxability of a loan converted into a gift.\n•\nConclusion: A creditor legally waiving a loan as a gift is valid and cannot be taxed as income under Section 12(18A). The Tribunal upheld the gift's legitimacy and rejected the Department's appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5036/LB of 1995, decision dated: 8-05-2002. DATE of haring: 10-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R.. Sarfraz, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 445 = 2002 SLD 445 = 2002 PTD 3091", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Professional Misconduct in Auditing\n(a) Procedural Lapses in Disciplinary Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Non-compliance with mandatory requirements during investigation of professional misconduct.\n•\nConclusion: The investigation and proceedings against chartered accountants were marred by procedural violations, including lack of notice and failure to apply natural justice principles. The High Court rejected the reference against the members.\n(b) Role and Responsibility of Auditors\n•\nObservation: Auditors are crucial in safeguarding shareholders' interests. Misleading audit reports approved under pressure from management undermine public confidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=252 Chartered Accountants Bye Laws, 1983=Chap.X ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 1 of 1991, decision dated: 8-04-2002, hearing DATE ; 18-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Abbas Pishori for Applicant. Syed Himayat Ali Pirzadas", + "Party Name:": "INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN\nvs\nMessrs HYDERALI BHIMJI & CO. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 446 = 2002 SLD 446 = 2002 PTD 3106 = (2003) 87 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to Entertain Petitions\n(a) Maladministration\n•\nIssue: Department's refusal to entertain a revision petition due to a change in the governing law.\n•\nConclusion: Agencies must entertain petitions if filed within the scope of the law, even if based on repealed ordinances. The High Court directed the Commissioner to hear the petition and pass appropriate orders.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17674 of 2002, decision dated: 26-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HOME SERVICE SYNDICATE (PVT.) LIMITED through Liquidator\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COMPANY Zone-I, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 447 = 2002 SLD 447 = 2002 PTD 3107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments Based on Change of Opinion\n(a) Reopening Without New Information\n•\nIssue: Validity of reopening assessments on identical facts or opinions.\n•\nConclusion: Reopening based on the same facts without new information constitutes a change of opinion and is invalid. The Tribunal annulled the reopening orders and restored the original assessments.\n(b) Wealth Statements and Concealment\n•\nIssue: Reopening based on lack of wealth statements.\n•\nConclusion: Absence of wealth statements alone is insufficient to allege concealment. The Tribunal annulled the reopening orders due to lack of definite evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,59(1),13,132 Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1702/LB to 1704/LB of 1999, decision dated: 6-08-2002, hearing DATE : 1st August, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMAD SHAIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.. Mian Ashiq Hussain", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 448 = 2002 SLD 448 = 2002 PTD 3114 = (2003) 87 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Assessments\n•\nIssue: Rectification of assessments for multiple years due to a mistake apparent on record.\n•\nConclusion: Rectification of the 1995-96 assessment was justified as the mistake was evident. Consequential adjustments to subsequent years were valid. The Tribunal upheld the rectifications.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2173/KB to 2175/K of 2001, decision dated: 1st July, 2002, hearing DATE : 29-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A.S. Jaffri. Dr. Fazal Muhammad Abrejo, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 449 = 2002 SLD 449 = 2002 PTD 3118 = (2003) 87 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation and Revisional Powers\n•\nIssue: Whether the same payments could be taxed twice under different provisions for failure to deduct tax at source.\n•\nConclusion: Once the Department recovered tax under Section 52 for failure to deduct tax, it could not disallow the same expenses under Section 24(c), as it would result in double taxation. The Appellate Tribunal canceled the Inspecting Additional Commissioner's order under Section 66-A, declaring it unjustified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,66A,62,24(c),50(4),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2346/LB and 2347/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-06-2002, hearing DATE : 27-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sarfraz,.F.C.A.. Muhammad-Zulfiqar Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 450 = 2002 SLD 450 = 2002 PTD 3123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Revisional Proceedings Without a Formal Order\n•\nIssue: Whether an Inspecting Additional Commissioner could invoke Section 66-A based on an IT-30 Form without a formal order in place.\n•\nConclusion: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 66-A requires a formal order to be in existence. An IT-30 Form is not a substitute for such an order. The Tribunal annulled the proceedings initiated under Section 66-A due to lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,85,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 436/LB of 2002, decision dated: 29-06-2002, hearing DATE : 6-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHID AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 451 = 2002 SLD 451 = 2002 PTD 3129 = (2003) 87 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Issues in Appeals and Pending Tribunal Decisions\n•\nIssue: Validity of initiating assessment proceedings based on a High Court decision while the case was still pending before the Tribunal under Section 136(6).\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must wait for the final disposition by the Tribunal. Assessments framed prematurely were declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 323/LB to 326/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st.July, 2001, hearing DATE : 9-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt, A.R.. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 452 = 1999 SLD 452 = 1999 PTD 2434 = (1997) 227 ITR 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Tax Exemptions\n•\n(a) Exemption Validity: Exemption under Section 11 of the Indian Income Tax Act could not be withdrawn without proof of contravention. The Tribunal upheld the trust’s entitlement to exemption.\n•\n(b) Accrual of Income: Income from a lottery conducted by the trust was correctly assessed in the year of receipt. No question of law arose.\n•\n(c) Nature of Lottery Income: The income was held not to constitute business income as it was not a continuous and systematic activity. No question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.335 of 1993 and 31 of 1994, decision dated: 26-07-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. TIWARI AND S. KULSHRESTHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. M. Mathur and Vivek Sharan for the Commissioner. S. C. Bagdiya and Pankaj Bagdiya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nINDORE TABLE TENNIS TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 453 = 1999 SLD 453 = 1999 PTD 2440 = (1997) 227 ITR 743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Business Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Whether surtax disallowed as a business expense could be allowed through rectification.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal's decision to allow the rectification was invalid, as the issue was highly debatable and settled law disallowed such deductions. The rectification order was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 140 to 146 of 1983, decision dated: 20-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y K. SABHARWAL AND D. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. D. Jolly and D.C. Taneja for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 454 = 1999 SLD 454 = 1999 PTD 2449 = (1997) 227 ITR 852", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Proceedings and Attachment of Property\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tax Recovery Officer could attach the petitioner’s property for the tax dues of her husband.\n•\nConclusion: The Tax Recovery Officer can attach only the defaulter’s property. The petitioner was not a defaulter, and the recovery proceedings were declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No.3726 of 1994-R, decision dated: 5-06-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. A. MOHAMMED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. Venkatarama Iyer for Petitioner. N. R. K. Nair", + "Party Name:": "P. K. KUNJAMMA\nvs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 455 = 1999 SLD 455 = 1999 PTD 2452 = (1997) 227 ITR 860", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Depreciation\n•\n(a) Deduction for Purchase Tax: Liability for purchase tax on raw materials used for non-manufacturing purposes was deductible.\n•\n(b) Depreciation: Costs such as royalty and engineering fees were included in the actual cost for depreciation purposes.\n•\n(c) Unpaid Wages and Bonus: Amounts written back into the profit and loss account were taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R..No.29 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C, J. AND VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sunil Mitra, R.C. Prosad and Sunil Mukherjee for the Commissioner Bajoria, J.P. Kaitan and A.K. Dey for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJIAJEE RAO COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 456 = 1999 SLD 456 = 1999 PTD 2456 = (1997) 227 ITR 864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Gratuity\n•\nIssue: Whether gratuity expenses satisfied the conditions under Section 40-A(7) for deductibility.\n•\nConclusion: Premium paid to cover gratuity liability was deductible, but other claims failed due to non-compliance with Section 40-A(7).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.555 of 1983 (Reference No.295 of 1983), decision dated: 4-03-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Venkataraman for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 457 = 1999 SLD 457 = 1999 PTD 2458 = (1997) 227 ITR 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy and Actual Cost for Depreciation\n•\nIssue: Whether government subsidies should reduce the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal, following established precedent, held that subsidies do not reduce the actual cost under Section 43(1). No question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 7 of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. R. Ashok for Petitioner. C. Kodandaram for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNOVAPAN INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 458 = 1999 SLD 458 = 1999 PTD 2460 = (1997) 227 ITR 701", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains for Firms and Partners\n•\n(a) Issue: Whether the sale of property withdrawn by partners from a firm should be taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains.\n•\nConclusion: The partners were deemed owners from the time of purchase, first as partners and later as co-owners. The capital gains from the sale were taxable as long-term capital gains since the property was held for over 60 months.\n•\n(b) Legal Fiction: Statutory fictions are limited to their specific purpose and cannot be broadly applied. The firm was not considered a separate legal entity for property ownership purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.855 of 1984 (Reference No.770 of 1984), decision dated: 3rd July, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKAMALA DEVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 459 = 2002 SLD 459 = 2002 PTD 2781 = (2002) 85 TAX 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner\n•\nIssue: Validity of invoking Section 66-A based on income from a non-consecutive assessment year.\n•\nConclusion: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner wrongly compared the income with that of an earlier non-consecutive year (1996-97). The income declared in the immediately preceding year (1998-99) was to be treated as the income last declared, as per C.B.R. Circular No. 18 of 1999. The Tribunal vacated the order under Section 66-A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4258/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11-03-2002, hearing DATE : 8-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zahid Baig and Arif Hussain. D. R..", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 460 = 2002 SLD 460 = 2002 PTD 2787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Impropriety and Legislative Clarity\n•\n(a) Issue: Failure to follow appellate authority’s decision and improper reliance on Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s instructions.\n•\nConclusion: Ignoring superior authority decisions undermines discipline and consistency. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to due process.\n•\n(b) Fiscal Statutes: Tax statutes demand unambiguous legislative command, and their interpretation must not extend beyond clear language.\n•\n(c) Invalid Proceedings: Actions initiated under a suspended provision (Section 62A) before its effective date were deemed void ab initio. The Tribunal annulled such proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,62A & SecondSched.,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.480/KB of 2001, decision dated: 18-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. S. Jafri. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 461 = 2002 SLD 461 = 2002 PTD 1167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty-Free Shops, Withholding Tax, and Customs Duty\n•\n(a) Duty-Free Shops: Such shops store imported goods in bonded warehouses. Customs duties and withholding taxes are deferred until goods are cleared for consumption.\n•\n(b) Principle of Estoppel: Long-standing executive interpretations cannot be casually altered if they create vested rights.\n•\n(c) Withholding Tax Timing: Taxes are payable only when customs duties are due. Goods warehoused in duty-free shops are not subject to immediate withholding tax until cleared for consumption.\n•\n(d) Clarification of “Levy” vs. “Leviable”: The term levied implies actual liability, whereas leviable implies potential liability.\n•\n(e) Minority View: Argued that warehoused goods, although deferred for customs duties, are still considered imported, making withholding tax applicable upon import.\n•\n(f) Tribunal’s Stance: Recovery of withholding tax without actual clearance or customs duty payment is invalid. Orders for such recovery were canceled.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=12,13,30,97,104,79,80,83,84,50(5),80C(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=18,30(b),104 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=144 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-847, D-1865 and D-1930 of 1997, decision dated: 5-07-1999. dates of hearing: 25th, 28th November; 3rd and 9-12-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J., RAJA QURESHI AND DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Petitioner (in C. P. No. 1865 of 1997). Muhammad Athar Saeed for Petitioner (in C.Ps. Nos. 847 and 1930 of 1997). Javaid Farooqui (in C.F. No. 847 of 1997). S. Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DUTY FREE SHOP LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 158 = 2007 SLD 158 = 2007 PTD 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nPrinciples of determining whether provisions are mandatory or directory.\n•\nConclusion: Non-compliance with directory provisions does not nullify proceedings unless explicitly specified by the statute.\n(b) Sales Tax Act, 1990: Recovery of Tax\n•\nIssue: Non-adherence to proviso of Section 36(3).\n•\nConclusion: Lack of consequences for non-adherence in the Act indicates the provision is directory rather than mandatory.\n(c) Time Limit in Proviso to Section 36(3)\n•\nConclusion: Time limits in proviso were considered directory.\n(d) Effectiveness of Tribunal’s Order\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal orders prevail unless set aside by competent authority.\n(e) Supply of Food by Restaurants\n•\nConclusion: Supply of food was classified as goods under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, both before and after the issuance of Islamabad Capital Territory (Tax on Services) Ordinance, 2001.\n(f) Sales Tax on Food Supplies\n•\nConclusion: Supplies of food were taxable and not exempt under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Non-payment was deemed willful tax evasion.\n(g) Goods and Services Classification\n•\nConclusion: Supply of food was treated as goods under the Sales Tax Act, even if classified differently under the Central Excise Act.\n(n) Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Officer\n•\nConclusion: Officers had powers under multiple sections of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to assess taxes, impose penalties, and handle violations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(19),FirstSched.,Chap.98 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched.,44,49 Sales Tax Act, 1990=36(3),2(12)(16),13,2(41),2(12)(16),71,3,45,30,3,6,11(2),26,33,34,36 ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 1541ST/IB of 2005 and 155/ST/IB of 2005, decision dated: 28-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Ahmad Ali. Dr. Naeem Ijaz Qureshi, Additional Collector/Departmental Representative (D.R.)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 625 = 1999 SLD 625 = 1999 PTD 1313 = (1999) 79 TAX 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Statute ousting jurisdiction of Courts of general jurisdiction--­Construction---Principles---Provisions contained in a statute ousting jurisdiction of Courts of general jurisdiction are to be construed very strictly and unless case fell within letter and spirit of barring provision, it should not be given effect to.\n \n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n \n----S.9---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.162---Bar of suit in Civil Court---Conditions---Where jurisdiction of Civil Court to examine validity of action or order of Executive Authority or a Special Tribunal was challenged on the ground of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court, it must be shown that Authority or Tribunal was validly constituted under the statute; that order passed or action taken by Authority or Tribunal was not mala fide; that order passed or action taken was such which could be passed or taken under law which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Authority or Tribunal; and that in passing order or taking action, principles of natural justice were not violated.\n \nFederation of Pakistan and others v. Ghulam Mustafa Khar PLD 1989 SC 26; M/s. Arif Builders v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar 627; Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus and others PLD 1997 SC 3; Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180; Sawan and others v. Abdullah and others PLD 1998 Kar. 111; M. Jamil Asghar v. Improvement Trust PLD 1965 SC 698; Abul A'la Moudoodi and others v. Government of West Pakistan and another PLD 1964 SC 673; University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90; Basharat Ali v. Director Excise and Taxation 1997 SCMR 1543; Safi-ud-din v. Secretary Social Welfare Department PLD 1958 (W..P.) Pesh. 157; Ravi Paint Colour and Varnish Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1954 Lah. 551; Karachi Textile, Dyeing and Printing Works v. CIT 1985 PTD (Trib.) 458; K.L. Sethi v. CIT (1974) 29 Tax 226; Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. Lahore 1973 SCMR 282 and Suit No. 1118 of 1998 ref.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--S.78(4)(a)(iii) & (iv)---Assessment of agent of non-resident ---Process--­Assessing Officer while making assessment under S.78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, would first declare person concerned to be a statutory agent after giving said person a hearing and then would make assessment of statutory agent---Once notice was served upon a person under S.78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, that would allow him time and opportunity for explaining withheld funds of his non-resident principal in order to meet prospective tax demand---If agent would fail to withhold funds, he would' bear consequence of said lapse---Where upon receipt of notice under S.78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, agent had already parted with his principal's funds, that factum would be a complete defence available to him under the said section---Provisions of S.78(4)(a)(iii) & (iv), could not be interpreted to mean that in all cases, if declared agent could show that on date when proceedings were taken under said section, no funds of non-resident principal were available, that would be an adequate defence available to him---If declared agent could show that before proceedings were taken against him under S.78 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, he had lawfully parted with money of his non-resident principal under his control, that would be a sufficient defence against such proceedings.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.78---Liability of agent representing non-resident principal---When assessing Officer served notice upon agent of non-resident principal for purpose of assessment and payment of tax, said agent had no money belonging to non-resident principal under his control to withhold in order to satisfy demand raised by Assessing Officer---Agent prior to service of notice on him had already informed Assessing Officer that he had reached settlement with non-resident principal---Agent, in circumstances, could not be made liable under S.78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as an agent of non­ resident principal.\n \nTrustees of Chaturburgh Trust v. C.I.T. 50 ITR 693; Bawa Sitya Paul Singh v. The Income-tax Officer New Delhi and others 62 ITR 147; Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook v. C.I.T. Madras 1958 ITR 154; C.I.T. v. Alfred Herbert India (Pvt.) Ltd.; CIT v. M/s. Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. 1984 PTD 171; M/s. Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T., Rawalpindi 1990 PTD 768; Abdus Shakoor Khan v. Karachi University and another PLD 1966 SC 536; The University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90; M/s. Farid Sons Ltd. v. The Government of Pakistan and another PLD 1961 SC 537; Abdur Rahman v. Collector and Deputy Commissioner Bahawalnagar PLD 1964 SC 461; Hashmatullah Khan v. Karachi Municipal Corporation PLD 1971 Kar. 515 (D.B.) and Syed Akbar Ali Bukhari v. State Bank 1981 SCMR 81 ref.\n \n (e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- \n \n----Ss.50 & 78---Deduction of tax at source---Where once Revenue had elected to tax non-resident principal through mechanism of S.50, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, recourse could not be taken to 5.78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, in order to treat assessee as an agent of non-resident principle.\n \n(f) Natural justice principles of---\n \nPrinciple of audi alteram partem was of universal application---Right to a personal hearing should not be a hearing simpliciter, but a fair hearing which would depend on facts of each case.\n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----Ss.78 & 162---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2---Interim stay, grant of---Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court--­Applicant/agent prior to issuance of notice to him by Assessing Officer under S.78, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for purpose of assessment and payment of tax as agent of non-resident principal, had already informed Assessing Officer that he had reached settlement with non-resident principal and that he had no money belonging to non-resident principal under his- control to withhold in order to satisfy demand of Assessing Officer---Application for interim stay filed by applicant/agent against order of Assessing Authorities, was resisted on ground that jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted under 5.162, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---Applicant/Agent had been condemned unheard since no personal hearing was given to him despite his request and huge amount had been demanded from applicant for which he was not liable---Fundamental principle of judicial procedure having been violated by Assessing Authorities while issuing order against applicant/agent, irreparable damage would result for applicant/agent where he was required to pay huge amount on behalf of his non-resident principal---Interim stay was granted to applicant/agent restraining Assessing Authorities from acting upon or giving effect to impugned order till further order of High Court---Since applicant/agent was not given a fair hearing and provisions of relevant laws having been violated by Assessing Authorities bar of S.162, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 would not apply, in circumstances.\n \n(h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n \n----O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Interim stay---Considerations---Prima facie case, irreparable damage to and balance of convenience in favour of petitioner were considerations for grant of interim stay.\n \n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----Preamble & S.162---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.9 & 151---Bar of suit in Civil Courts---Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was a complete Code in itself for imposition of tax and all disputes relating thereto---Jurisdiction of Income-tax Department and its functionaries would extend to findings of fact as to imposition of taxes, provided they would act within four corners of law, but where they would act mala fidely or in excess of their jurisdiction or flout fundamental principles of judicial procedures or relevant law, bar of S.162, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 would not apply and in such circumstances, Civil Court could always interfere---Civil Court despite exclusion of its jurisdiction, would have jurisdiction to examine cases where provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had not been complied with or statutory Tribunal had not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure.\n \nState v. Mask & Co. AIR 1940 PC 105 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=162,78(4)(a)(iii) & (iv),50,162 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9,-O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,151 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 736 of 1998 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.585 of 1998. Decided on 11th January 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sharif alongwith Saleem Zulfiqar Khan for Plaintiff. Jawaid Farooqui for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Dr. Farogh Naseem. Amici", + "Party Name:": "ASIA PETROLEUM LIMITED through Kh. Izz Hamid, Managing Director\nvs\nFederation, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 627 = 1999 SLD 627 = 1999 PTD 2424 = (1997) 227 ITR 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax: Stay of Proceedings\n•\nEffect of C.B.R. Circulars on tax recovery during pending appeals.\n•\nConclusion: Assessing Officers must stay recovery proceedings if the disputed amount was previously allowed by appellate authorities. Circulars No. 530 (1989) and No. 589 (1991) mandate that taxpayers cannot be treated as in default if the matter is under appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 7077 of 1995, decision dated: 12-09-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C. K. THAKKER AND RAJESH BALIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. N. Soparkar for Petitioner B. J. Shelats", + "Party Name:": "MADHU SILICA (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 628 = 1999 SLD 628 = 1999 PTD 2430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Representative Assessee: Assessment of Trustees\n•\nTaxability of trustees when beneficiaries' shares are determinate.\n•\nConclusion: Trustees cannot be assessed when beneficiaries’ shares are definite and already assessed. Reassessment of trustees in such cases is impermissible.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=21 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.35 and 36 of 1991, decision dated: 2-07-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K,R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, Dale P. Kurien and M. A. Firoz for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDr. DAVID JOSEPH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 133 = 1988 SLD 133 = 1988 PTD 428 = (1988) 58 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Claim under Hire-Purchase Agreement\n•\nOwnership and depreciation under hire-purchase.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation cannot be claimed by the hirer under a hire-purchase agreement as ownership does not transfer until full payment. Previous Tribunal rulings allowing such claims were overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(v),ThirdSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 233/ KB of 1985-86, decision dated: 9-04-1988, hearing DATE : 4-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MANZUR-UL-HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 134 = 1988 SLD 134 = 1988 PTD 965 = (1989) 59 TAX 10 = (1997) 227 ITR 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Based on Agreement\n•\nConditions for a valid agreement in income assessment.\n•\nConclusion: An offer, acceptance, and consideration fulfill the conditions of a valid agreement. Assessments based on mutual consent cannot be challenged as unilateral.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 684(IB) of 1987-88, decision dated: 20-03-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUE, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Arshad Qayyum, FCA Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 80 = 1982 SLD 80 = 1982 PTD 31 = (1982) 45 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Technical Fees for Foreign Enterprises\n•\nDetermination of permanent establishment for tax exemption.\n•\nConclusion: Technical fees received by a foreign enterprise without a permanent establishment in Pakistan are exempt. Findings by lower tribunals were upheld as factual and valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 53 of 1972, decision dated: 1st December, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant A. A. Shareef", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMESSERS ABBOTT FINANCE Co., S. A. R. L" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 1 = 1984 SLD 1 = 1984 PTD 147 = (1984) 49 TAX 34 = 1985 PTCL 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Income Tax Assessments — Retrospective Application of Ordinance — Sections 56 and 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nDetails:\nThese six appeals concerned assessments for tax years 1976–77 to 1981–82, arising from a spot inspection conducted by the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) on 11-7-1982 at the appellant’s business premises, where lucrative sales of soft drinks, cigarettes, and other items were observed. Following the inspection, notice under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was issued for all six years. The assessee filed returns declaring low or nil income, which the I.T.O. rejected, estimating significantly higher net incomes. These estimates were affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C).\nBefore the appellate authority, the assessee raised a new legal ground arguing that assessments for 1976–77, 1977–78, and 1978–79 (i.e., pre-Ordinance years) were ab initio void because they were initiated under Section 56, which could not apply retrospectively. It was contended that for years prior to the Ordinance, assessments should have been made via Section 65, which specifically permits assessment of escaped income from prior years and is preserved via Section 166(2)(c)(ii) (savings clause).\nHeld:\nThe appellate authority partially allowed the appeal, holding that:\nAssessments for the years 1976–77, 1977–78, and 1978–79 were illegal and void, as Section 56 of the Ordinance could not be applied retrospectively. For those years, only Section 65, supported by the savings clause under Section 166(2)(c)(ii), could be invoked.\nThe Department’s reliance on the heading of Section 65 ( Additional Assessment ) to limit its application was rejected. Legal interpretation must consider the entire section and legislative intent.\nThe contention that the assessee was merely a person and not an assessee was dismissed, as Section 2(6) of the Ordinance defines assessee to include any person liable under the Ordinance, even if previously unknown.\nAssessments for the years 1979–80 to 1981–82 were upheld, as they were validly initiated under Section 56, which was in force for those years. The estimated incomes were found to be reasonable based on the I.T.O.'s inspection and business findings.\nAppeal dismissed in part; assessments for 1976–77, 1977–78, and 1978–79 annulled. Assessments for 1979–80 to 1981–82 upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(6),2(32),134,56,65,166(2)(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1062 to 1067 of 1983-84, decision dated: 4-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj Khalid Mujahid Akbar, A.C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 235 = 1992 SLD 235 = 1992 PTD 60 = (1992) 65 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Appeals and Condonation of Delay\n•\nAppeals involving significant public interest.\n•\nConclusion: Delay in filing appeals was condoned when procedural changes (e.g., obtaining fitness certificates) caused delays, especially for issues of public importance.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Sale Tax Rules, 1951=18,3(6)(d),3(1)(a),(4),(6)(d),2(12) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.281 of 1980 (From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-11-1973 passed in Tax Reference No.209 of 1973), hearing DATE : 2-03-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH C.J., RUSTAM S. SIDHWA AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record (in all Appeals). Nemos (in Civil Appeals Nos.281, 355, 520, 521, 565, 568 and 603 of 1980)", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs LAHORE TEXTILE AND GENERAL MILLS LTD\nCivil Appeal No.355 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs BALOCHISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nCivil Appeal No. 360 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Appeal No. 514 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Appeal No.515 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Appeal No. 516 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Appeal No. 517 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Anneal No 520 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs F.P. TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Anneal No 521 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs F.P. TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Anneal No 565 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Anneal No 566 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nCivil Anneal No 567 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs KOHINOOR INDUSTRY LTD\nCivil Appeal No. 568 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs KOHINOOR INDUSTRY LTD\nCivil Appeal No. 603 of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 81 = 1982 SLD 81 = 1982 PTD 20 = (1982) 45 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Loss and Revenue Expenditure\n•\nDistinguishing revenue from capital expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: Advances for business purposes (e.g., purchasing raw materials) are classified as revenue expenditures and deductible under trading loss principles.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(1),(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 21 of 1972, decision dated: 18-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND G. M. KOREJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Haider Ali Pirzada", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS DAWJI DADABHAI & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST) KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 82 = 1982 SLD 82 = 1982 PTD 29 = (1982) 45 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of High Courts in Tax Appeals\n•\nReferral of perverse or unsupported findings by tribunals.\n•\nConclusion: High Courts must address findings by tribunals based on no evidence or those deemed perverse.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 85 of 1972, decision dated: 9-12-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naim Pashas", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS INTERNATIONAL COMPUTORS & TABULATORS, LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 135 = 1988 SLD 135 = 1988 PTD 437 = (1988) 58 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Validity of Assessments\n•\nAssumption of jurisdiction and procedural requirements.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessments under Section 56 are valid only for current charges. Past charge years require Section 65.\n2.\nProcedural errors in jurisdiction render assessments void.\n3.\nExpenditures must be substantiated with evidence to alter assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65,5(1)(c),53,23,155,154 ", + "Case #": "I. P. As. Nos. 1360 to 1364(KB) of 1984-85, decision dated: 11-04-1988, hearing DATE : 2-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHART ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MAZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Karim and Irfan Sadat, I.T.E.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 66 = 2008 SLD 66 = 2009 SCMR 1279 = 2010 PTCL 1 = 2009 PTD 1392 = (2009) 100 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment: Scope and Retrospectivity\n•\nApplicability and interpretation of Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nConclusion: Section 122, including its subsections, provides the Commissioner with authority to amend assessments under specific conditions and within prescribed time limits. The provision cannot be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated. Judicial clarity emphasized the prospective application and the requirement for definite information before amendments.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,122,122A,122B,122(1),122(5A),221,239,239(1),239(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,61,62,63,65 Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2A,4,5(2),9,14,25,185,185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.778, 876 to 879 of 2005, 1601 to 1625, 2670 to 2687 of 2006, 585 to 595, 706, 707, 1369 283 of 2009 and 1102 to 1110 of 2008, heard on 19-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa Attorney General for Pakistan assisted by Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, D.A.G. Zubair Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court, Abdul Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Sardar Shahbaz Khosa, Advocates/Petitioners.\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.803-864, 912-1039, 2251-2311 and 874-894/2008).\nM. Bilal, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.163-164/ 2009).\nRaja Muhammad Bashir, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.291-292, 1149 and 1150/2008).\nAkhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Courts/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.876-79/05, 1602/06, 1617-1619/06, 587-593/07 and 1381-1395/07).\nA.S.K. Ghauri, Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos. 778/05, 1601/06, 1608-1614, 1616, 1624, 1625, 2670-73, 2686-87/06, 585-86, 1369-1377, 1379-1404, 1984-2046/07 and 459-501/08).\nShahid Jameel, Advocate Supreme Courts/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.707/07, 33-57/09 and C.Ps. Nos.12-13/09).\nM.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos. 707/07, 112-113, 122-123/09 and C.Ps. Nos. 12-13/09).\nMuhammad Farid, Advocate Supreme Courts/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos. 1620 to 1624/2006).\nSyed Arshad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Courts/Petitioners (in C.A. No. 2673/2006).\nHafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocate Supreme Courts/Petitioners (in C.A. No. 355/09).\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1245/2008 and C.As. Nos. 1322/2007 and 115-118 and 1491-1513/2008).\nMehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.7-9/2009).\nCh. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records/Petitioners (in C.As. Nos.1604-1607, 1615, 2677-2682/06, 590,591, 594/07 and 783-791/08). \nMumtaz Ahmed, Member (Legal), F.B.R. Nemo. (in the remaining cases)\nMansoor-ul-Arifin, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.876 to 879/2005).\nIsrar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 32/09).\nRehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Lubna Pervez, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.1611 to 15/06 and 587/07).\nBadar Villani, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 459/08).\nUmar Mehmood Kasuri, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.865, 901, 902 and 914/08).\nSalman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.50-54/09).\nSiraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.826, 837-839 and 1025 to 1027/08).\nDr. Farough Naseem, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 1602/06).\nMuhammad Rashid Qamar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 163/09).\nNoor Muhammad Chandio, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.895 to 900/08).\nKh. Ibrar Majal; Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.966 to 968/08).\nZaeem-ul-Farooq Malik, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 926/08).\nHamid Shabbir Azar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 848/08).\nQari Abdur-Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 2261/08).\nSyed Naveed Andrabi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.778/05 and 941 to 944/2008).\nShafqat Mehmood Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court Mian Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.669, 670, 919, 928, 962, 2263/08 and 38, 39/09).\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.P. No. 1245/2008).\nHakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 1149/08).\nFauzi Zafar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.921, 952 to 960/08).\nAbdul Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Records (in C. As. Nos.475-77 and 89/08).\nMuhammad Shoaib Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and G.N. Gohar, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.115 to 118/08).\nIrfan Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.923-924/2008).\nIqbal Suleman Pasha, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.1625, 2684/06 & 592-93, 1369, 2007-2010, 2016-18/07 & 1847-1849/08).\nShahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.841, 856-858, 891, 911, 916, 971, 972, 1002, 1003, 1099, 1100, 1502, 1505-1512, 2281, 2292, 2114-2115/2008, 36/09 and C.P. No. 12/09).\nMuhammad Iqbal Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.825, 854, 1008-1010, 1013-15, 1111, 1491, 1500, 1501, 2264 and 2304/08).\nMs. Edwina Williams (in person) (in C.As. Nos.112-113/09).\nNemo. (in the remaining cases).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ELI LILLY PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD\nC.As. Nos. 876 to 879 of 2005\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs HONDA SHAHRA-EFAISAL (AOP) and 3 others\nC.As. Nos. 1601 to 1625 of 2006\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs AERO ASIA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. and others\nC.As. Nos. 2670 to 2687 of 2006\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs B.P. INDUSTRIES LTD. and others\nC.As. Nos. 585 to 595 of 2007\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs EVIAN FATS AND OIL (PVT) LTD. and others\nC.As. Nos. 706 to 707 of 2007\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nDAUD AHMED\nC.As. Nos. 1369 to 1404 of 2007\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs WAKEN HUT (PVT.) LTD. and others\nC.As. Nos. 459 to 501 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs S.C. JHONSON & SONS (PVT.) LTD. and others\nC.As. Nos. 783 to 791 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY and another\nC.As. Nos. 803 to 1039 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKHALID JAVED and others\nC.As. Nos.1148 to 1150 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nQAMAR-UZZAMAN\nCivil No.1245 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ATTOCK REFINERY LTD, MORGAH, RWP.\nC.As. Nos.1492-1509 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs JHELUM VALLEY COAL (PVT.) LTD. and Others\nC.As. Nos.1847 to 1849 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION)\nvs\nCHERAT ELECTRIC LTD. KARACHI\nC.As. Nos. 2257-2281, 2283-2311 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nZAMEER PARVEZ SHAH and others\nC.A. No. 1322 of 2007\nC.B.R. through Chairman and others\nvs\nMessrs SIARA INDUSTRIES\n(On appeal from the judgment passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 3474/03)\nC.As. Nos. 115 to 118 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs MUHAMMAD ALAM FERTILIZERS\nC.A. No. 1491 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs SULTAN TRADING COMPANY\nC.As. Nos. 7 to 9 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs FRONTIER SUGAR MILLS\nC.As. Nos. 1984 to 2046 of 2007\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nA.C.B. (PVT.) LTD. and others\nC.As. Nos. 291 to 292 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ISLAM OIL MILLS\nC.As. Nos. 1099 to 1101 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMst. NUSRAT SULTANA\nCivil s Nos. 12 & 13 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHakim ABDUL WAHEED AFGHANI DAWAKHANA\nC.As. Nos. 30 to 32 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs LAHMAYAR INTERNATIONAL and another\nC.As. Nos. 33 to 57 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ALI BRICKS COMPANY and others\nC.As. Nos. 112 & 113 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJACK & JELL PUBLIC SCHOOL\nC.As. Nos. 122 & 123 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHaji MUHAMMAD AMIN and another\nC.As. Nos. 163 & 164 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK and another\nC.As. Nos.281-283 of 2009\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ALLIED PAK INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and another\nC.As. Nos.1102 to 1110 of 2008\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSheikh ASGHAR MEHMOOD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 67 = 2008 SLD 67 = 2008 PTD 1227 = (2008) 98 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Tax at Source: Applicability\n•\nInterpretation of Sections 50(4) and 52 regarding deduction of tax at source.\n•\nConclusion: Tax deduction applies only where a payer-recipient relationship exists in the context of supply of goods or services. Transactions deemed ordinary sales do not fall under supply, and the High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision favoring the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),52,52A,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 49, 268, 806 of 2000, 104, 105,242, 246,294, 295, 296, 577, 601, 679 of 1999 and P.T.R. No.82 of 2002, decision dated: 10-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jamil Khan. Siraj ud Din Khalid, Shahbaz Butt, Ijaz Ahmad Awan and M.M. Akram", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nMessrs RAVI PLASTIC INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 88 = 2010 SLD 88 = 2010 PTD 862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax and Additional Tax on Imports\n•\nMaladministration in tax recovery following legislative changes.\n•\nConclusion: Tax authorities' confusion over SRO 567(I)/2008 and legislative amendments led to unjust recovery demands. The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed corrections, including cancellation of erroneous orders, holding officials accountable, and addressing systemic issues to prevent recurrence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=162,205,148 & FirstSched., ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. C-555-K, C-554-K and C-556-K of 2009, decision dated: 3rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Ahmad, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Imran Javed Iqbal, A.R. and Syed Tasneem Ahmed, Manager for the Complainant. Aslam, Additional /D.R. and Fayaz Rasool, Deputy Collector of Customs/D. R. Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZAMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 2 = 1987 SLD 2 = 1987 PLC 743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Departmental Enquiry and Procedural Fairness\n•\nAdequacy of charges and evidence in disciplinary proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Absence of detailed allegations does not invalidate proceedings if the accused had adequate notice. Evidence from subordinates requires scrutiny for potential bias. Punishment was deemed excessive and reduced by the tribunal to align with procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 22 of 1986, decision dated: 24-02-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND DR. A. Q.QAZI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi A.A G. for the Government.", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. RAFFAT ARA SALLD\nvs\nCHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 122 = 2011 SLD 122 = 2011 PTD 184 = (2010) 102 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Filing of Return\n•\nImposition of penalties under Section 182 for late filing.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties are linked to the tax payable criterion. Where no tax is payable, penalties cannot be imposed. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation, dismissing the department's appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,182,182(1),182(1)(i),120 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.564/IB of 2010; decided on 1st June, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Zafar Mehmood, D.R.. Khalid Mehmood, FCA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 123 = 2011 SLD 123 = 2011 PTD 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Amending Assessments\n•\nValidity of amendments under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nConclusion: Section 122(5) is not a standalone provision for amending assessments but sets criteria for invoking other subsections. Actions taken without appropriate jurisdiction or notice were declared void and annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122(1),122(4),120,114 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.122/KB of 2010, decision dated: 2-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tauqeer Ahmed D.R.. A. S. Jafferi", + "Party Name:": "CIR, LD, RTO, HYDERABAD\nvs\nHASSAN MASOOD BAIG, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 124 = 2011 SLD 124 = 2011 PTD 693 = (2010) 102 TAX 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Plot: Burden of Proof\n•\nAddition to income based on plot valuation discrepancies.\n•\nConclusion: Without corroborative evidence linking a higher payment to the taxpayer, additions were deemed unjustified. Penalties imposed without proving mens rea were also deleted, highlighting procedural flaws in tax enforcement.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.73/LB and 74/LB of 2010, decision dated: 4-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed A. Andrabi Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 125 = 2011 SLD 125 = 2011 PTD 967 = (2011) 103 TAX 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Imports and Tax Regime\n•\nTax treatment of vehicles imported under the Employees Cars Scheme and royalty on self-manufactured vehicles.\n•\nConclusion: Imports for self-use do not fall under the final tax regime as per Section 148(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Depreciation disallowance was overturned. Contradictions in the Department's stance on royalties were resolved in favor of the taxpayer, ensuring fair and consistent treatment. Other disallowances, such as amortization of license fees and apportionment of expenses, were also addressed with directions for reconsideration or annulment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148,148(7),177,122(5A),21(c),2(54) & 152(1),23,221,21(g) & 34(3),75,67,113,222 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.767/LB and 759/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st October, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asian Zulifqar Ali, FCA (in I.T.A. No. 767/LB of 2009). Syed Zulqarnain Tirmizi, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 767/LB of 2009). Syed Zulqarnain Tirmizi, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 759/LB of 2009). Asim Zulifqar Ali, FCA (in I.T.A. No. 759/LB of 2009)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HONDA ATLAS CARS (PAKISTAN) LTD, LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 126 = 2011 SLD 126 = 2011 PTD 1090", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Electricity Duty on Private Generation\n•\nLevy of electricity duty on privately generated power.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court invalidated the provincial government's imposition of electricity duty on private generators, citing the state's failure to meet energy demands. The Court emphasized incentives over burdens for private generation during energy crises and provided relief to charitable trusts from such levies.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 2001=13,4 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3 Electricity Act, 1910=22 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 19640 of 2010, I.C.As. Nos.350, 289, 316, 310, 290, 291, 292, 293, 298, 299; 301, 17491, 15425 and 20677 of 2010, heard on 13-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ AND SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Messrs Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui Barrister, Muhammad Ahmad Pansota, Wasif Majeed, (Vice Counsel) Ijaz Ahmad Awan and Komal Malik Awans/Petitioners. Aurangzeb Mirzas. Shakeel-ur-Rehman Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State", + "Party Name:": "TANVEER SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS and others \nvs\nGOVENRMENT OF PUNJAB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 127 = 2011 SLD 127 = 2011 PTD 1807 = (2011) 104 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment: Merger Doctrine\n•\nJurisdiction to amend assessment orders after appellate decisions.\n•\nConclusion: The original assessment order merges into the appellate order upon adjudication, rendering subsequent amendments by a subordinate officer under Section 122(5-A) invalid. Both the Taxation Officer's and First Appellate Authority's orders were vacated, as they lacked legal standing post-merger.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1546/LB of 2010, decision dated: 24-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A. , JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., (LEGAL DIVISION) RTO, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs FARA AGRO (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 128 = 2011 SLD 128 = 2011 PTD 1820 = (2011) 104 TAX 68 = 2010 PTR 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeals\n•\nRight to appeal against provisional assessments under Section 122(c).\n•\nConclusion: Appeals against provisional assessments are maintainable under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to hear the case on merits, affirming the taxpayer's substantive right to challenge orders deemed invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,127,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.36/KB of 2011, decision dated: 26-03-2011, hearing DATE : 25-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Yusuf Rehmatullah Rajab-ud-Din, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. TEHMINA HASNAIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALII), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 129 = 2011 SLD 129 = 2011 PTD 257 = (2011) 103 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Statement as Substitute for Return\n•\nFiling of statements under Section 115 and their treatment as assessments under Section 120.\n•\nConclusion: A statement filed under Section 115 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is deemed equivalent to a return under Section 114, with all consequences and treatments applying mutatis mutandis. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication of other issues.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,115,120,122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 47/IB and 38/IB of 2010, decision dated: 2-11-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ziaullah Khan, D.R.. Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T. (LEGAL) RTO, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSHARIF HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 37 = 2012 SLD 37 = 2012 PTD 507 = (2012) 105 TAX 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Bank Deposits\n•\nTax exemption on term and bank deposits under Clause 74, Part I, Second Schedule.\n•\nConclusion: Term deposits do not qualify for exemption under Clause 74, as the exemption is strictly confined to bank deposits connected to routine business operations. Worker’s Welfare Fund (WWF) was chargeable on the total income of industrial establishments, including IPPs. Discriminatory exemptions were deemed repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),122(5A) & 122(9),-SecondSched., Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.850/IB to 854/IB of 2011, decision dated: 29-11-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Jamil, FCA Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HUB POWER COMPANY LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT), Zone-III, LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 38 = 2012 SLD 38 = 2012 PTD 518 = (2012) 105 TAX 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions and Procedural Injustice\n•\nTax deductions, procedural fairness, and jurisdiction issues.\n•\nConclusion: Provision for doubtful debts is inadmissible under tax law. Proper documentation must accompany taxpayer assertions during assessments. The Appellate Tribunal remanded certain cases for reevaluation and vacated Workers’ Welfare Fund orders passed by Deputy Commissioners due to jurisdictional limitations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),221,122(5),2(38A) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.159/IB to 161/IB of 2011, decision dated: 1st December, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Shahid Farid, FCA for Applicant Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIDAS COMMUNICATIONS CO., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 39 = 2012 SLD 39 = 2012 PTD 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estimation and Natural Justice\n•\nSuppression of declared income, carriage expenses, and capital expenditures.\n•\nConclusion: Taxation Officer's rejection of declared trading figures lacked evidence, violating principles of natural justice. Expenses related to business operations, such as carriage expenses and mark-up on loans for modernization, were admissible deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.385/LB, 386/LB, 967/LB and 1005/LB of 2009, decision dated: 8-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmed (in I.T.As. Nos.385/LB and 386/LB of 2009). Dr. Sheharyar, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.385/LB and 386/LB of 2009). Dr. Sheharyar, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.967/LB and 1005/LB of 2009). Waseem Ahmed (in I.T.As. Nos.967/LB and 1005/LB of 2009)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BLACK GOLD INDUSTRY, LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.T., P.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 40 = 2012 SLD 40 = 2012 PTD 547", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessments and Appeal Rights\n•\nRight to appeal provisional assessments under Section 122C.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals against provisional assessments are valid, even before their conversion into final assessments after 60 days. Taxpayer rights include appeal options or filing returns. Orders based on improper notices or procedural lapses were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,122C,120(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 170 to 173(PB) of 2011, decision dated: 28-06-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mushtaq Ahmad. Muhammad Tariq Arbab, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAEED\nvs\nC.I.R., Zone-I, R.T.O., PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 41 = 2012 SLD 41 = 2012 PTD 554 = (2013) 108 TAX 155 = 2013 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax and Maladministration\n•\nExemption certificates under Section 153(1)(b) and maladministration.\n•\nConclusion: Improper issuance of exemption certificates and ambiguous Federal Board of Revenue circulars resulted in revenue losses. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended remedial measures, including recovery of revenue and action against responsible officials.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 286/LHR/IT/(240)/577 of 2011, decision dated: 16-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Ramzan Bhatti Adviser. Waheed Shahzad Butt for Applicant. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Chief, F.B.R., Asif Rasool, Secretary, F.B.R. and Ashfaq Ahmad, DCIR Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Complaint No. 286/LHR/IT/(240)/577 of 2011, decided on 16th December, 2011\nWAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 42 = 2012 SLD 42 = 2012 PTD 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income and Procedural Lapses\n•\nProcedural injustice and maladministration in audit and assessment.\n•\nConclusion: The Department's inconsistent stance, protracted audits, and repetitive notices constituted maladministration. Arbitrary rejection of taxpayer evidence and failure to adhere to procedural norms necessitated corrective action under Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1)(b),120(1),122(5),177 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.483/LHR/IT(389)/970 of 2011, decision dated: 16-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. M. Akram Raza, ITP Authorized Representative. Shehzad Mehmood, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUSSADAQ FARHAN CHUGHTAI through Muhammad Ibrahim Chughtai\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 43 = 2012 SLD 43 = 2012 PTD 577 = 2012 PTCL 542 = (2012) 105 TAX 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Welfare Fund Applicability to Subsidiary Companies\n•\nLiability for Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) by a subsidiary company.\n•\nDetails: The taxpayer, a manufacturer and seller of pipes, argued that its majority shareholders (Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and Telecom Foundation) were exempt from WWF, and therefore, the taxpayer company should also be exempt. The Revenue countered that the taxpayer's independent manufacturing activities rendered it an industrial establishment liable for WWF.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the subsidiary company does not automatically inherit the parent company's exemptions. WWF liability is determined based on the taxpayer's independent operations.\n•\nReference: Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971), S.4; Charitable Endowment Act (VI of 1890); S.R.O. 1194 and S.R.O. 1195, dated 27-11-1991.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.24/IB to 27/IB of 2011, decision dated: 10-11-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Khan D.R.. Altaf Muhamad Khan.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., LEGAL DIVISION, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs T.F. PIPES (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 44 = 2012 SLD 44 = 2012 PTD 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Petroleum Exploration Companies\n•\nApplicability of tax limits under Petroleum Concession Agreements.\n•\nDetails: Exploration and Production (E & P) companies contended that tax should be calculated on profits after royalty deductions as per their Petroleum Concession Agreements. The Revenue argued that all payments to the government, including royalty, must be calculated based on profits before deductions.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields Act, 1948, mandates payments to the government, including royalties, be calculated on gross profits before deductions. Depletion allowances must also exclude royalty deductions.\n•\nReferences: Fifth Schedule, Part-I, Rules 4 and 2(5), Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979); Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948); Petroleum Concession Agreement; FBR Circulars.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,FifthSched.,Part-I,2(5),3,2,6(10),4 Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields and Mineral Development (Federal Control) Act, 1948=4,2(4),3A,3B Income Tax Act, 1922=10(8),SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.433 to 436(IB), 137(IB), 440 to 443(IB) of 2008, 311, 312(IB), 297(KB), 298(IB), 115(KB), 116(KB), 117(IB), 1944(KB) of 2007 and 545(KB), 1305 to 1309(KB) of 2006, 1086(KB) of 2005, 18(KB), 19(KB) of 2011, and M.A. (A.G.) No.137 of 2009, decision dated: 13-06-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBERS, ABDUL RAUF AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Hamid, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court Abid Aziz, Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A. and Mirza Taqi ud Din, A.C.A.. (in I.T.As. Nos.433 to 436(IB) of 2008)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barrister (in I.T.As. Nos.433 to 436(IB) of 2008)\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. and Qadeer Ahmad, F.C.A.s (in I.T.A. No. 137(IB) of 2008 and M.A. (A.G.) No. 137 (IB) of 2009)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in M.A. (A.G.)/137 (IB) of 2009 and I.T.A. No. 137(IB) of 2008)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.As. Nos.311 and 312(IB) of 2007)\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court Syed Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. and Qadeer Ahmad, F.C.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos.311 and 312(IB) of 2007)\nShahid Sadiq, F.C.A., Nadeem Ayaz Ahmad, F.C.A., Makhdoom Ali Khan Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts (in I.T.As. Nos. 440 to 443(IB) of 2008)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.As. Nos. 440 to 443(IB) of 2008)\nShabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A., Qadeer Ahmad, F.C.A. Taqi ud Din, A.C.A. Mrs. Zareen Anwar, A.C.A. and Makhdoom Ali Khan Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts (in I.T.As. Nos.545(KB of 2006, 297(KB), 298(KB), 115(KB), 116 (KB), 117(KB) and 1944(KB) of 2007)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.As. Nos.545(KB of 2006, 297(KB), 298(KB), 115(KB), 116 (KB), 117(KB) and 1944(KB) of 2007)\nShabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A., Qadeer Ahmad, F.C.A. Taqi ud Din, A.C.A. Mrs. Zareen Anwar, A.C.A. and Makhdoom Ali Khan Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts (in I.T.As. Nos.1305 to 1309(KB) of 2006).\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.As. Nos.1305 to 1309(KB) of 2006).\nShabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A., Qadeer Ahmad, F.C.A. Taqi ud Din, A.C.A. Mrs. Zareen Anwar, A.C.A. and Makhdoom Ali Khan Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts (in I.T.A. No. 18(KB) of 2011)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.A. No. 18(KB) of 2011)\nShabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A., Qadeer Ahmad, F.C.A. Taqi ud Din, A.C.A. Mrs. Zareen Anwar, A.C.A. and Makhdoom Ali Khan Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts (in I.T.A. No. 1086(KB) of 2005)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.A. No. 1086(KB) of 2005)\nMakhdoom Ali Khan Sr. Advocate Supreme Courts (in I.T.A. No. 19(KB) of 2011)\nDr. Tariq Masood, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Masood Akhtar, D.R., G.M. Khuhro, D.R., Tahir Khan, D.R., Sajid Ali, I.R.O., Majid Bashir and Mrs. Amber Dar, Barristers (in I.T.A. No. 19(KB) of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MND EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION LTD. and others\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 45 = 2012 SLD 45 = 2012 PTD 645 = (2012) 105 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loan Transactions and Tax Implications\n•\nTax exclusion for loans under Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nDetails: A taxpayer sought to exclude a loan amount from taxable income. The Revenue challenged the authenticity of the transaction, arguing that loans must be advanced through cross-cheques to prevent tax evasion via fictitious transactions.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that loans must be evidenced through proper documentation, such as cross-cheques. The taxpayer failed to provide sufficient evidence to validate the exclusion.\n•\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.12(18).", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.15 of 2005, decision dated: 11-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Petitioner. Eid Muhammad Khattak", + "Party Name:": "FAZAL WAHAB\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 46 = 2012 SLD 46 = 2012 PTD 683 = (2012) 105 TAX 213 = 2012 PTR 1 = 2012 SCMR 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Resident Shipping Carriers\n•\nTaxability of freight income earned by non-resident shipping carriers on inbound cargo.\n•\nDetails: A non-resident shipping carrier claimed exemption from Pakistani taxes on profits earned from inbound cargo. The Revenue argued that profits derived from services provided in Pakistan fall within its taxing jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that profits earned from inbound cargo freight paid by Pakistani buyers are taxable in Pakistan. Both the payment and the service's terminus were located in Pakistan.\n•\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 7(1)(b), 101, 107(2), 239(10).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=7(1)(b),101,107(2),239(10) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.553 of 2011, decision dated: 24-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EJAZ AFZAL KHAN AND IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikram ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner Nemo.s", + "Party Name:": "A.P. MOLLER through MAsk Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Zone-I, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 47 = 2012 SLD 47 = 2012 PTD 693 = (2013) 107 TAX 165 = (2011) 103 TAX 131 = 2011 PTR 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Conduct of Audit and Procedural Fairness\n•\nAudit procedures under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nDetails: Taxpayers challenged the audit process and appointment of auditors through constitutional petitions. The High Court directed the issuance of appointment letters, but the Supreme Court intervened to ensure procedural fairness.\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court emphasized departmental remedies and procedural compliance before initiating audits. The Revenue was directed to provide reasons and sufficient opportunities for taxpayer representation.\n•\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.177(4); Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., 2009 PTD 1392.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(4),177(4)(a),177(4)(b),177(4)(c),177(4)(d), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1306 to 1327, 1426 to 1480 of 2009, 204,1229 of 2010, decision dated: 24-2-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Arshad Hussain. Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos. 1306-1327 of 2009), Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.As. Nos.1427-1480/09, 1068-1088/10, 1097-1101, 1124, 1132-1135, 1141-1146/10, 1113-1118, 1126-1131/10, 1102-1104, 1106, 1107 of 2010), Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court, Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 1426/09, 204/10, 1208-09/10, 1222/10, 1474 of 2009), Mian Yousaf Umar Advocate Supreme Court (in C.As. Nos.1108-1112/10, 1119-1123/10, 1136 1140/10, 1147-1148/10, 1069, 1090-1096 of 2010), for the Appellants\nFaiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.As. 1307/09, 1309-1316 of 2009), Asghar Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.As. Nos. 1428-1429/10, 1432/10, 1220 of 2010); Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos. 1430/09, 1480 of 2009), M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record, (in C.As. Nos. 1439-41/09, 1134 of 2010), Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court, Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record, (in C.As. Nos.1451, 1456, 1459, 1473 of 2009), Rana Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.A. No. 1460 of 2009), M. Ilyas Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos. 204, 1212-1213 of 2010), Iqbal Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.As. Nos. 1071-1074, 1084; 1105, 1124, 1132, 1139 of 2010), Sh. Khizar Hayat, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.As. Nos. 1135 of 2010), Malik Shakeel-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court, Arshad Ali Chaudhry Advocate-on-Record, (in C.As. Nos. 1209, 1210, 1227 of 2010), Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.A. No. 1097 of 2010), Amjad Hameed Ghori Advocate Supreme Court, (in C.A. No. 1131 of 2010), for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "CHAIRMAN, F.B.R. AND OTHERS\nVS\nIDREES TRADERS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 48 = 2012 SLD 48 = 2012 PTD 699 = (2012) 105 TAX 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Tax and Refund Claims\n•\nRefund claims for income earned in exempt tribal areas.\n•\nDetails: A taxpayer claimed exemption from income tax under Article 247 of the Constitution, asserting income from tribal areas. The taxpayer sought refunds for withheld taxes at the import stage.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal denied the refund claim, citing the taxpayer's failure to file returns or prove the income's exempt status. Refunds cannot be granted without proper assessment and compliance within the statutory limitation period.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 53, 54, 55, 159, 170, 131; Constitution of Pakistan, Art.247.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,54,55,159,170,131 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 57 to 60(PB) of 2008, decision dated: 1st August, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees. Muhammad Tariq Arbab, L/DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs YASRAB CORPORATION\nvs\nC.I.R./R.T.O., PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 49 = 2012 SLD 49 = 2012 PTD 704 = (2011) 104 TAX 63 = 2011 PTR 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Admission of Fresh Evidence in Appeals\n•\nAdmission of documentary evidence during appeals.\n•\nDetails: The Commissioner (Appeals) admitted evidence previously submitted but deemed illegible by the Taxation Officer, who had passed an ex parte order for tax and additional tax.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's discretion to admit evidence under Section 128(5). Justice must not be hindered by technicalities, and the officer’s refusal to consider legible evidence was improper.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 128(5), 161, 205, 131.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=128(5),161,205,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 8/KB of 2011, decision dated: 22-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rajab-ud-Din DR. \nSyed Azhar Nawab", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 50 = 2012 SLD 50 = 2012 PTD 713 = (2012) 105 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Income Tax under Composite Contracts\n•\nTax exemption for income derived under composite contracts.\n•\nDetails: A taxpayer claimed full exemption under Clause 131 of the Second Schedule for income from services rendered partly in Pakistan and abroad. The Revenue disputed the claim due to the composite nature of the contract.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal partially upheld the claim. Income from royalty or technical services provided outside Pakistan was exempt, while services rendered domestically were taxable. Taxpayers must provide clear and verifiable breakdowns of income to claim exemptions.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 53, 54, 55, 153, Second Schedule, Part-I, Clause 131.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,54,55,159,153,131,Part-I,Second Schedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.52/IB of 2010, 49/IB to 51/IB and 53/IB of 2011, decision dated: 30-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nIKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Shaukat Baloch, FCA and Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Zia Ullah Khan, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 51 = 2012 SLD 51 = 2012 PTD 723 = (2012) 105 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment for Land Sale\n•\nClassification of proceeds from land sales as business income or capital gains.\n•\nDetails: Pakistan Steel Mills sold surplus land as small plots after establishing a housing scheme. The Taxation Officer classified proceeds as business income rather than capital gains. The assessee claimed it was capital gain. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the classification as business income.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s findings, emphasizing that unless findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence, the High Court cannot intervene. The assessee was directed to seek rectification at the Tribunal if needed.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 122(5A), 133 & 221.\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. P.K.N. Co. Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1256.\no\nJanki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT, AIR 1965 SC 1898.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),133,221 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No.187 of 2010, decision dated: 23rd January, 2012, hearing DATE : 21st November, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAISAL ARAB AND AQEEL AHMAD ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aga Zafar Ahmed for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL DIVISION), KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 52 = 2012 SLD 52 = 2012 PTD 734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Royalty Payments and Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty\n•\nExemption from withholding tax on royalty payments under the Pakistan-Japan treaty.\n•\nDetails: The taxpayer claimed exemption on royalty payments to a non-resident Japanese company based on the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty. The Revenue argued that mandatory withholding applied under Section 21(c).\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the exemption, ruling that treaty provisions override domestic tax law. Payments made under the treaty were exempt from taxation in Pakistan.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 21(c), 161, 6(2)(c), 107(2).\no\nArticles VII & VIII of the Pakistan-Japan Double Taxation Treaty.\no\n2010 PTD 1159.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=107,21(c),161,6(2)(c),107(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1094/LB, 1118/LB, 1119/LB, 1216/LB, 899/LB and 1095/LB of 2008, decision dated: 1st December, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Tahir, D.R.. M. Waseem Chaudhry.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, L.T.U., LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs SANPAK ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 53 = 2012 SLD 53 = (2012) 106 TAX 110 = 2012 PTD 741 = 2013 PTCL 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment Based on OGRA Formula\n•\nUse of OGRA formula as definite information for amending assessments.\n•\nDetails: The Revenue amended assessments for a CNG station based on OGRA’s scientific conversion formula for calculating sales. The taxpayer argued that the formula did not constitute definite information. \n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the amended assessments, holding that the OGRA formula lacked the certainty required to qualify as definite information. Deemed assessments under Section 120 were restored.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 122(5A), 177(4), 174, 176.\no\n2011 PTD (Trib.) 321; PLD 1997 SC 700.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(i)(b),122(5A),122(5),122(9),177(4),174,174(2),176 Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002=42 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.357-358/IB, 404-406/IB, 731/IB of 2011, decision dated: 2-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idreess (in I. T. As. Nos.357-358/IB, 404-406/IB, 731/IB of 2011). Zia Ullah Khan, DRs (in I.T.As. Nos.357-358/IB, 404-406/IB, 731/IB of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHAN CNG, FILLING STATION, RAWALPINDI and others\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-II), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 54 = 2012 SLD 54 = 2012 PTD 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misuse of Tax Exemption Circular\n•\nMisuse of tax exemptions under the FATA and PATA economic incentive package.\n•\nDetails: A firm dealing in rice exports misused a circular intended for businesses in FATA and PATA to evade withholding tax. The Revenue allowed the exemption without due verification.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended recovering the evaded tax and directed the Federal Board of Revenue to finalize proceedings and report compliance.\n•\nReferences:\no\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.7/QTA/IT(01)526 of 2011, decision dated: 18-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Nadir Khan, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Arif, Deputy Commissioner, Fida-ul-Haq, Assistant Commissioner, Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "COMPLAINANT\nvs\nHAQ NAWAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 55 = 2012 SLD 55 = (2012) 105 TAX 297 = 2012 PTD 761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Imported Goods and Refunds\n•\nTopic 1: Inclusion of sales tax in the value of imported goods for tax purposes.\n•\nDetails: The taxpayer disputed the inclusion of sales tax in the value of imported goods for determining tax liability under Section 80C. Previous Tribunal decisions excluded sales tax from the computation.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld prior rulings, directing the assessing officer to exclude sales tax when calculating tax on imports.\n•\nTopic 2: Refunds for excess tax deduction.\n•\nDetails: A taxpayer’s refund application was rejected due to alleged miscalculations. The Tribunal ruled the rejection was beyond jurisdiction.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80-C, 50(5), 62, 132.\no\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 735; 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1780.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=129,170(4),120(1),148 & 153 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,143B,50(5),62,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.806/LB of 2008, 258/LB to 261/LB of 2009, decision dated: 29-10-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hamid. Mrs. Fauzia Fukhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW LIGHT HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.T., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 130 = 2011 SLD 130 = (2011) 103 TAX 69 = 2012 PTD 785 = (2012) 105 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Bank Deposit Interest\n•\nWhether bank deposit interest is business income or income from other sources.\n•\nDetails: The taxpayer argued that interest from bank deposits, derived from business income, should be classified as business income. The Revenue contended it should be taxed as income from other sources.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that such interest qualifies as income from other sources, as it lacks a direct nexus with the taxpayer's manufacturing activities.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 2(11)(29), 14(1), 22, 30, 136.\no\nCIT East Pakistan Dacca v. The Liquidator, Khulna Bagerhat Railway Co. Ltd., PLD 1962 SC 128.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(11)(29),14(1),22,30,136 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 151 of 2003, decision dated: 9-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C, J AND MAZHAR ALAM KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Eid Muhammad Khattak for Applicant. Amir Javed and Astaghfirullah.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, PESHAWAR\nvs\nSHARIK INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., HATTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 56 = 2012 SLD 56 = 2012 PTD 790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Participation Fund and Other Disallowances\nTax treatment of workers' participation fund, charitable donations, unexplained income, and employee-related expenses.\n•\nWorkers' Participation Fund: Taxpayer argued that addition to income on the account of Workers' Participation Fund violated Section 60B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which allowed its deduction. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, deleting the addition due to lack of proper confrontation by the Taxation Officer.\no\nReference: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 878; 2011 PTD 2158.\n•\nCharitable Donations: Disallowance of deductions claimed under Section 61 due to a clerical error was deleted. The Appellate Tribunal found the Taxation Officer's decision unjustified as the taxpayer presented sufficient evidence.\no\nReference: 2008 PTD 647 rel.\n•\nUnexplained Income: Without issuing a notice under Section 111(1)(c), the addition of unexplained income was deleted as it violated legal requirements.\no\nReference: 2008 PTD 647 rel.\n•\nEmployee-Related Expenses: Medical and salary-related expenses were disallowed due to alleged non-deduction of tax. The Tribunal held that these were petty cash expenses and errors of short deduction, not non-deduction, rendering the disallowances unjustified.\no\nReference: 2011 PTD 901 rel.\n•\nProfessional Fees and Business Expenses: Additions for business-critical expenses (e.g., repair, vehicle maintenance) and professional fees were deleted as these were essential for operations and supported by proper documentation.\no\nReference: 2008 PTD 647 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),21(l),60B,61,111(1)(c),122(1),174(2),177,122(9),ChapterX,Part-V,Div-IV ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 999/LB and 1106/LB of 2011, decision dated: 15-11-2011, hearing DATE : 14-11-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh (I.T.A. No. 999/LB of 2011). M. Jamil Bhatti, D.R. (I.T.A. No. 999/LB of 2011). M. Jamil Bhatit, D.R. (in I.T.A No. 1106/LB of 2011). Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh (in I.T.A. No. 1106/LB of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAMAD PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nC.I.R., AUDIT 9, AUDIT DIVISION I, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 57 = 2012 SLD 57 = 2012 PTD 801", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax on Gas Bill Collection Charges\nFailure to deduct withholding tax under Section 153.\n•\nGas Bill Collection Charges: The Appellate Tribunal deleted disallowances for not deducting withholding tax on bank charges for gas bill collections, citing precedent decisions in favor of the taxpayer.\no\nReference: 2006 PTD 460.\n•\nPost-Retirement Benefits: Disallowances under Section 21(e) for medical benefits and free gas were held invalid as they pertained to ascertained liabilities approved by previous judgments.\no\nReference: 1992 PTD 668.\n•\nGrants from the Government: The Tribunal ruled that grants utilized for infrastructure creation were not revenue receipts, overturning the Additional Commissioner's decision.\no\nReference: 2006 PTD 2329.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21(c),134,153,122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.652/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-02-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Shabbar Zaidi, FCA and Asim Zulfiqar Ali, FCA. S. Sajjad Haider Rizvi, L.A. and Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, L.T.U., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 58 = 2012 SLD 58 = 2012 PTD 835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment for Lack of Definite Information\nUse of electricity consumption for estimating profits.\n•\nConclusion: The assessment was annulled due to lack of definite information and reliance on guesswork without issuing mandatory notices under Section 122(9).\no\nReference: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 321.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.213/LB of 2011, decision dated: 30-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID NASEEM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Kehkashan Khan, D.R.. Shoaib Ahmed Sh.,", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs USMAN RICE MILLS, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 59 = 2012 SLD 59 = 2012 PTD 1003 = (2012) 106 TAX 1 = 2012 PTCL 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax on Electricity Bills\nLegality of increased advance tax imposed through the Finance Act, 2008.\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether advance tax on electricity bills was constitutionally valid under federal and provincial taxation domains.\no\nReference: PLD 1997 SC 582; 2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=147,235 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2A,3,4,77,185(3),142(c) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 152 to 190, 1156 to 1162, 1165 to 1169, 1174, 1176, 1177, 1181 and 1182 of 2010, decision dated: 13-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, NASIR-UL-MULK AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Ch. Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.152 to 177, 1174, 1176 of 2010).\nNemos (in C.As. Nos.178, 188 to 190 of 2010).\nNemos (in C.As. Nos.179 to 187 of 2010).\nNemos (in C.As. Nos.1156 to 1162, 1165 to 1169\nNemos (in C.A. No. 1177 of 2010).\nNemos (in C.As. Nos.1181 to 1182 of 2010).\nM. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 4 (in C.As. Nos.1159, 1160 and 1162 of 2010).\nM. Ramzan Ch., Senior Advocate Supreme Court No. 3 on behalf of LESCO (in C.A. No. 1168 of 2010) No. 4 on behalf of LESCO (in C.As. Nos.152 to 178, 180 to 183, 185 to 190, 1156 to 1158, 1161, 1174, 1177, 1181 and 1182 of 2010) and No. 5 on behalf of LESCO (in C.As. Nos.165, 1159, 1160, 1162, 1165, 1166 and 1167 of 2010).\nSyed Arshad Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court No. 1 on behalf of LESCO (in C.As. Nos.159 to 190 of 2010) and No. 2 on behalf of LESCO (in C.As. Nos.152 to 158 of 2010).\nMian M. Javed, Advocate Supreme Court No. 6 on behalf of FESCO (in C.As. Nos. 161 to 163, 169 to 177, 180, 187 and 189 of 2010).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LAHORE POLYPROPYLENE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 60 = 2012 SLD 60 = 2012 PTD 1032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Remand of Assessment and Bank Loans\nJurisdiction to remand cases and treatment of bank credit entries.\n•\nRemand: First Appellate Authority was held to lack jurisdiction to remand cases for new assessments after the 2005 amendment. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this principle.\no\nReference: PLD 1975 SC 32.\n•\nBank Credit Entries: Additions treating bank loans as unexplained income were annulled. Repeated transactions could not be treated as income under Section 111.\no\nReference: 1994 SCMR 2232.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,111,177(4),120,111(1)(a)(b),122(1)(5), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1078/LB and 1079/LB of 2010, decision dated: 16-03-2012, hearing DATE : 15-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Yasir Pirzada, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW DEFENCE ESTATE, 90-Y DHA, LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., AUDIT DIVISIONII, RTO, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 61 = 2012 SLD 61 = 2012 PTD 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Section 122(c)\nAppealability of provisional assessments and retrospective application of taxation laws.\n•\nAppealability: The Appellate Tribunal held that orders under Section 122(c) were appealable under Section 127.\no\nReference: 1999 PTD 4061.\n•\nRetrospective Effect: Section 122(c), introduced in 2009, was held to be a substantive provision and could not apply retroactively.\no\nReference: 2009 PTD 1392.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=122,127 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.425/IB of 2011, decision dated: 18-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Ullah Khan, D.R. for Department. Muhammad Waseem Chaudhary for Taxpayer", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nISLAM ELLAHI, KURRALA C/O Sohawa, Jhelum" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 62 = 2012 SLD 62 = 2012 PTD 1055 = 2011 PTR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Business and Tax Assessments\nSpecial tax provisions for banking companies under the Seventh Schedule.\n•\nBest Judgment Assessment: Non-compliance allegations against a bank were dismissed as erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with the Seventh Schedule for banking companies.\no\nReference: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 679.\n•\nSpecial Provisions: Income and tax assessments for banks must align with Rule 1 of the Seventh Schedule, allowing only specified adjustments.\no\nReference: 1997 PTD 1693.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=99,67,13,121,100A & SeventhSched,1,9,177,206(2),214(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.774/LB and 805/LB of 2011, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Begs. Raja Sikandar Khan, L.A.", + "Party Name:": "BANK OF PUNJAB, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 63 = 2012 SLD 63 = 2012 PTD 1076 = (2012) 106 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Selection for Audit and Limitation for Appeals\nLegality of audit selection by the Commissioner and appellate decisions outside statutory limits.\n1.\nSelection for Audit:\no\nFacts: The taxpayer contested that audit selection by the Commissioner was unlawful, claiming only the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had the authority for random selection. However, the audit was conducted before the FBR circular dated 9-1-2010 restricted the audit selection process.\no\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the audit as valid since the audit and proceedings were completed before the FBR issued its circular. First Appellate Authority's annulment was reversed.\no\nReference: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 388.\n2.\nLimitation for Appeals (Section 129(4)):\no\nFacts: Revenue argued that the appellate decision exceeded the 120-day limit (plus 60 days extension) and was invalid.\no\nDecision: The Tribunal held that the provision was directory, not mandatory, as the legislature did not prescribe consequences for exceeding the time limit. The appellate decision was valid.\no\nReference: 2002 PTD 2112; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1127.\n3.\nDeeming Provision:\no\nFacts: The deeming relief provision under Section 129(5) required taxpayer notice for relief when no decision was made within the prescribed timeframe.\no\nDecision: Since no taxpayer notice was served, the deeming provision did not apply.\no\nReference: 2002 PTD 2112.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177(4)(a)(d) & 122(1)(5),129(4) ", + "Case #": "No. 670/KB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd February, 2012, hearing DATE : 11-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Naveed Hasan, D.R.. Habibullah Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., HYDERABAD\nvs\nMessrs MEMON MOTORS (PVT.) LTD., HYDERABAD.T.A" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 64 = 2012 SLD 64 = 2012 PTD 1090", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Welfare Fund and Refund Adjustment\nCompetence of appellate authorities to remand cases and procedural lapses in adjusting refunds.\n•\nFacts: Taxation Officer deducted Workers' Welfare Fund from refunds without passing a written order as required under Section 4 of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to remand the case, confirming the officer's inherent power to ensure proper procedural compliance.\n•\nReference: Section 129(1)(b) & (9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=129,170 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1511/LB to 1514/LB of 2011, decision dated: 28-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid Raza Bodla, D.R.. Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs CHICAGO METAL WORKS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 65 = 2012 SLD 65 = 2012 PTD 1105 = (2012) 106 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification and Expense Verification\nClassification of rental income and procedural handling of disallowed expenses.\n1.\nRental Income vs. Income from Other Sources:\no\nFacts: Revenue argued rental income from properties owned by a director but shown in the taxpayer's balance sheet should be classified as income from other sources. \no\nDecision: Tribunal confirmed Revenue's stance, as rental income requires ownership under Section 15(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nReference: Section 39 of the Ordinance.\n2.\nOperating Expenses:\no\nFacts: 50% of expenses were disallowed for lack of verifiable evidence.\no\nDecision: Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to present evidence.\no\nReference: Section 21 and 174 of the Ordinance.\n3.\nDirector’s Remuneration:\no\nFacts: Revenue challenged deletions of add-backs for director’s remuneration based on account records.\no\nDecision: Tribunal upheld the appellate decision as evidence supported the taxpayer’s claim.\no\nReference: Section 111(1)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,15(2),122(9),177(4)(d),21,174,122(1),21(m),177,122,111(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.730/KB of 2010, decision dated: 26-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Naveed-ul-Hasan, D.R.. Muhammad Ameen", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs TEEJAYS EXCLUSIVE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 66 = 2012 SLD 66 = 2012 PTD 1133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Based on Erroneous Sales and Purchase Profiles\nAudit and addition errors due to reliance on unrelated profiles.\n•\nFacts: Audit was based on sales and purchase profiles of a different entity. The taxpayer highlighted discrepancies, including incorrect NTN and sales tax registration details.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal annulled the assessment and remanded the case for fresh adjudication with verification of accurate records.\n•\nReference: Section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,177(1),174,122(5),122(9),111(1),67 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 233/LB of 2012, decision dated: 29-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP. Asif Rasool, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHICAGO METAL WORKS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 67 = 2012 SLD 67 = 2012 PTD 1136 = (2012) 106 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeals vs. References Post-Finance Ordinance, 2000\nProcedural adherence to appeal or reference mechanisms under amended tax law.\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer filed an appeal instead of a reference after the Finance Ordinance, 2000 removed the right to appeal and provided only for references.\n•\nDecision: High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.\n•\nReference: PLD 1971 SC 252.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.343 of 2000, decision dated: 6-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, C.J. AND NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Munawar Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs ISLAMABAD PUBLICATIONS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 68 = 2012 SLD 68 = 2012 PTD 1139 = (2012) 106 TAX 269 = 2011 PTR 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debts and Deduction Rules for Financial Institutions\nTreatment of bad debts for banking and financial institutions.\n1.\nAllowance of Bad Debts:\no\nFacts: Banks claimed deductions for bad debts under Section 23(1)(x) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nDecision: Tribunal allowed claims for bad debts if rules of the State Bank of Pakistan were followed, emphasizing substance over form in financial reporting.\no\nReference: 2006 PTD (Trib.) 2784.\n2.\nProvision for Bad Debts:\no\nFacts: Revenue contested the title provision for bad debts. \no\nDecision: Tribunal upheld that titles do not alter the substance if the debts are irrecoverable.\no\nReference: CIT v. National Bank of Pakistan 1976 PTD 237.\n3.\nIrrecoverable Loans:\no\nFacts: Revenue disallowed deductions for provisional irrecoverable loans.\no\nDecision: Tribunal clarified that irrecoverability need not be absolute, provided that sufficient recovery efforts are demonstrated.\no\nReference: CIT v. Grindlays Bank Ltd. 1991 PTD 569.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(I)(x) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=22,29 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=201 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4063/LB, 4064/LB 997/IB, 6023/LB, to 916/LB of 2009, decision dated: 10-02-2011, hearing DATE : 7-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAVED IQBAL, MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBERS, ABDUL RAUF AND IKRAM ULJAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos.4063/LB, 4064/LB of 2004, 6029/LB of 2005, 6022/LB of 2003, 1146/LB of 2006 and 651/LB of 2008).\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haq and Mansoor Baigs (in I.T.As. Nos.4063/LB, 4064/LB of 2004, 6029/LB of 2005, 6022/LB of 2003, 1146/LB of 2006 and 651/LB of 2008)\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haq and Mansoor Baigs (I.T.A. No. 305/LB of 2009)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (I.T.A. No. 305/LB of 2009)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (I.T.As Nos. 5005/LB, 5006/LB of 2005 and 1294/LB of 2006)\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haq and Mansoor Baigs (I.T.As. Nos. 5005/LB, 5006/LB of 2005 and 1294/LB of 2006)\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haqs (in I.T.A. No. 710/LB of 2008)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.A. No. 710/LB of 2008)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 4997/LB, 5000/LB of 2005 and 1209/LB of 2006)\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haq and Mansoor Baigs (in I.T.As. Nos. 4997/LB, 5000/LB of 2005 and 1209/LB of 2006)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 5001/LB, 5002/LB of 2005 and 1292/LB of 2006)\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haqs (in I.T.As. Nos. 5001/LB, 5002/LB of 2005 and 1292/LB of 2006)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.A. No. 654/LB of 2007)\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haqs (in I.T.A. No. 654/LB of 2007)\nNaveed A. Andrabis (in I.T.As. Nos. 997/IB of 2004, 471/IB, 81/IB, 82/1B, 472/IB, 1067/IB of 2006 and 439/IB of 2008)\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 997/IB of 2004, 471/IB, 81/IB, 82/IB, 472/IB, 1067/IB of 2006 and 439/IB of 2008).\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 1127/IB of 2006, 424/IB to 427/IB of 2008).\nNaveed A. Andrabis (in I.T.As. Nos. 1127/IB of 2006, 424/IB to 427/IB of 2008).\nMian Ashiq Hussains (in I.T.As. Nos. 6023/LB, 6024/LB of 2004 and 883/LB of 2006).\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 6023/LB, 6024/LB of 2004 and 883/LB of 2006).\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 800/LB of 2006 and 6106/LB of 2004).\nMian Ashiq Hussains (in I.T.As. Nos. 800/LB of 2006 and 6106/LB of 2004).\nAnjum Atta Sheikh, FCAs (in I.T.As. Nos. 367/IB to 368IB of 2008).\nShahid Iqbal, L.A. and Babar Bilal, L.As.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 367/IB to 368/IB of 2008).\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haqs (I.T.As. Nos.914/LB to 916/LB of 2009).\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (I.T.As. Nos.914/LB to 916/LB of 2009).\nShahid Iqbal, L.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 7141/LB and 7142/LB of 2005).\nDr. Ikram-ul-Haqs (in I.T.As. Nos. 7141 /LB and 7142/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., L.T.U., LAHORE and others\nvs\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI (NTN07-11-1710523) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 69 = 2012 SLD 69 = 2012 PTD 1184 = (2012) 106 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment for CNG Stations\nOpen-ended assessments, lack of definite information, and presumptive additions.\n•\nFacts: A CNG station's case was selected for audit. The Taxation Officer amended the assessment based on local inquiries and presumptive additions related to facilities like cold storage and conversion kits, despite the absence of supporting documentation or relevance to the audit period.\n•\nDecision: The First Appellate Authority annulled the amended order for lacking the required definite information under Section 122(5). The Tribunal upheld the annulment, citing that presumptions and uncorroborated additions rendered the assessment invalid.\n•\nReference: 2010 PTD 1506; 2007 PTD (Trib.) 2069.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5)(9),177,175,120,182 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1435/LB of 2011, decision dated: 2-04-2012, hearing DATE : 26-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR MATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid Raza Bodla, D.R.. Zaka Ullah", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., ZONElI, R.T.O., MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs PATWAL COLD STORAGE AND CNG STATION, SAHIWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 70 = 2012 SLD 70 = (2012) 105 TAX 494 = 2012 PTD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Deduct Tax on Profit on Debt\nTaxpayer's liability under Sections 161 and 151(1)(d) for markup payments.\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer paid markup to an associated company without deducting tax, prompting the Taxation Officer to declare the taxpayer in default under Section 151(1)(d). The taxpayer contended that no loan instrument existed to trigger the provision.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue failed to establish applicability of Section 151(1)(d) as no loan instruments or board decisions justified the markup. Default surcharge under Section 161(1B) was limited to specific scenarios where tax was deducted but not deposited.\n•\nReference: 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1683.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=151,161 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1426/LB to 1429/LB of 2011, decision dated: 2-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asif Rasool, D.R.. M. Zafar Manager Tax", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs ARAIN FIBERS LTD., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 71 = 2012 SLD 71 = 2012 PTD 1193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment and Delay in Appeals\nMaladministration by tax authorities in handling appeals.\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer contested turnover figures amended based on sales tax data. Delay in appeal resolution led to a complaint to the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal found no evidence to support maladministration in assessment but criticized delay in appellate decisions. FBR was directed to enforce adherence to statutory timelines under Section 129(4).\n•\nReference: 2008 PTD 609.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,129(5)(7) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 68/LHR/IT(55)136 of 2012, decision dated: 24-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Riaz ahmad Raja, ITP Authorized Representative. Riaz Ahmad, CIR (Appeals) Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "ARIF IQBAL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 72 = 2012 SLD 72 = 2012 PTD 1198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Services Rendered Outside Pakistan\nScope of tax exemption for technical services provided abroad.\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer claimed full exemption on receipts from a Turkish company under Clause 131 of the Second Schedule. Revenue argued that some services were performed domestically.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal partially upheld the taxpayer's claim for exemption related to services provided abroad. Domestic activities were deemed taxable, requiring clear segregation of receipts and expenses.\n•\nReference: 2007 PTD 1651; PLD 1996 SC 828.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(6),Second Schedule,(131),122(3),122(5A),201(1A) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=177 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.52/IB of 2010, 49/IB to 53/IB of 2011, decision dated: 30-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nIKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Shaukat Baloch, F.C.A. and Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Zia Ullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/S ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI\nVS\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-I) and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1 = 2013 SLD 1 = (2013) 107 TAX 275 = 2012 PTD 1209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against Taxability of Sale Gains\nTax applicability on sale of working interests under a Petroleum Concession Agreement.\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer argued that gains from the sale of working interests were governed by the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, not 2001. Revenue issued a notice under the latter.\n•\nDecision: The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the tax authority had jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the 2001 Ordinance.\n•\nReference: Constitutional Petition.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(SA),(9) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2958 of 2011, decision dated: 16-04-2012, hearing DATE : 11-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Petitioners. M. Bilal, Babar Bilal and Hafiz Munawar Iqbals. Sardar Zafar, Sajid Ali and Shaukat Mahmood, representatives of Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OCEAN PAKISTAN LIMITED, ISLAMABAD. through Chief Executive Officer\nvs\n FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 68 = 2008 SLD 68 = 2008 PTD 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Limitation\nDelay in refunds and taxpayer obligations to file returns.\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer claimed a refund without addressing unresolved liabilities related to unfiled returns for specific incomes.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal held that refund entitlement could not be determined until tax liabilities were resolved. The claim of automatic refund after 45 days under Section 170(4) was dismissed.\n•\nReference: 2006 PTD 1580.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170(4),113A,114,115(4),233 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-884-K of 2006, decision dated: 17-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Asad Arif Advisor Dealing Officer. Abdul Tahir Ansari for the Complainant. Saeed Ahmed Siddiqui Addl. Commissioner and Khuda Bux Abbasi, Special Officer, Income Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs STAR LINK (GLAMOUR SHOPPING MALL), through Messrs Tahir Law Associates, Sukkur\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 69 = 2008 SLD 69 = 2008 PTD 357 = (2008) 97 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Manufacturing Activity\nEligibility for refund under Section 170 for businesses involved in processing and bottling.\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer engaged in bottling pesticides was denied a refund on grounds of not being a manufacturer. First Appellate Authority ruled in favor of the taxpayer.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal upheld the decision, confirming the taxpayer's manufacturing status based on their registration and exemption certificates.\n•\nReference: Section 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,170(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 128/LB of 2007, decision dated: 3rd December, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Masood Raza Qazalbash, D.R.. Shabbir Fakhar-ud-Din, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 70 = 2008 SLD 70 = 2008 PTD 370 = (2008) 97 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Refund Applications\nTwo-year limitation for refund applications under Section 170(2)(c).\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer's refund application was rejected for being filed beyond the two-year statutory limit.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal directed that refunds due to taxpayers should not be denied solely on account of limitation if genuine.\n•\nReference: 1998 PTD 2012.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,170(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2070/LB of 2006, decision dated: 24-10-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal Qazi. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 71 = 2008 SLD 71 = 2008 PTD 378 = (2008) 97 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax for Sports Organizations\nApplication of minimum tax provisions to exempt entities.\n•\nFacts: Revenue assessed Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF) under Section 80-D, arguing that it fell within the company definition and was subject to minimum tax.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal ruled that while PHF qualified as a company, its receipts were exempt under the Second Schedule, unless linked to commercial activities.\n•\nReference: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,113,63,2(16)(b),SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1932/LB to 1937/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd October, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.. Aslam Malik, C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 72 = 2008 SLD 72 = 2008 PTD 383 = (2008) 97 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Profit and Loss Expenses\nDisallowance of sales tax, penalties, and additional tax as business expenses.\n1.\nPenalty and Additional Tax: Tribunal distinguished penalties from allowable additional taxes.\n2.\nSales Tax: Add-back of sales tax expenses was reversed as gross sales inclusive of sales tax were offered for taxation.\n3.\nAd Hoc Additions: Additions based on presumptions were deleted.\n4.\nWorkers Welfare Fund: Contributions were recognized as allowable expenses.\n5.\nRefund of Disallowed Additions: Orders to revise assessments were annulled.\n•\nReference: 1999 SCMR 1213; PLD 1995 SC 423.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(c),50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1617/LB, 1618/LB, 1682/LB of 2002, 2101/LB of 2003, 1593/LB of 2005, decision dated: 15-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal Khan, F.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.1617/LB, 1618/LB of 2002, 2101/LB of 2003 and 1593/LB of 2005)\nShahban Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.1617/LB, 1618/LB of 2002, 2101/LB of 2003 and 1593/LB of 2005)\nShahban Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 2682/LB of 2002)\nJaved Iqbal Khan, F.C.A. (in I.T.A. No. 2682/LB of 2002)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 73 = 2008 SLD 73 = 2008 PTD 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Assessments and Additional Grounds\nValidity of time-barred assessments and admissibility of additional legal grounds.\n•\nKey Issues: The assessee argued that assessments framed under Sections 52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were time-barred, and subsequent proceedings were void ab initio.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal accepted additional legal grounds, holding that assessments for tax years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 were indeed time-barred and canceled the proceedings.\n•\nReferences: 2003 PTD 1571; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1167.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (A.G.) Nos.106/LB to 108/LB of 2007 and I.T.As. Nos. 4322/LB to 4324/LB and 4644 of 2004, decision dated: 8-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj ud Din Khalid Appellant (M.A. (A.G.), Nos.106/LB to 108/LB, I.T.As. Nos.4322/LB to 4324/LB of 2004)\nManzoor Hussain Shad, D.R., for (M.A. (A.G.). Nos.106/LB to 108/LB, I.T.As. Nos.4322/LB to 4324/LB of 2004)\nManzoor Hussain Shad, D.R., (I.T.A. No. 4644/LB of 2004)\nSiraj ud Din Khalid (I.T.A. No. 4644/LB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 74 = 2008 SLD 74 = 2008 PTD 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Orders for Tax Deduction\nSetting aside of orders passed after statutory limitations.\n•\nKey Issues: Assessee challenged orders issued five years post-assessment, arguing no basis for default existed during prior audits.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal vacated the orders, citing a lack of relevant evidence and the expiry of statutory timelines.\n•\nReferences: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1167.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5825/LB of 2005, decision dated: 4-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid and Aurangzeb. Najam-ud-Din Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 75 = 2008 SLD 75 = 2008 PTD 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Applicability of Section 122 on Pre-2001 Assessments\nJurisdiction to amend assessments finalized under the repealed Ordinance.\n•\nKey Issues: Assessments finalized under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were reopened under Section 122 of the 2001 Ordinance.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal annulled the amended assessments, holding that the provisions of Section 122 could not retroactively apply to assessments finalized before July 1, 2003.\n•\nReferences: 2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6475/LB, 6476/LB of 2004 and 502/LB of 2006, 2313/LB, 2314/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfer Hussain D.R. (in I.T.As.Nos.6475/LB, 6476/LB of 2004 and 502/LB of 2006). Siraj Khalid (in I.T.As. Nos.6475/LB, 6476/LB of 2004 and 502/LB of 2006). Siraj Khalid (in I.T.As. Nos.2313/LB and 2314/LB of 2005). Ghazanfer Hussain D.R. (in I.T. As. Nos.2313/LB and 2314/LB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 76 = 2008 SLD 76 = 2008 PTD 413 = (2004) 90 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund for Excess Tax Paid\nIssuance of refund for excess tax withheld under self-assessment.\n•\nKey Issues: Excess tax liability was withheld due to the Revenue's negligence in processing refunds.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) directed the issuance of refund with compensation for delay and disciplinary action against the responsible officer.\n•\nReferences: 2006 PTD 1580.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92,50,59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1324-K of 2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nasser, Dealing Officer. Haider Naqi for the Complainant. Agha Hidayatullah, IAC Range-III, Zone-C, Karachi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs F. HUSSAIN & SONS, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 77 = 2008 SLD 77 = 2008 PTD 425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definite Information for Amended Assessments\nUse of provincial tax assessments as definite information. \n•\nKey Issues: Provincial Excise and Taxation Authority’s Gross Annual Letting Value assessment contradicted taxpayer’s declared rental income.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal upheld the amendment, justifying reliance on provincial assessments as definite information. \n•\nReferences: 1993 PTD 1108 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,39(1)(j),15,122(9),(5),(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.418/LB of 2007, decision dated: 15-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja. Muhammad Akram, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 78 = 2008 SLD 78 = 2008 PTD 430 = (2004) 89 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Audit Selection\nArbitrary selection for audit under self-assessment.\n•\nKey Issues: Assessee challenged the selection for total audit, claiming compliance with self-assessment requirements.\n•\nDecision: FTO recommended exclusion from audit, confirming compliance with self-assessment provisions.\n•\nReferences: C.I.T. v. Messrs Kamran Model Factory 2002 PTD 14.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),80 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 560 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer. Tahir Razzaque Khan, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Javed Ahmad, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FIVE STAR TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 79 = 2008 SLD 79 = 2008 PTD 434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Minimum Tax\nRectification of an apparent error regarding exemption under Clause 126C.\n•\nKey Issues: Taxpayer claimed exemption but was subjected to minimum tax due to a misapplication of the law.\n•\nDecision: FTO directed rectification of assessments and issuance of refunds for the affected years.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,92,80D & SecondSched. Income Tax Act, 1922=35 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1448 of 2002, decision dated: 30-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer. Zafar Iqbal for the Complainant. Khalid Khan, DC IT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CROWN LIGHTING (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 80 = 2008 SLD 80 = 2008 PTD 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes and Refunds\nRejection of refund claims despite admitted errors.\n•\nKey Issues: Taxpayer's application for rectification was rejected, citing ongoing reassessment proceedings.\n•\nDecision: FTO ruled the rejection as maladministration and directed corrective measures, including refund issuance.\n•\nReferences: I.T.A. No.2668/LB.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,122A & 122(5A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,80C,50(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-875-L of 2005, decision dated: 15-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Salim Iqbal Rathore for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALABBAS TRADERS through Proprietor\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 81 = 2008 SLD 81 = 2008 PTD 447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition During Appeal\nArbitrary imposition of penalties without awaiting appellate decisions.\n•\nKey Issues: Assessing Officer imposed penalties during pendency of appeals, contrary to prior undertakings.\n•\nDecision: FTO directed cancellation of penalties, citing maladministration and procedural violations.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,62,111,116 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1513-K of 2003, decision dated: 28-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Zuberi, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Younas Bhatti, (ITP) for the Complainant. Muhammad Hajjan Bughio, (D-CIT)", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL RASHEED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 82 = 2008 SLD 82 = 2008 PTD 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Tax Collected by WAPDA\nArbitrary withholding of tax refunds collected through utility bills.\n•\nKey Issues: Complainant sought a refund of tax collected via electricity bills, citing discharge of tax liability at source.\n•\nDecision: FTO directed issuance of refunds and termed the Revenue’s actions as discriminatory and arbitrary.\n•\nReferences: FTO Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 180-L of 2004, decision dated: 18-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Rana Mushtaq Ahmad Toor, ITP for the Complainant. Karamat Ullah, DCITs", + "Party Name:": "IMRAN MUKHTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 262 = 2003 SLD 262 = 2003 PTD 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Vague and Unspecific Grounds of Appeal\nDismissal of departmental appeals for non-compliance with procedural rules.\n•\nKey Issues: Appeals filed with vague and unspecified grounds violated Rule 10 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal dismissed the appeals for lack of clarity.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R-10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 367/KB of 1998 99, decision dated: 8-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R.. Z. H. Jafferi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 263 = 2003 SLD 263 = 2003 PTD 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Decisions by Higher Authorities\nClaims for relief already decided by the President.\n•\nKey Issues: Complainant sought reconsideration of an issue previously decided by the President of Pakistan.\n•\nDecision: FTO closed the file, citing the finality of the Presidential decision.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 10(10).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 3237 of 2002, decision dated: 18-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Ch. ALLAH RAKHA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 73 = 2012 SLD 73 = 2012 PTD 1220 = (2013) 107 TAX 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Property Tax\nClaim for property tax exemption based on charitable purposes.\n•\nKey Issues: Pakistan Engineering Congress argued its rental income was used for charitable purposes and sought exemption.\n•\nDecision: High Court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence to prove exclusive use of income for public charitable purposes.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1969 SC 617.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2878 of 2006, decision dated: 12-04-2012, hearing DATE : 2-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K. Dogar for Petitioner. Malik Abdul Aziz Awan, A.A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CONGRESS, LAHORE through President\nvs\nDIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 74 = 2012 SLD 74 = 2012 PTD 1268 = (2011) 103 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Group Relief - Applicability of Amended Law\n•\nKey Issue: Dispute on whether group relief under Section 59B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for Tax Year 2007, should be determined under the pre- or post-amendment law effective from July 1, 2007.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal held that the law as of June 30, 2007, applied. The case was remanded to ascertain compliance with pre-amendment requirements.\n•\nReferences: 1998 PTD 2769.\n(b) Amendment in Law\n•\nPrinciple: A vested right under a law cannot be curtailed by a subsequent amendment.\n•\nReferences: 1998 PTD 2769.\n(c) Share Purchase Valuation\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the valuation of shares purchased should be based on face value or breakup value.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal remanded the issue for recalculation based on breakup value, considering dividend payments.\n(d) Sale of Vehicles\n•\nKey Issue: Valuation of vehicles sold to company officials at below-market rates.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal upheld the value adopted by Taxation Officer, dismissing claims of fairness by the taxpayer.\n(e) Apportionment of Deductions\n•\nKey Issue: Allocation of administrative and financial expenses among different revenue streams.\n•\nDecision: Financial expense apportionment upheld; administrative expense allocation remanded for re-evaluation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=59B,67,177,122(1),122(5A) Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.723/KB of 2008 and 260/KB of 2010, decision dated: 1st July, 2010. dates of hearing: 26th May and 1st June, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Shabbar Zaidi, FCA and Aziz Nishtar. Shafquat Hussain Kehar, D.R. and Ghulam Mustafa Rahu D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 75 = 2012 SLD 75 = (2012) 106 TAX 100 = 2012 PTD 1279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Allowance for Engineers - Exemption from Tax\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of generation allowance for Tarbela Dam Engineers.\n•\nDecision: Special allowances were exempt from tax as per Section 12 and Clause 39 of the Second Schedule, Part I, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Petition allowed by the High Court.\n•\nReferences: Commissioner Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2009 SCMR 1279.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,53,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.252 of 2011, decision dated: 29-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID MAHMOOD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulfiqar Ali Khalil for Petitioners. Fazal-i-Gul along with Ashraf Ali Marwat Deputy Commissioner Legal Income Taxs", + "Party Name:": "SAJJAD ALI and others\nvs\nSECRETARY (WITHHOLDING TAX), ISLAMABAD and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 131 = 2011 SLD 131 = 2011 PTCL 817 = 2012 PTD 1301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Agricultural Income Misclassification\n•\nKey Issue: Inflated agricultural income declared under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nDecision: Taxation Officer’s amended order was restored; inflated income was added to taxable income.\n•\nReferences: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2287.\n(b) Jurisdiction of Taxation Officer\n•\nPrinciple: Taxation Officer can verify correctness of agricultural income declarations.\n(c) Declaration of Agricultural Income\n•\nPrinciple: Past oversight cannot grant immunity from scrutiny or exemption for misclassification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=41,120(1)(B),122(5),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 210(PB) of 2010, decision dated: 17-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Shoib Jally. Shad Muhammad, L/DR", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL) R.T.O., PESHAWAR\nvs\nHaji MASOODUR-REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 76 = 2012 SLD 76 = (2012) 106 TAX 49 = 2012 PTD 1374 = 2012 SCMR 1151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Working Interest by Oil Company\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of gains from the sale of working interest under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nDecision: Supreme Court declined leave to appeal; petitioner directed to pursue remedies within the tax hierarchy.\n•\nReferences: Al-Ahram Builders v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5A),(9) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 773 of 2012, decision dated: 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Akram Sheikh, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M. Bilal, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Baber Bilal, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos. 2. Not representeds Nos. 1 and 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OCEAN PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 77 = 2012 SLD 77 = 2012 PTD 1380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Tax Demands and Corruption\n•\nKey Issue: Alleged bribery and illegal tax demands under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman found evidence of corruption and recommended disciplinary actions and criminal investigation.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,13 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 4-06/LHR/IT(03-05)22-24 of 2012, decision dated: 15-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt Authorized Representative. Qadir Nawaz, ACIR Rana Sajjad Hussain, IRO and Ghulam Nasir, IRO, Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UMER TRADING CO. through Mrs. Javeria Sohail Amin and 2 others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 78 = 2012 SLD 78 = (2012) 106 TAX 208 = 2012 PTD 1385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Accrual Accounting - Compensated Absence\n•\nKey Issue: Deduction for liabilities under actuarial valuation.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal upheld the deduction as compliant with Section 34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n(b) Depreciation on Rented Building\n•\nDecision: Depreciation limited to business-use portion of the building.\n(c) Apportionment of Dividend Expenses\n•\nDecision: Tribunal adjusted apportionment based on directors’ involvement in investment decisions.\n(d) Perquisites and Reimbursements\n•\nDecision: Tribunal deleted additions, clarifying reimbursements are not perquisites.\n(e) Disposal of Assets\n•\nDecision: Tribunal allowed deductions for written-down value of disposed assets as per Sections 75 and 22(8)(b).\n(f) Depreciation for Multiple Vehicles\n•\nDecision: No curtailment justified; Tribunal upheld the deduction.\n(g) Deferred Revenue\n•\nDecision: Tribunal concurred with First Appellate Authority on deferral treatment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=34(3),67,21(k),12(2)(d),22(8)(b),75,20(1),34(1) Income Tax Rules, 2002=13(3) Companies Ordinance, 1984=234 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1399/LB, 1340/LB, 1374/LB and 1375/LB of 2010, decision dated: 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A. , JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sibih-ur-Aiyaz, D.R.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 1399/LB and 1340/LB of 2010). Irfan Ilyas, FCAs (in I.T.As. Nos.1399/LB and 1340/LB of 2010). Irfas Ilyas, FCAs (in I.T.As. No. 1374/LB and 1375/LB of 2010). Sibih-ur-Aiyaz, D.R.s (in I.T.As. No. 1374/LB and 1375/LB of 2010)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE and another\nvs\nMessrs MILLAT TRACTORS LTD., LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 79 = 2012 SLD 79 = 2012 PTD 1402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Composite Audit Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issue: Legality of composite audit under multiple tax laws.\n•\nDecision: Composite audits under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Federal Excise Act, 2005, were deemed illegal. FTO recommended withdrawal of notices.\n•\nReferences: 2011 PTD 1558.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 24/ISD/ST(08)/242 of 2012, decision dated: 22-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Ahsan Ahmed Khokhar, Advisor Dealing Officer. Atif Mehmood, Authorized Representative. Aamar Javed DCIR, RTO, Islamabad Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIA CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 80 = 2012 SLD 80 = 2012 PTD 1412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Overreach in Revised Assessments\n•\nKey Issue: Revising assessments under a repealed ordinance beyond statutory limitations.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal annulled the notice, terming it void ab initio and a case of maladministration.\n•\nReferences: Eli Lilly’s case 2009 SCMR 1279.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.281/LHR/IT(209)548 of 2012, decision dated: 26-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Mian Zafar Iqbal, Authorized Representative. Shakil Ahmad, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "REHMAT ULLAH TABBASUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 81 = 2012 SLD 81 = 2012 PTD 1439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Cost of Plot Purchase\n•\nKey Issues: Taxation Officer added the cost of a purchased plot under Section 21(l), which was meant for expenses in the profit and loss account.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal held that Section 21(l) did not apply to the cost of goods purchased and deleted the addition, directing the use of Section 111(1)(b) if necessary.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Farhan Food Industries, I.T.A. No.468/KB of 2010.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148,162,205 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 181/LHR/IT(128)/355 of 2012, decision dated: 19-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Sajjad Ahmad Butt, ITP Authorized Representative. Waqas Ahmad, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHIQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 82 = 2012 SLD 82 = 2012 PTD 1444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Cost of Plot Purchase\n•\nKey Issues: Taxation Officer added the cost of a purchased plot under Section 21(l), which was meant for expenses in the profit and loss account.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal held that Section 21(l) did not apply to the cost of goods purchased and deleted the addition, directing the use of Section 111(1)(b) if necessary.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Farhan Food Industries, I.T.A. No.468/KB of 2010.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(l),111(1)(b),122(1) & 177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.104/LB of 2011, decision dated: 30-04-2012, hearing DATE : 6-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Irfan Ilyas, FCA. Mrs. Humaira Maryum, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs QUALITY HOME (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 462 = 2002 SLD 462 = 2002 PTD 237 = (2001) 84 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing of Return\n•\nKey Issues: Penalty imposed for late filing of returns despite the taxpayer reporting a loss, not exceeding the minimum taxable income.\n•\nDecision: Penalty was deleted, as returns declaring a loss were not mandated under Section 55 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nReferences: (1987) 169 ITR 221; (1989) 177 ITR 445.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,55 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3316/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 30-06-2001, hearing DATE : 10-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Younas Ghazi, F.C.A.. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 464 = 2002 SLD 464 = 2002 PTD 513 = (2001) 250 ITR 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Closing Stock\n•\nKey Issues: Upon dissolution and reconstitution of a firm, the valuation method for closing stock was disputed.\n•\nDecision: Supreme Court ruled that, since the business continued without cessation, closing stock must be valued at cost or market price, whichever is lower.\n•\nReferences: G.R. Ramachari & Co. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 142; A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3818 of 1999, decision dated: 2-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Venkatarama, Senior Advocate (V. Prabhakar and Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Advocates with him). Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "SAKTHI TRADING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 465 = 2002 SLD 465 = 2002 PTD 521 = (2001) 250 ITR 781", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Assessing Officer’s Powers in Revision\n•\nKey Issues: Whether an Assessing Officer, acting on a revision order, could address issues not raised by the Commissioner.\n•\nDecision: Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration, emphasizing that legal questions arise from such circumstances.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Novelty Jewellers (2000) 244 ITR 868.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1777 of 2001, decision dated: 12-03-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ganesh and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate (Bhargava V. Desai and Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNOVELTY JEWELLERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 466 = 2002 SLD 466 = 2002 PTD 620 = (2002) 85 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\n•\nKey Issues: Whether production of semi-finished goods negates the commencement date for an industrial undertaking.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal held that the production of semi-finished goods established commencement and did not negate exemption eligibility.\n•\nReferences: 1979 PTD 612; 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3742.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4206/LB of 2000, decision dated: 29-10-2001, hearing DATE : 25-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Wasim Siddiqui, C.A.. M. Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 467 = 2002 SLD 467 = 2002 PTD 1293 = (2000) 242 ITR 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Borrowed Funds\n•\nKey Issues: Repayment of borrowed funds used for building construction and its classification as application of income for charitable purposes.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal upheld that repayment of borrowed funds constituted income application for charitable purposes.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Janmabhumi Press Trust (2000) 242 ITR 457.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 14 of 1996, decision dated: 7-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.K. SINGHAL AND T.N. VADLINAYAGAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "E.R. Indrakumar for the Commissioner. S. Ganesh Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJANMABHOOMI PRESS TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 494 = 2004 SLD 494 = 2004 PTD 2549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,61A,144(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1878/LB and 2775/LB of 2003, 13/03/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 468 = 2002 SLD 468 = 2002 PTD 1468 = (2003) 87 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Proof of Timely Filing of Returns\n•\nKey Issues: Validity of postal receipts as proof of timely filing of income tax returns.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal ruled that postal receipts create a presumption of delivery, and penalties imposed for non-filing were canceled.\n•\nReferences: General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,143B General Clauses Act, 1897=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 472 of 1998, heard on 6-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Farzand Ali. Muhammad Ryas Khans", + "Party Name:": "NOBLE PETROLEUM COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nIncomE tax/WEALTH TAX DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE 12, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE and 3 others\nTHANTHI TRUST\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 469 = 2002 SLD 469 = 2002 PTD 1617 = (2000) 242 ITR 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Limitation\n•\nKey Issues: Applicability of limitations on reassessment under Section 147 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDecision: Reassessment was deemed valid for part of the income but barred for other components due to limitation.\n•\nReferences: Thanthi Trust v. I.T.O. (1973) 91 ITR 261 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.251 of 1981 (Reference No. 103 of 1981), decision dated: 28-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Janakirman for the Assessee. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 470 = 2002 SLD 470 = 2002 PTD 1872 = (2002) 85 TAX 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Complaint of Bribery in Vehicle Seizure Case\n•\nKey Issues: Alleged bribery by an advocate to release a seized vehicle.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman found the complaint to be false and frivolous, condemning the act of bribery. The matter was referred to the Punjab Bar Council for disciplinary action.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1623 of 2001, decision dated: 16-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem Ranjha, Addl. Director, Customs Intelligence and Muhammad Sarwar, Intelligence Officer", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 265 = 2003 SLD 265 = 2003 PTD 1786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Cess on Private Educational Institutions\n•\nKey Issues: The Punjab Finance Act, 1997 imposed a 5% cess on fees exceeding Rs. 1,000 per month per student, conflicting with the Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941, which capped the tax at Rs. 50 per year.\n•\nDecision: The provision was declared ultra vires and unconstitutional, as it exceeded the prescribed limits and conflicted with Article 163 of the Constitution.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1970 SC 253; PLD 1999 Lah. 244.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=163 Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941=2 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7688, 15631 and 22145 of 1999, 21156 of 2000, 19811 of 2001 and 4126 of 2002, heard on 19-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Shekoor for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 7688 of 1999).\nAbid. Aziz for Petitioners (in W. P. No. 15631 of 1999).\nJariullah Khan for Petitioners (in W. P. No. 4126 of 2002)\nSyed Asghar Haider for Petitioners (in W.Ps. Nos.21156 of 2002, 11100 of 2001 and 10775 of 2000).\nAtif Amin. for Petitioners (in W. P. No. 3164 of 2001)\nKh. Amir Farooq for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 22145 of 1999).\nShabbar Raza Razvi, A.G., Punjabs.", + "Party Name:": "LAHORE UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT OF SCIENCES, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT through Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 471 = 2002 SLD 471 = 2002 PTD 1971 = (2002) 85 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability for Non-Deduction of Tax on Rent-Free Accommodation\n•\nKey Issues: Assessee provided rent-free accommodation, and the Assessing Officer presumed its value exceeded declared income, declaring the assessee in default under Section 52.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal canceled the order, ruling that the presumption lacked concrete evidence and failed to justify invoking Section 52.\n•\nReferences: Not specified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(1),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1856/LB to 1858/LB of 2001, decision dated: 10-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousaf Saeed, F.C.A.. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 472 = 2002 SLD 472 = 2002 PTD 2210 = (2002) 85 TAX 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Sale and Leaseback Transactions\n•\nKey Issues: Assessee was taxed on the sale of imported machinery under Sections 156/80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal held that the transaction was financial (sale and leaseback) and not a commercial sale. Assessment under Sections 156/80C was invalid and canceled.\n•\nReferences: I.T.A. No.749/LB of 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,80C/156,50(5),50(4),52,50(4),(5),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.. 1535/LB to 1537/LB of 2001, decision dated: 21st November, 2001, hearing DATE : 6-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Anwar Baig. Javed Aziz, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 473 = 2002 SLD 473 = 2002 PTD 2671 = (2002) 86 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Investments and Wealth Tax\n•\nKey Issues: Additions under Section 13(1)(e) were made without issuing statutory notices, and wealth tax valuations were enhanced without justification.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman found procedural violations and recommended reassessments with proper notices and evidence-based evaluations.\n•\nReferences: 1991 PTD 488 (not applicable).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e),13(2),61,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 134-L of 2002, decision dated: 29-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Shahid Abbas for the Complainant. Ms. Sadia Gillani, DCIT, Circle 10, Zone C, Lahore", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 255 = 2006 SLD 255 = 2006 PTD 148 = (2006) 93 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Basis for Levy of Surcharge\n•\nKey Issues: Calculation of surcharge on total income versus post-adjustment income.\n•\nDecision: Surcharge is calculated on total income assessed for the year, irrespective of advance tax adjustments.\n•\nReferences: Not specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,85,136,FirstSched.,Part-III ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 35 of 1997 and I.T.A. No.778 of 2000, decision dated: 10-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Farid\nRespondent(s) by: Jawaid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "DAWOOD CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax APPEALII, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 256 = 2006 SLD 256 = 2006 PTD 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Second Constitutional Petition on the Same Cause of Action\n•\nKey Issues: Maintainability of a second petition after withdrawal of the first without reserving the right to file afresh.\n•\nDecision: Second petition was dismissed as not maintainable. Withdrawal of the first petition did not preserve the right for a fresh filing.\n•\nReferences: Sandal Bar’s PLD 1997 SC 334; Karim Gul v. Shahzad Gul 1970 SCMR 141.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXIII,R.1 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-1509 of 1999, heard on 19-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C, J. AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbals Nos.1 and 2. Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN VINYL INDUSTRIES, LAHORE\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Secretary (Customs TarifF1) and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 257 = 2006 SLD 257 = 2006 PTD 333 = (2006) 93 TAX 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Res Judicata in Income Tax Law\n•\nKey Issues: Whether the principle of res judicata applies in income tax assessments.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal ruled res judicata does not strictly apply in tax law. Each assessment year is independent.\n•\nReferences: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Industrial Engineering Agencies Ltd., PLD 1992 SC 562.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 17 of 1993, decision dated: 22-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: M. Akbar A. Ansari for Applicant\nRespondent(s) by: Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "M/s ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nI.T.O. CO., CIRCLE CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 258 = 2006 SLD 258 = 2006 PTD 689 = (2006) 93 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Wealth from Agricultural Lease\n•\nKey Issues: Assessee claimed accretions in wealth were from leased agricultural land but failed to substantiate the claim with reliable evidence.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal rejected the claim, restoring the Assessing Officer's order due to lack of credible documentation.\n•\nReferences: 1991 PTD 488 (not applicable).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4203/LB of 2003, decision dated: 29-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Masood Raza Qizalbash, D.R.. Syed Nisar Gillani", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 259 = 2006 SLD 259 = 2006 PTD 1571 = 2007 PTCL 58 = (2006) 93 TAX 105 = 2007 PTR 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\n•\nKey Issues: Applications for condonation of delay were filed after the appeals were disposed of.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal ruled such applications were inadmissible post-disposal and emphasized timely submissions.\n•\nReferences: 1981 SCMR 536; 1991 PTD 1056.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(4),156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Cond.) Nos. 393/LB to 397/LB, M.As. Nos. 398/LB to 402/LB of 2005, decision dated: 24-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Luqman, D.R. Abdul Rehman Mir, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 260 = 2006 SLD 260 = 2006 PTD 1918 = (2006) 93 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Exemption under Section 156\n•\nKey Issues: Whether rectification applications were filed within the limitation period and whether production in 1993-94 was trial or commercial.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal dismissed rectification applications, citing fabricated evidence and found production in 1993-94 to be commercial, rejecting exemption claims.\n•\nReferences: 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2922; 1998 PTD 2722.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(3) & SecondSched.,(118C) ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos.14(PB) and 49(PB) of 2004, decision dated: 18-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Amin Shah, F.C.A. and Mehmood Mirza for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 261 = 2006 SLD 261 = 2006 PTD 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Exemption under Clause (126D)\n•\nKey Issues: Assessee’s profits were exempt under Clause (126D) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, yet minimum tax under Section 80D was levied.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal vacated orders levying minimum tax, stating the earlier decision for the 1997-98 assessment year, which exempted minimum tax, had attained finality. Re-adjudication on the same legal issue was deemed against principles of justice and fair play.\n•\nReferences: 2004 PTD 3020; Elahi Cotton Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 1997 PTD 1555.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,65,66A & SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2689/LB of 2002 and W.T.A. No.5282/LB of 2003, decision dated: 24-03-2005, hearing DATE : 22-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ESAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Perveaz Jami. Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 262 = 2006 SLD 262 = 2006 PTD 415 = (2006) 93 TAX 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Loans from Directors\n•\nKey Issues: Addition to the company’s income due to cash loans from directors was contested.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal), holding the loans as genuine.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Mr. Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore I.T.A. No.491 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 140 of 2000, decision dated: 13-06-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Malik Muhammad Nawaz\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nMessrs HEART INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 263 = 2006 SLD 263 = 2006 PTD 423 = (2006) 93 TAX 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Additional Tax\n•\nKey Issues: Additional tax charged in 1977 was challenged as time-barred since the rectification exceeded the four-year limitation period.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal and Appellate Authority upheld the assessee’s plea, ruling the rectification was time-barred.\n•\nReferences: Not specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=18,18A(7),23(3),35(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 16 of 1986, decision dated: 2-10-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE\nQAISER AHMED HAMIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasrullah Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Sirajul Haq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI\nVS\nMESSRS DADABHOY SILK MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 206 = 2004 SLD 206 = 2004 PTD 184 = (2003) 88 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim by Ex-Managing Director\n•\nKey Issues: Ex-Managing Director filed a refund claim on behalf of a company.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled the claim invalid as only the current management or principal officer of the company could legally file for a refund.\n•\nReferences: Not specified.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1445-L of 2002, decision dated: 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Wasim Ismail (ITP) for the Complainant. Muhammad Jamil Bhatti (D-CIT)", + "Party Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD, EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 207 = 2004 SLD 207 = 2004 PTD 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment of Advocate’s Fees\n•\nKey Issues: Advocate’s professional fees were unpaid for two years despite repeated requests.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman declared the non-payment as maladministration and recommended immediate payment.\n•\nReferences: Not specified.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 96-L of 2003, decision dated: 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Amjad Iqbal, IAC-for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA, ADVOCATE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 208 = 2004 SLD 208 = 2004 PTD 204 = (2003) 88 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes in Fiscal Matters\n•\nKey Issues: Ambiguities in fiscal statutes and the precedence of special statutes over general ones.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal emphasized the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, holding that specific provisions in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, took precedence over the general provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1985 SC 159; 2002 PTD 1023.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80B,80D,80DD,52,50(5),59(1),72,81,10(29),SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(118C) Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6 ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeals Nos. 374, 374A(PB), 365, 112(PB) of 2002, 296(PB) 297(PB), 5, 25 and 346(PB) of 2003, decision dated: 21st July 2003, hearing DATE : 28-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Irshad, D.A.G. and M. Luqman, D.R.s Sikandar Hayat Khan No. 1 Shahzad Qazi, F.C.A.s Nos. 2 and 5 Ashfaque Ahmed, F.C.A.s Nos. 3 and 4", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 209 = 2004 SLD 209 = 2004 PTD 248 = (2003) 88 TAX 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Modaraba Tax Exemption and Related Deductions\n•\nKey Issues: Determination of the first assessment year for Modaraba income exemption and various deduction claims.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nModaraba Exemption: First assessment year was 1990-91. Exemption for subsequent years (1991-92 and 1992-93) was upheld, but income for 1993-94 was taxable.\no\nBad Debts: Disallowed due to lack of evidence.\no\nProportionate Expenses: Allocation based on business activity upheld.\no\nDepreciation and Lease Rentals: Loss due to depreciation carried forward; other losses adjusted against current or future income.\no\nFinancial Charges: Charges on foreign currency loans were allocated to the income source (interest) where the funds were utilized.\n•\nReferences: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 1346; C.B.R. Circular No. 6 of 1994.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(v),34,35,38,22,23,2(8),2(26)(c)Expln.,9(1A),FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2225/KB, 1115/KB of 1996-97, 702/KB, 703/KB of 1997-98 and 1062/KB of 2002, decision dated: 7-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asif Zia, ACA. Khawar Saeed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 210 = 2004 SLD 210 = 2004 PTD 259 = (2003) 88 TAX 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Investment and Additional Assessment\n•\nKey Issues: Applicability of Section 13 and first proviso for unexplained investments; whether additions could be made for Assessment Year (AY) 1996-97 based on discoveries in AY 2001-2002.\n•\nDecision: Additions made under the first proviso to Section 13 for AY 1996-97 were deleted as the discovery occurred in AY 2001-2002. The Tribunal emphasized strict application of deemed income provisions and disallowed retrospective application.\n•\nReferences: 1993 SCMR 1232; PLD 1997 SC 700; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,SecondSched.,13(1)(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1383/LB and 2153/LB of 2002, decision dated: 20-08-2003, hearing DATE : 16-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Ahmed Ali (in I.T.A. No. 1383/LB of 2002)\nMuhammad Arif, D.R. and Sardar Jamal Ahmed Sukhera (in I. T. A. No. 1383/LB of 2002)\nMuhammad Asif, DR and Sardar Jamal Ahmad Sukhera, Legal Advisor (in I.T.A. No. 2153/LB of 2002)\nMir Ahmad Ali (in I.T.A. No. 2153/LB of 2002)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 211 = 2004 SLD 211 = 2004 PTD 811 = (2004) 89 TAX 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Default of Hearing and Constitutional Petition\n•\nKey Issues: Application of Rule 20 of ITAT Rules, 1981, regarding delayed decision; whether delayed announcement constitutes a default of hearing. \n•\nDecision: Tribunal ruled that delayed delivery does not amount to default of hearing. Remedy under Rule 20 applies only to parties absent during proceedings. Assessee's application for rehearing was dismissed.\n•\nReferences: 1996 SCMR 669; Rule 20 of ITAT Rules, 1981.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15058 of 2003, heard on 14-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ESSEM POWER (LTD.), ESCORTS HOUSE through Company Secretary Mr. Qaim Mehdi\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 212 = 2004 SLD 212 = 2004 PTD 948", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition and Alternate Remedies\n•\nKey Issues: Maintainability of a constitutional petition when alternate remedies are available.\n•\nDecision: High Court allowed the constitutional petition, converting it into an appeal due to procedural flexibility. However, the Court emphasized that such concessions are exceptional and not available where statutory remedies are ignored.\n•\nReferences: Pakistan Electric Fittings Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 2000 PTD 2407; Islamuddin v. ITO, 2000 PTD 306.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,156,134,129,19(2),66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 658 of 1998, decision dated: 10-10-2003. dates of hearing: 10th and 11-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahenshah Hussain for Petitioner. Jawaid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI PROPERTIES INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 213 = 2004 SLD 213 = 2004 PTD 1216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Defiance of Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommendations\n•\nKey Issues: Filing of review applications without implementing Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendations.\n•\nDecision: Filing a review does not automatically stay implementation. Recommendations must be followed unless specifically stayed. Tribunal directed immediate compliance within 15 days.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 12.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=12 ", + "Case #": "Review Application No. 80 of 2003 in Complainant No. 1493-L of 2002, decision dated: 11-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Ghulam Rasool, DCIT for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 214 = 2004 SLD 214 = 2004 PTD 1286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Tax Department\n•\nKey Issues: Harassment and corruption by tax officials; illegal selection of cases for audit.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman found evidence of systemic corruption and recommended transferring implicated officials to different zones, monitoring their conduct, and submitting periodic reports.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 226 of 2003, decision dated: 21st August, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Rao and Talat Mahmood for the Complainant Muhammad Asif, ACIT and Tahir Siddique Bhatti ACIT", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN KARYANA STORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 215 = 2004 SLD 215 = 2004 PTD 2228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Agreed Assessments and Joint Accounts\n•\nKey Issues: Joint bank accounts leading to an agreed assessment without proper returns; later complaint withdrawal under pressure.\n•\nDecision: Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled the entire process illegal, recommending an independent audit and departmental action against involved officials.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,,80C,143B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.855-L of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Dr. Khalid Malik, (D.-C.I.T.)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AFNAN INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 216 = 2004 SLD 216 = 2004 PTD 2152 = (2003) 88 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unaccounted Receipts and Onus of Proof\n•\nKey Issues: Whether the Department must prove investments arising from unaccounted receipts when on-money is alleged.\n•\nDecision: Supreme Court ruled that the onus lies on the Department to show evidence of unaccounted investments. Tribunal and High Court were directed to consider the legal question arising from these facts.\n•\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 68 & 256(2); CIT v. President Industries.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.8176 of 2001, decision dated: 29-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.P. BHARUCHA, C.J., L. SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General of India (Ms.Neera Gupta and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates with him) H.A. Raichura, Ms. S.H. Raichura and Shailendra Singh, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nABHISHEK CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 217 = 2004 SLD 217 = 2004 PTD 1649 = (2004) 89 TAX 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessments and Refunds\n•\nKey Issues: Proceedings initiated under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, alleging erroneous refunds due to incorrect allocation of expenses; maladministration.\n•\nDecision:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended that unwarranted proceedings under Section 122 be dropped, and errors in assessments be rectified under Section 221.\no\nRefund cheques dishonored twice were deemed proof of maladministration.\no\nCommissioner was directed to ensure proper issuance of refunds and submit recommendations to the Regional Commissioner within 30 days.\n•\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No.12 of 1991; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Sections 2(3) & 10(4).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,170 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,62/156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1016-K of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SADEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Rehan, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Agha Hidayatullah, I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNIFEROZ, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 218 = 2004 SLD 218 = 2004 PTD 2137 = (2002) 254 ITR 799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Sales Tax Arrears as Deductible Business Expenditure\n•\nKey Issues: Whether interest on arrears or outstanding balance of sales tax is penal or compensatory.\n•\nDecision: Interest on sales tax arrears is compensatory in nature and allowable as a business deduction.\n•\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37; Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 732 approved; CIT v. Lachhman Das Mathura Das (1980) 124 ITR 411 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1983, decision dated: 16-01-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Ram Aggarwal, Senior Advocate (Ms. Aparna Rohatgi, K.B. Rohatgi and Bharat Aggarwal, Advocates). A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate, Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "LACHMANDAS MATHURADAS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 219 = 2004 SLD 219 = 2004 PTD 2172 = (2002) 255 ITR 423 = (2003) 87 TAX 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Deduction for Cooperative Societies\n•\nKey Issues: Classification of income (interest on securities, subsidies, dividends) of a cooperative society carrying on banking business.\n•\nDecision: Such income is deemed business income and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\n**\nReferences: CIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001) 251 ITR 194 (SC); Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 522 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4477 to 4479 of 1998, decision dated: 30th October 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (Preetesh Kapur, B. V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him). R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate (V. Prabhakar and. Ms Revathy Raghavan, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nRAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 220 = 2004 SLD 220 = 2004 PTD 2174 = (2002) 255 ITR 268 = (2003) 87 TAX 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Audit in Assessment Proceedings\n•\nKey Issues: Validity of directing a special audit under Section 142(2A) due to complexity and voluminous details in accounts.\n•\nDecision: High Court and Supreme Court upheld the direction for special audit, considering the complexity of accounts and substantial details provided.\n•\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 142(2A).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4582 of 1999, decision dated: 8-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.L. Verma and Kailash Vasudev, Senior Advocates (Ms. V.D. Khanna, Advocate with them) B.B. Ahjua, Senior Advocate (Pritesh Kapur, B.V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him)s", + "Party Name:": "LIVING MEDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2554 = 2007 SLD 2554 = (2008) 97 TAX 416 = (2007) 290 ITR 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=68 ", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NOS. 69, 74, 76 AND 176 OF 2005, NOVEMBER 28, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T.S. THAKUR AND B.N. CHATURVEDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly, Ajay Jha and Vishnu Sharma for the Appellant. Dr. Rakesh Gupta for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nDalmia Resorts International" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 184 = 1994 SLD 184 = 1994 SCMR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appraisal of Evidence in Criminal Cases\n•\nKey Issues: Conviction based on corroborated ocular testimony, motive, and recoveries despite acquittal of co-accused on benefit of doubt.\n•\nDecision:\no\nConvictions upheld as evidence was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by medical and other evidence.\no\nRelationship or friendship with the deceased does not discredit witnesses unless a motive for false implication exists.\n•\nReferences: Nazir v. The State PLD 1962 SC 269; Khalil Ahmad v. The State 1976 SCMR 161.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=34,302,307 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1992, decision dated: 13-10-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN, SALEEM AKHTAR AND FATAL ILAHI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.", + "Party Name:": "IOBAL alias BHALA and 2 others\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 223 = 2004 SLD 223 = 2004 PTD 2287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Based on Estimated Sales\n•\nKey Issues: No-account case involving estimation of sales, add-backs in profit and loss account, and assessment based on business history.\n•\nDecision:\no\nGross profit rate of 7.5% upheld by the Tribunal as per business history.\no\nAdd-backs under bonus to staff and printing and stationery deemed unreasonable and deleted.\no\nOther add-backs were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to respond.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.8114/LB, 8115/LB of 1996, 1782/LB, 1783/LB and 2181/LB of 1998, decision dated: 7-10-1998, hearing DATE : 22-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Ahmad Qazi. Sameera Yasin D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 224 = 2004 SLD 224 = 2004 PTD 2113 = (2002) 254 ITR 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration in Liquor Business\n•\nKey Issues: Whether a firm engaged in liquor business, with only some partners holding a liquor license, is entitled to registration.\n•\nDecision:\no\nThe firm was not entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, as liquor business is res extra commercium (outside commerce) and requires a license for all partners.\no\nReferences: CIT (Addl.) v. Degaon Ganga Reddy G. Ramkrishna & Co. (1995) 214 ITR 650 distinguished; Bihari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1998, decision dated: 3rd August, 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, U. C. BANERJEE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General of India (Nikhil Sakhardande and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) Jamshed Bey, Ravi Shakkar Kumar and Permanand Gaur", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nRANGILA RAM and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 225 = 2004 SLD 225 = 2004 PTD 1994", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Foreign and Domestic Companies as AOPs\n•\nKey Issues: Registration of foreign companies along with domestic companies as AOPs and taxation implications.\n•\nDecision:\no\nForeign companies cannot register with domestic companies as AOPs unless they opt for presumptive tax regimes under the proviso of Clause 9-A of Part IV of the Second Schedule.\no\nDouble taxation treaties have overriding effects, and non-residents are excluded from presumptive tax unless explicitly opted for.\no\nReferences: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,3,3a,143,2(21)(23)(30)(32)(40),80C,143B,163,SecondSched. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.34,XLVII,R.1,114 ", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 42 of 2000, decision dated: 14-05-2004. dates of hearing: 10th & 11-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR-UL-MULK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Eid Muhammad Khattaks. Waseem Sajjad, Ali Sajjad, Barrister Yousaf Khosa and Abdul Latif Yousafzais", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGHAZI BAROTHA CONSTRUCTION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 226 = 2004 SLD 226 = 2004 PTD 1822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund and WPPF Demand\n•\nKey Issues: Legality of Taxation Officer's demand for depositing Workers' Profit Participation Fund (WPPF) into the treasury before the stipulated deadline.\n•\nDecision:\no\nNo legal obligation existed for payments before 30th September; jurisdiction rested with the Large Taxpayer Unit.\no\nThe Taxation Officer’s notices were deemed illegal and withdrawn unconditionally.\no\nReferences: Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971); Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=3,4(2),4A(d) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1005-K of 2003, decided 7-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "DBarrister Andalib Alavi, Chief Legal Adviser and Company Secretary alongwith Aziz Nishter for the Complainant. Haji Farooq Qureshi, Taxation Officer", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ENGRO CHEMICALS PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI and another\nvs\nHaji GHULAM FAROOQ QURESHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 227 = 2004 SLD 227 = 2004 PTD 1766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Review Applications under Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance\n•\nKey Issues: Whether the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has jurisdiction when appeals are filed during complaint proceedings.\n•\nDecision:\no\nJurisdiction under Section 9(2)(a) applies only if appeals are filed before the complaint is received by the FTO.\no\nFiling a review application does not automatically stay the implementation of FTO recommendations unless explicitly granted.\no\nReferences: Complaint No. 1438 of 2003.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,9(2)(a),11 ", + "Case #": "Review Application No.84 of 2003 in Complaint No. 1069-L of 2002, decision dated: 9-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF ANSARI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 656 = 2001 SLD 656 = 2001 PTD 613 = (1999) 239 ITR 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest under Section 220(2A)\n•\nKey Issues: Conditions for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDecision:\no\nWaiver denied as the petitioner did not meet the cumulative conditions of hardship, circumstances beyond control, and cooperation with the Department.\no\nThe Commissioner’s decision was upheld as proper and reasonable.\no\nReferences: Apex Finance and Leasing Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 781 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 15177 of 1988 and W.M.P. No.22728 of 1988, decision dated: 9-09-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SAMPATH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. Devanathan for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan, Ramamani and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajans", + "Party Name:": "AURO FOOD LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 657 = 2001 SLD 657 = 2001 PTD 682 = 2001 PTCL 410 = (2001) 83 TAX 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Income and Depreciation on Leased Assets\n•\nKey Issues: Interpretation of income under Sections 2(24) and 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and depreciation deductions.\n•\nDecision:\no\n Income refers to gross income, not net income, under Section 23. Depreciation on leased assets is allowable only against lease rentals.\no\nReferences: Laxmi Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1931 Lah. 441; Iftikhar Ahmed v. President National Bank of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 53.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(24),23,23(i)(v),136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 66 and 67 of 1999, decision dated: 22-05-2000. dates of hearing: 8th and 9-03-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Fareed. \nFatehali W. Vellani", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs FAYSAL ISLAMIC BANK OF BAHRAIN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 658 = 2001 SLD 658 = 2001 PTD 704 = (1999) 239 ITR 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources\n•\nKey Issues: Whether amounts added as income from undisclosed sources were justified based on evidence.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 50,000 based on the violation of natural justice and lack of evidence proving undisclosed income. The finding was deemed a question of fact.\no\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Tribunal’s findings upheld as they were based on appreciation of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 193 with 191 and 194 of 1998, decision dated: 8th September 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A. R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. B. Nayak instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. N.R. Divetia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM. D. JOSHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 659 = 2001 SLD 659 = 2001 PTD 743 = (1999) 239 ITR 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income and Deduction of Interest in Sugar Industry\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAccrual of income for amounts collected by a sugar company in excess of the levy price fixed by the government.\no\nDeduction of interest payable on refunded amounts after High Court’s decision.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nAccrual of Income: The amounts collected at enhanced rates did not constitute income of the assessee until the dispute was resolved in its favor. Thus, such amounts were not assessable as income.\no\nDeduction of Interest: The liability to pay interest at 12% became an actual liability after the dismissal of the writ petition. The appeal to the Supreme Court did not change its status from an actual liability to a contingent one. Deduction of the interest was allowed.\no\nReferences: CIT v. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. (1992) 195 ITR 778; Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.325 of 1987, decision dated: 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND SMT. RANJANA DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.S. Jetley with R.V. Desai for the Commissioner. S.J. Mehta with I. M. Munim for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKESAR SUGAR WORKS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 661 = 2001 SLD 661 = 2001 PTD 789 = (2001) 83 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Warranty Commission: Revenue or Advance?\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClassification of unexpired warranty commissions received by a company for after-sales services—whether revenue receipt or advance.\n•\nDecision:\no\nUnexpired warranty commission was deemed a revenue receipt. The company's claim to treat only the expired portion of the warranty commission as income was rejected. The assessment relied on the principle that the entire receipt should be taxed unless the taxpayer proves actual expenses or maintains a separate account for unexpired commissions.\no\nReferences: The company's method of apportioning the amount based on warranty periods was found factually incorrect.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 54 of 1990, heard on 4-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Dr. Ilyas Zafar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs ALGHAZI TRACTOR LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 662 = 2001 SLD 662 = 2001 PTD 818 = (2000) 242 ITR 298 = (2000) 82 TAX 550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Ceiling on Employee Remuneration and Export Markets Development Allowance\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of ceiling provisions under Sections 40(a)(v) & 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to employees in overseas branches.\no\nEligibility for weighted deductions under Section 35B for export-related expenditures.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nRemuneration Ceiling: Provisions under Sections 40(a)(v) and 40(c) do not apply to employees posted in overseas branches.\no\nExport Deduction: Expenditure incurred on exports from East Africa to the UK was eligible for weighted deduction. Direct exports from India were not a necessary condition for this benefit.\no\nReferences: CIT v. Continental Construction Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 485; Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 122.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 3788 OF 1999. (Civil Appeals Nos.2600 to 2603 of 1994 were from the judgment and order, dated December 12, 1988)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. P. WADHWA AND S. S. M. QUADRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General and M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Neera Gupta, Ms. Sushma Suri, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, S. Rajappa, B.K. Prasad, Hemand Sharma, K.N. Shukla, K.C. Kaushik, A.K. Sharma, M.B. Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with them). Ranjit Kumar, Ankur Chauhan, R. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore and Mrs. M. Karanjawala, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 266 = 2003 SLD 266 = 2003 PTD 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration: Non-compliance with Appellate Orders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFailure of the Assessing Officer to implement orders of the Appellate Authority.\n•\nDecision:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that non-compliance amounted to maladministration, indiscipline, and insubordination. Disciplinary action against the Assessing Officer was recommended, along with confirmation of rectified orders for prior assessment years.\no\nRecommendations: Ensure prompt compliance with superior officers' orders to prevent hardship to taxpayers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1180-K of 2002, decision dated: 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulfiqar Haider, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Sajidullah Siddiqui, D.C.I.Ts., Circle-8, Cos.II, Karachi and Ansar Ali, D.C.I.Ts., Circle-4, Cos.II, Karachi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GOLDEN PLASTICS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 663 = 2001 SLD 663 = 2001 PTD 1032 = (2001) 83 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Income, Deductions, and Section 80-B Interpretation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTaxability of interest income under Section 80-B and deductions for interest paid on borrowings.\n•\nDecision:\no\nInterest Income Taxability: Section 80-B applies only to interest received from banking companies or financial institutions on deposits or accounts. Interest income from loans advanced to a private company did not fall under this category and was to be assessed under the normal provisions.\no\nDeduction of Interest Paid: The interest paid on borrowings to generate the loaned amount was deductible under general provisions.\no\nReferences: Bharat Hari Sanghiana v. CWT 1995 PTD 997; Mehran Associates Limited v. CIT, Karachi 1993 SCMR 274.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80B,Sched.,Part1,50(2A),30,50(7D),50(6A) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12514 of 1997, decision dated: 18-12-2000, hearing DATE : 16th November 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "TANVIR ELAHI, DIRECTOR, ELAHI ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE13, COMPANIES Zone-II LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 664 = 2001 SLD 664 = 2001 PTD 1222 = (2001) 83 TAX 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Immovable Property\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTaxability of capital gains on the sale of land by a company.\no\nDefinition and treatment of income under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nCapital gains from immovable property are excluded from the definition of income under Section 27. Such gains are not chargeable to tax and do not fall under Section 151 regarding exemption limitations.\no\nTreating capital gains as exempt under Section 151 and restricting them to the company was a misapplication of law.\no\nReferences: C.I.T., Punjab, N.W.F.P. & Bahawalpur v. Mrs. E.V. Miller PLD 1959 SC 219 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(24),27,27(2)(a)(ii),13,136,151 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 73 of 1992, decision dated: 31st January, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Petitioner. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIAN MUHAMMAD ASLAM\nvs\nC.I.T., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 267 = 2003 SLD 267 = 2003 PTD 950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Survey and Documentation for National Economy\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLegal validity of signatures on survey forms.\no\nBinding nature of survey form entries signed by unauthorized persons.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nSignatures obtained under legal obligation do not constitute a binding agreement. Proper investigation and verification are necessary if objections arise.\no\nSignature by a husband on behalf of the assessee without authorization is not binding.\no\nFiling a complaint against survey recommendations indicates disagreement.\no\nThe Commissioner, as a legal authority, must provide accurate information and avoid justifying illegal acts.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,3(1),FirstSched Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 675 of 2001, decision dated: 18-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Masood Ishaq for the Complainant. DCIT, Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. HAMEEDA AFZAL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE. DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 665 = 2001 SLD 665 = 2001 PTD 1747 = (2000) 241 ITR 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Standard Deduction on Salary from Multiple Employers\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEligibility for multiple standard deductions when salaries are received from more than one employer in the same year.\n•\nDecision:\no\nThe retrospective Explanation to Section 16(i) (introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1984) limits the grant of standard deduction to one deduction only, irrespective of the number of employers.\no\nReference: C.I.T. v. Mohan Rao (U.) (1997) 227 ITR 72.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1.834 of 1984 (Reference No.1329 of 1984), decision dated: 27-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHIVARAJ PATIL AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Ramani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nN. GOPALSAMY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 666 = 2001 SLD 666 = 2001 PTD 1790 = (2001) 83 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment in Pleadings and Corporate Assets Tax Penalty\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditions for allowing amendments in pleadings.\no\nDeletion of penalties for delayed filing of corporate asset tax returns.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nAmendments in pleadings are permitted if they do not alter the fundamental character of the case, introduce a new cause of action, or cause injustice.\no\nPenalty deletion upheld due to proof of timely filing of returns, verified by departmental inspectors.\no\nReference: First Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal decisions upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991=12 Finance Act, 1991=12(7) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,R.17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.134/KB and 138/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 23rd January, 2001, hearing DATE : 19-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R.. Ashraf Ali, A.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 667 = 2001 SLD 667 = 2001 PTD 1879 = (2000) 243 ITR 1 = (2001) 83 TAX 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on High Court Decisions\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether a High Court decision constitutes valid information for reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDecision:\no\nA High Court decision qualifies as information under Section 147(b), allowing reassessment proceedings.\no\nReferences: A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285; Saradbhai M. Lakhani v. ITO (1998) 231 ITR 779 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos.837 and 838 of 1999, decision dated: 12-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney-General (B.K. Prasad, S. Rajappa and D.S. Mehra (NP),. Advocates) with him of Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nvs\nSARADBHAI M.LAK)IANI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 668 = 2001 SLD 668 = 2001 PTD 1881 = (2000) 243 ITR 640 = (2001) 84 TAX 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Expenditure Deduction: Restoration of Land in Mining Leases\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeductibility of estimated future restoration expenses in the absence of actual expenditure.\n•\nDecision:\no\nNo deduction allowed for restoration expenses if no actual expenditure was incurred.\no\nReferences: CIT v. New India Mining Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 431 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6716 to 6721 of 1994, decision dated: 15-02-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. P. WADHWA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bahuguna, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "NEW INDIA MINING CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 669 = 2001 SLD 669 = 2001 PTD 1895 = (2000) 243 ITR 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Partners in Firms\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEntitlement of partners to claim exemptions under Section 5(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act for assets owned by the firm.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nPartners can claim exemption for their share of the firm’s net wealth as the firm itself cannot legally own property.\no\nReferences: Venkatavaradha Reddiar (R.) v. CWT (1995) 214 ITR 76.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 167 of 1990 (Reference No.90 of 1990), decision dated: 27 October, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Sivaraman for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nN. KAMATCHI AMMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 670 = 2001 SLD 670 = 2001 PTD 1912 = (2000) 246 ITR 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Deferred Sales Tax\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nApplicability of Section 43B when deferred sales tax under an incentive scheme is converted into an interest-free loan.\n•\nDecision:\no\nCBDT Circular (dated 25-9-1987) applies only if the respective State's Sales Tax Act has been amended to treat deferred tax as actually paid.\no\nTribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if Gujarat Sales Tax Act provided such treatment.\no\nLegal Principle: Deferred sales tax is deductible only if it is treated as paid per applicable laws.\no\nRelevant Law: Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 43B, 256; Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6181 to 6184 of 1995, decision dated: 17-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA AND R. C. LAHOTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, Advocate for B. K.Prasad, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGUJARAT POLYCRETE (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 671 = 2001 SLD 671 = 2001 PTD 1946 = (2000) 246 ITR 4651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income and Capital Gains\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nTaxability of profits from the sale of agricultural land in light of the retrospective Explanation to Section 2(1-A).\n•\nDecision:\no\nHigh Court's decision to exempt profits from tax was challenged.\no\nSupreme Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider in light of Union of India v. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341.\no\nLegal Principle: Explanation to Section 2(1-A) clarified the scope of agricultural income for tax purposes.\no\nRelevant Law: Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 2, 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No.3430 of 2000, decision dated: 12-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, M.B. SHAH AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKALAWATI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 672 = 2001 SLD 672 = 2001 PTD 2086 = (2001) 84 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Cost of Materials\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether materials supplied by a client to a contractor are taxable as income. \n•\nDecision:\no\nTax cannot be levied if ownership of the materials has not passed to the contractor and no obligation suggests payment.\no\nLegal Principle: Tax applies only to transactions where the title of goods and payment obligations align.\no\nReferences: Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.), Section 80-C.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,,143B,50(4),61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 22/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 13-03-2001, hearing DATE : 13-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Salman Pasha. Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 212 = 1993 SLD 212 = 1993 SCMR 2122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consolidated Suit and Joint Appeal\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nLegality of consolidated suits and appeals involving conflicting claims.\n•\nDecision:\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to address procedural fairness where a joint appeal prayed for opposing reliefs (setting aside and decreeing).\no\nRelevant Law: CPC (1908), Section 11; Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 534-L of 1992, decision dated: 31st March, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Abdul Waahid instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos.", + "Party Name:": "HOSHIAR ALI KHAN\nvs\nGHULAM SABIR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 673 = 2001 SLD 673 = 2001 PTD 2275 = (1999) 239 ITR 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Draft Assessment Orders\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nAuthority of the Assessing Officer to issue multiple draft orders under Section 144B.\n•\nDecision:\no\nOnce a draft order is issued, the Assessing Officer's quasi-judicial function ends, and no second draft order can be issued.\no\nLegal Principle: First draft order under Section 144B is final for the Assessing Officer.\no\nReferences: Panchamahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Joshi, ITO (1997) 225 ITR 458 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 497 of 1987, decision dated: 22-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND SMT. RANJANA DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley instructed by T.C. Kaushik for the Commissioner. S.M. Inamdar with P. Vaidya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHADE NAVIGATION (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 674 = 2001 SLD 674 = 2001 PTD 2402 = (2001) 247 ITR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Orders and High Court Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether High Court misdirected itself by considering a rectification order instead of the principal Tribunal order.\n•\nDecision:\no\nHigh Court's order was set aside for misinterpreting the source of reference.\no\nLegal Principle: High Court must adjudicate based on the principal appellate order.\no\nReferences: Prakash Chand Mehta v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 277.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 1997, decision dated: 2-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, S. S. M. QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.S. Bahthia, Advocate. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (B. K. Prasad, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "PRAKASH CHAND NAHTA\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 675 = 2001 SLD 675 = 2001 PTD 2293 = (1999) 239 ITR 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Deduction for Borrowed Capital\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDeductibility of interest when borrowed funds are mixed with the firm's capital and lent to a private company without interest.\n•\nDecision:\no\nPresumption arises that the advance was made from the firm's own funds if sufficient internal funds are available.\no\nLegal Principle: Interest deduction is allowed unless proven that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes.\no\nReferences: CIT v. Gopikrishna Muralidhar (1963) 47 ITR 469.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.495 of 1984 (Reference No.437 of 1984), decision dated: 4-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. V. Ramakrishna for T. Raghavan and T.K. Seshadri for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHOTEL SAVERA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 676 = 2001 SLD 676 = 2001 PTD 2444 = (2001) 247 ITR 809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nJurisdiction of the IAC in penalty matters under amended Section 274(2).\n•\nDecision:\no\nJurisdiction is determined by the date of referral, not the penalty imposition date.\no\nLegal Principle: Amendments to procedural laws do not retrospectively affect jurisdiction.\no\nReferences: CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5978 (NT) of 1983, decision dated: 12-03-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. S. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.M. Khanna, Advocate. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.N. Nagpal, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "SADHU RAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 677 = 2001 SLD 677 = 2001 PTD 2453 = (2001) 247 ITR 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Losses and Depreciation\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nApplicability of Section 79 on carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation when shareholding changes.\n•\nDecision:\no\nSection 79 does not apply to unabsorbed depreciation; change in shareholding must be proven.\no\nLegal Principle: Loss carry forward restrictions under Section 79 do not extend to unabsorbed depreciation.\no\nReferences: CIT v. Concord Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 458.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1807 of 1981, decision dated: 28-01-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Dewan and B.K. Prasad, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCONCORD INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 678 = 2001 SLD 678 = 2001 PTD 2617 = (2001) 248 ITR 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Income in Special Deduction Calculations\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether interest income should be included in gross total income for Section 80-I deductions.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTribunal's directive to include interest income as part of gross total income for deductions under Section 80-I constitutes a question of law.\no\nLegal Principle: Interpretation of income components in Section 80-I is crucial for tax computations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 380 of 2000, decision dated: 13-01-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. N. Trivedi, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri and Shaikumar Dwivedi, Advocates. V. V. Lalit, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nABHIJIT IRON PROCESSORS (PVT.) LTD. (NO.3)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 679 = 2001 SLD 679 = 2001 PTD 2778 = (1999) 80 TAX 279 = (1999) 239 ITR 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nNature of advance rent paid as part of a lease agreement for land use.\n•\nDecision:\no\nLump-sum advance payment treated as capital expenditure and not deductible as revenue expense.\no\nLegal Principle: Payments ensuring enduring business benefits are capital in nature.\no\nReferences: Aditya Minerals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 774 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos.4858 and 4859 of 1989, decision dated: 7-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, B. N. KIRPAL, V. N. KHARE, S.S.M. QUADRI AND D. P. MOHAPATRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sanjay Kunur and R. N. Keshwani, Advocates. M. L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, S. K. Dwivedi and S. Wasim A. Qadri, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "ADITYA MINERALS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 680 = 2001 SLD 680 = 2001 PTD 3146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Secured Creditors and Insolvency/Winding-Up Proceedings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRights of secured creditors to realize security outside insolvency or winding-up proceedings.\no\nInteraction between secured and unsecured creditors in claims over mortgaged property.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nSecured Creditors: May realize security outside insolvency proceedings but can claim balance in insolvency.\no\nMortgaged Property: Equity of redemption is all that remains for unsecured creditors; mortgaged property proceeds belong to secured creditors.\no\nTax and Dues Claims: Claims under tax laws or utility acts cannot override secured creditors' rights.\no\nRelevant Laws: Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, Section 47; Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 305, 306, 404, 405.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,306,404,405,47 Electricity Act, 1910=24 & 54A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=76(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Original No. 75 of 1997, heard on 28-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nouman Akram Raja for Petitioner\nMian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad for the Income-tax/Wealth Tax Departments\nIzhar-ul-Haq Sheikh for the Sales Tax Department\nTariq Kamal Qazi for the NDLC \nKhurshid Alain Ramay for the WAPDA\nNaseem Ahmad for the Trust Modaraba\nAbid Saqi for Applicant (in C.M. No. 320-L of 2001)\nMirza Amjad Beg and Syed Fayyaz Ahmad for the Employees Creditors", + "Party Name:": "ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED\nvs\nSUNSHINE CLOTH LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 681 = 2001 SLD 681 = 2001 PTD 3434 = (1999) 240 ITR 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Tax Exemptions\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of exemption for charitable trusts under Sections 11 and 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act.\no\nDepreciation as deductible expenditure for charitable trusts.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nExemption: Trusts receiving shares as donations do not constitute investment, making them eligible for exemption.\no\nDepreciation: Depreciation is deductible for income computation under Section 11(1).\no\nRelevant Cases: CIT v. Birla Charity Trust (1988) 170 ITR 150; CIT v. Jayashree Charity Trust (1986) 159 ITR 280.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1988 (R.As. Nos.21 and 22 (Cal.) of 1988), decision dated: 28-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YR. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ram Chandra Prosad for the Commissioner. N.K. Poddar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBHORUKA PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 682 = 2001 SLD 682 = 2001 PTD 3571 = (1999) 240 ITR 718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance for Construction Work\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether a construction company qualifies as an industrial undertaking for investment allowance.\n•\nDecision:\no\nConstruction companies are not industrial undertakings as they do not manufacture goods; therefore, no investment allowance applies.\no\nRelevant Law: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32A(2).\no\nReference: Builders Associations of India v. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 196 of 1993, decision dated: 9-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YR. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Soumitra Pal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nUNIT CONSTRUCTION CO. (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 683 = 2001 SLD 683 = 2001 PTD 3651 = (2000) 241 ITR 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest as Allowable Expenditure\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDeductibility of interest paid for delayed sugarcane payments.\n•\nDecision:\no\nInterest under the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act is deductible as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act.\no\nReference: Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 732.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.20 of 1992, decision dated: 11-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. C. AGRAWAL AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Mahajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nLAXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 684 = 2001 SLD 684 = 2001 PTD 3942", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Additional Assessment\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValidity of reopening assessment based on previously used information.\n•\nDecision:\no\nOnce assessment proceedings are dropped, fresh notices based on the same information are invalid.\no\nRelevant Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 65, 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.47 of 2001, decision dated: 9-08-2001, hearing DATE : 2-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR ALI TOOR, SECRETARY (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, ZONE B LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1609 = 2002 SLD 1609 = (2002) 85 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Delayed Compensation\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDelayed refund of withheld taxes and liability to pay compensation.\n•\nDecision:\no\nRefunds must be issued promptly with 15% compensation for delays under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nRecommendations: Issue refunds and avoid delays to prevent state liability for compensation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1445/L of 2001, decision dated: 5-1-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name": "Dealing Officer. A.A, Zuberi. Sh. Zulfiqar Ali, AR., for the Complainant. Mian Munawar Ghafoor, I.A.C., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KLASS TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1929 1 = 1929 SLD 1 = 1929 AIR 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Registration Act, 1908=49(c) ", + "Case #": "5 July, 1928", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GARLICK, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Kanti Chandra Ghose And Ors\nvs \nBrojendra Mohan Goswami And Ors" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 520 = 2000 SLD 520 = 2000 PTD 677 = (1998) 232 ITR 914", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Assessment and Export Deduction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nContinuity of partnership upon a partner’s death and single assessment applicability.\no\nEligibility for weighted deduction on export-related expenses.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nPartnership: Death of a partner with a continuation clause results in a single assessment under Section 187.\no\nExport Expenses: Weighted deductions allowed for export-related expenses like advertisement and postage.\no\nReferences: CIT v. Empire Estate (1996) 218 ITR 355; CIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath (1977) 106 ITR 342.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.37 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd July, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGANESHI LAL & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 521 = 2000 SLD 521 = 2000 PTD 1009 = (1998) 233 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Powers in Tax References\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nHigh Court’s power to reframe questions in tax references.\no\nWhether Tribunal's ruling under Section 10(22) can be reframed to address Section 11.\n•\nDecision:\no\nHigh Court can reframe questions only if they arise from the Tribunal's order. Since the Tribunal ruled under Section 10(22), reframing for Section 11 was not permitted.\no\nRelevant Cases: CIT (Addl.) v. Aditanar Educational Institution (1979) 118 ITR 235.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No. 82 of 1996, decision dated: 29-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. V. Rajan for Petitioner. R. Janakiraman", + "Party Name:": "Tax Case No. 82 of 1996, decided on 29th October, 1996\nC. V. Rajan for . R. Janakiraman for \nDIRECTOR OF Income Tax (EXEMPTION)\nvs\nCC. M. KOTHARI EDUCATION TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 522 = 2000 SLD 522 = 2000 PTD 1014 = (1998) 233 ITR 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Accounting Systems and Maintenance Charges\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether shifting accounting for annual maintenance charges (AMC) alters the system from mercantile to cash-based.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTribunal held that transferring AMC to profit and loss accounts does not constitute a switch to cash-based accounting. This finding is factual and not a question of law.\no\nReference: Kamani Properties Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 240 of 1995, decision dated: 30-01-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. DAYAL AND R. K. GULATI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shekhar Srivastava. Sudhir Chandra, S. Chopra and Tapas Mishra", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHINDUSTAN COMPUTERS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 523 = 2000 SLD 523 = 2000 PTD 1016 = (1998) 233 ITR 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Gratuity Fund\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDeductibility of interest on funds drawn from a gratuity account.\n•\nDecision:\no\nInterest payments on amounts drawn from a gratuity fund are deductible under Rule 106 of the Income Tax Rules and Part C of Schedule IV of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 152 and 153 of 1991, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. N. Ramachandran Nair and Antony Dominic for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 524 = 2000 SLD 524 = 2000 PTD 1018 = (1998) 233 ITR 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Tax Cases\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nRequirement to provide reasons when transferring a case under Section 127.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTransfer notices must specify reasons to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity for objection. Lack of reasons invalidates the proceedings.\no\nRelevant Cases: Ajantha Industries v. CBDT (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 2110 to 2117 of 1996, decision dated: 11-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAMARESH BANERJEA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Kappoor for Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "CHOTANAGPUR INDUSTRIAL GASES (P.) LTD. and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 525 = 2000 SLD 525 = 2000 PTD 1024 = (1998) 233 ITR 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Paid to Partners\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeductibility of interest paid to a partner depositing personal funds.\no\nRetrospective application of Explanation 2 to Section 40(b).\n•\nDecision:\no\nInterest paid on personal funds deposited by a partner acting as trustee is deductible, even retrospectively under Explanation 2 to Section 40(b).\no\nReference: Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 825 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No 76 of 1995, decision dated: 5-03-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. K. K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R, K. Nair for the Commissioner. M. C. Sen and M. P. Sreekrishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPOPULAR AUTOMOBILES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 526 = 1999 SLD 526 = 2000 PTD 1026 = (1999) 79 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nGenuineness of firms for registration under Section 185.\no\nDetermination of separate or same business.\n•\nDecision:\no\nFirm deemed non-genuine if effectively operated by another firm. Multiple factors, including shared staff and capital, are used to assess business unity.\no\nReference: Setabanj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 272 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 65 of 1989, decision dated: 26-07-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. TIWARI AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. M. Chaphekar and Goyal for the Assessee. A. M. Mathur and Sharan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "OSWAL TRADING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 527 = 2000 SLD 527 = 2000 PTD 1031 = (1998) 233 ITR 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Interest Payments\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDepreciation for machinery purchased on hire.\no\nPayment of interest between firms with common partners.\n•\nDecision:\no\nDepreciation is allowable for hire-purchase machinery. Payments between firms with shared partners are not treated as payments to individual partners.\no\nReference: CIT (Addl.) v. General Industries Corporation (1985) 155 ITR 430 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 209 of 1981, decision dated: 1st December, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. B. GOEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. D. Jolly and Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 528 = 2000 SLD 528 = 2000 PTD 1078 = (1998) 233 ITR 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Refunds\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInterest payable on refunds following reassessment.\no\nScope of regular assessment. \n•\nDecision:\no\nInterest on refunds applies under Sections 214 and 244, but regular assessment pertains only to original assessments, not appellate orders.\no\nReference: Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1995, decision dated: 17-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. TEWARI AND N. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sushil Khadelwal for the Commissioner. J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nD & H SECHERON ELECTRODES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 529 = 2000 SLD 529 = 2000 PTD 1234 = (1992) 65 TAX 54 = (1998) 233 ITR 643", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capitalization of Pre-Operative Expenses\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether interest to partners and raw material expenses before operations are capitalizable.\n•\nDecision:\no\nExpenses without direct connection to business setup or machinery installation cannot be capitalized.\no\nReference: Travancore-Cochin Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. CWT (1967) 65 ITR 651 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1984, decision dated: 15-01-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. N, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. K. Vidyarthi and S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. L. K. Bajla for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBHARAT AGRICO CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 530 = 2000 SLD 530 = 2000 PTD 1282 = (1998) 234 ITR 865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Limitation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLimitation period for reassessment based on third-party findings.\no\nRecording of reasons for reassessment notices.\n•\nDecision:\no\nReassessment notices issued beyond the statutory period or without recorded reasons are invalid. Directions from third-party cases do not extend limitation for unrelated assessees.\no\nRelevant Cases: Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Jurisdiction Case No.4033 of 1997, decision dated: 9-05-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND NARESH KUMAR SINHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. K. Jain, Vikash Jain and Dr. R. Usha for Petitioner. S.K. Sharans", + "Party Name:": "GAURI SHANKAR CHOUDHARY\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 531 = 2000 SLD 531 = 2000 PTCL 621 = (2000) 81 TAX 95 = 2000 PTD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement Between USA and Pakistan\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClassification of profits from share sales as industrial or commercial profits or capital gains. \no\nApplicability of domestic laws in absence of treaty provisions.\n•\nDecision:\no\nProfits from share sales were deemed capital gains, not industrial or commercial profits, and taxable under domestic laws.\no\nRelevant Cases: Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1983 PTD 126.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 2241/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 20-12-1999, hearing DATE : 25th September,1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha and Saqib Masood, F.C.A.. Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh, C.I.T. and Riaz-ud-Din, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 532 = 2000 SLD 532 = 2000 PTD 1704 = (1998) 233 ITR 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Bribes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClaiming bribes as business expenses.\no\nLegality and verifiability of such expenditures.\n•\nDecision:\no\nBribes paid to RTO staff and police were disallowed as they are illegal and unverifiable. Tribunal’s decision upheld as no question of law arose.\no\nRelevant Cases: CIT v. Coimbatore Salem Transport (P.) Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 480.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.45 and 46 of 1997, decision dated: 8-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. D. SHUKLA AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "GWALIOR ROAD LINES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 533 = 2000 SLD 533 = 2000 PTD 1767 = (1998) 234 ITR 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Attribution and Benami Ownership\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDetermining if a business entity was a benami of another.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTribunal’s finding that the income belonged to the independent entity (not a benami) was upheld as a finding of fact. No question of law arose.\no\nRelevant Cases: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 54 of 1996, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y. K. SABHARWAL AND LOKESHWAR PRASAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly with R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nOSWAL ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 534 = 2000 SLD 534 = 2000 PTD 1815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund and Ownership\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefinition of ownership for exemption under Workers’ Welfare Fund Ordinance.\no\nTime-barred levies.\n•\nDecision:\no\nOwnership implies exclusive ownership; public companies partially owned by government are not exempt.\no\nLevies imposed after 90 days were time-barred and invalid.\no\nRelevant Cases: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 580.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f)(vi),4(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 899/IB to 905/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-12-1999, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD DAUD TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Akhtar Sheikh, F.C.A.. Maqsood Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 535 = 2000 SLD 535 = 2000 PTD 1893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Perquisites\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClassification of certain expenses as perquisites under Sections 40(c) and 40-A(5).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nMunicipal taxes and maintenance costs were not perquisites as they benefited the employer, not employees.\no\nSalary paid to watchmen and depreciation on vehicles used by employees were considered perquisites.\no\nRelevant Cases: CIT v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 589.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 169 of 1984 (Reference No. 118 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.V. Subramanian for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nT. V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 536 = 2000 SLD 536 = 2000 PTCL 228 = (1999) 80 TAX 183 = 2000 PTD 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Amnesty and Irregular Assessments\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of proceedings initiated without proper notices.\no\nApplicability of tax amnesty for undeclared assets.\n•\nDecision:\no\nIrregularities in proceedings benefited the assessee; assessment orders annulled.\no\nTax amnesty availed by the assessee was upheld as valid.\no\nRelevant Cases: Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT 1975 ITR 359.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),59D,55,56,61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1141/IB to 1149/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 24-07-1999, hearing DATE : 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Azim and Anwar ul Haq. Imran Raza Kazmi, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 537 = 2000 SLD 537 = 2000 PTD 2182 = (2000) 82 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund and Exemption\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether industrial establishments exempt under the Income Tax Ordinance are liable for Workers' Welfare Fund.\n•\nDecision:\no\nEstablishments exempt from income tax are also exempt from Workers’ Welfare Fund unless specified otherwise under Section 48 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nExemptions remain until explicitly withdrawn or expire.\no\nRelevant Cases: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,48,136,SecondSched., Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 4 of 1996, decision dated: 2-06-1999, hearing DATE : 13-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIRUL MULK AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Eid Muhammad Khattak for Petitioner Abdul Latif Yousafazi and Abdul Rauf Rohailas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs ALKARAM LAMPS (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 538 = 2000 SLD 538 = 2000 PTD 2227 = (1999) 235 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDisallowance of interest payment claimed by the assessee.\no\nAllegation of concealment of income due to inter-firm transactions.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTribunal found no manipulation or concealment; financing firm was genuine and transactions were reflected in bank accounts.\no\nFindings were upheld as factual, and no question of law arose for reference.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256(2), 271(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.40 of 1996, decision dated: 25-09-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. K. GULATI AND O. P, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGARG ENGINEERING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 539 = 2000 SLD 539 = 2000 PTD 133 = (2002) 86 TAX 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-opening of Assessment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConstitutional petition against re-opening of assessment during pendency of proceedings.\n•\nDecision:\no\nAs the assessment order was already passed and appealed, the petition was rendered infructuous.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6281 of 1993, decision dated: 2-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CAVALRY SUPER STORE\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE1, ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 474 = 2002 SLD 474 = 2002 PTD 173 = (2002) 86 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Income Tax and Declaration Suit\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObligation of the buyer to pay advance tax on government property purchases.\no\nChallenge to contractual clauses enforcing tax payments.\n•\nDecision:\no\nPlaintiff obligated to pay advance tax under Section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nSuit for declaration and injunction was dismissed as not maintainable.\no\nRelevant Cases: M.L.M. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1959).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7A),80C & 162 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 699 of 1999, decision dated: 14-05-2001. dates of hearing: 4th, 7-06-1999, 11th and 22-03-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Farogh Nasim for Plaintiff. Nasrullah Awan for Defendant No. 2. Ch. Muhammad Rafique, Addl. A. G. for Defendant No. 3. Sirajul Haq Memon for Defendant No. 4 with Yasin Kayani", + "Party Name:": "ALWARIS TRADERS\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and Ex-Officio Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 540 = 2000 SLD 540 = 2000 PTD 2662 = 2002 PTCL 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defective Appeal Verification\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAppeal dismissed due to defective verification by legal heirs of a deceased assessee.\n•\nDecision:\no\nHigh Court allowed rectification of the defect and directed the appeal to be heard on merits.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 130.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.82 of 2000, decision dated: 27-04-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIRUL MULK AND SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jehanzeb Rahim for Petitioner. Eid Muhammad Khattaks", + "Party Name:": "BIBI GUL SAJJAD\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IncomE tax, Income Tax DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 2 = 1957 SLD 2 = 1957 PLD 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #6427\nMistaken Target in Murder Case\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConviction under Sections 301 and 302 for mistakenly killing someone other than the intended target.\n•\nDecision:\no\nDistinction in sentencing between two accused was unjustified. Both should receive the same penalty.\no\nDeath sentence of one accused was reduced to life imprisonment.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Penal Code, Sections 34, 301, 302.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=34,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,318,320,321,322,323,324,325,326­A,326B ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1956, decision dated: 10th May 1956", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BHAGWATI AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate (J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, Advocates, with him).\nN. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (P. G. Gokhale, with him).", + "Party Name:": "WAZIR SINGH\nVs\nTHIS STATE OF PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 3 = 1957 SLD 3 = 1957 PLD 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Supreme Court Appeal\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJurisdiction of the Supreme Court over tribunal awards.\n•\nDecision:\no\nIndustrial Tribunals exercise judicial powers and their awards are appealable to the Supreme Court.\no\nRelevant Cases: Muhammad Saeed v. Election Petitions Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Disputes Act, (XIV of 1947)=160,15,10,10(1)(3),12,20,22,33 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1957, decision dated: 6th March 1957. dates of hearing: 4th, 5th and 6th March 1957. (On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 27th July 1956, in Writ Petition No. 287 of 1956)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Fazlur Rahman, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney.\nFaiyaz Ali, Attorney General for Pakistan, (Abdul Haque, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him), instructed by M. Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney No. 1.\nAbdur Rauf, Advocate, High Court of West Pakistan briefed with Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, instructed by S. A. Majid, Attorney No. 3.", + "Party Name:": "REMINGTON RAND OF PAKISTAN, LTD.\nVs\nTHE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, (2) MANZOOR ALAM, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, (3) REMINGTON RAND EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 541 = 2000 SLD 541 = 2000 PTD 2944 = (1998) 234 ITR 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Business Expenditure\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeductibility of Rasoi expenses and subsequent rectification.\n•\nDecision:\no\nRectification was valid as the decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 37, 154.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 112 of 1982, decision dated: 6-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CT. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAM LAL BABU LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 475 = 2002 SLD 475 = 2002 PTD 473 = (2002) 86 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Land and Addition as Deemed Income\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValuation disputes and additions under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nDecision:\no\nAdditions based on market value differences were invalid without establishing the source of investment.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 13(1)(d), 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 17 of 1997, decision dated: 30-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner/Revenue. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES ZONE1, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs LASANI STEEL MILLS (PVT.), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 542 = 2000 SLD 542 = 2000 PTD 3573 = (1999) 238 ITR 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDisallowance of contributions to a building fund as capital expenditure.\n•\nDecision:\no\nExpenditure was treated as capital based on the assessee’s admission; writ petition dismissed.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "O.P. Nos.24656 and 17756 of 1998, decision dated: 18-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. SHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Premjit Naendran and Joy Thattil for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and George K. George", + "Party Name:": "MAHESH B. SHAH\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 543 = 2000 SLD 543 = 2000 PTD 3577 = (1999) 238 ITR 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax from Directors\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRecovery of tax dues from directors of private companies.\n•\nDecision:\no\nRevenue must prove recovery from the company was impossible before proceeding against directors.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 179.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 10675 of 1998, decision dated: 28-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.N. Soparkar for Petitioner. Mihir Joshi with Manish R. Bhatt", + "Party Name:": "BHAGWANDAS J. PATEL\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 268 = 2003 SLD 268 = 2003 PTD 1723", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection in Self-Assessment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSelection for audit under self-assessment schemes.\n•\nDecision:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found no fault in the audit selection but recommended disciplinary action for tampering with records.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 59.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 775/L of 2002, decision dated: 17-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mansoor Ahmad, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Ms. Nabila Iqbal, Taxation Officer", + "Party Name:": "MUAMAR RANA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 1 = 1963 SLD 1 = 1963 PLD 322 = 1963 PTD 633 = (1963) 7 TAX 442 = 1963 SCC 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Against Time-Barred Assessment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nChallenge to time-barred reassessments under Income Tax Act.\n•\nDecision:\no\nAssessment orders issued beyond the statutory limitation were set aside.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 34(2).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(17),34(2),67 Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=170 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 18 and 19 of 1962, decision dated: 7th April 1963. dates of hearing : 12th and 13th March 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, CHIEF, JUSTICE, S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, JUSTICE, B. Z. KAIKAUS, JUSTICE AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmud Ali Qasuri Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh Advocate Supreme Court with him) and Javeed Hashmi Advocate High Court of West Pakistan (under rule 5, Order IV, S. C. R., 1956), instructed by Siddiq & Company Attorneys. Abdul Haq Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Z. Khalil Attorney No. 1. Respondent No. 2 . Ex parte.", + "Party Name:": "NAGINA SILK MILL, LYALLPUR\nVS\n(1) THE Income Tax OFFICER, AWARD LYALLPUR AND \n(2) THE Income Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PAKISTAN\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 1962\nNAGINA SILK MILL, LYALLPUR-\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, AWARD, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 269 = 2003 SLD 269 = 2003 PTD 1876 = (2004) 89 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inconsistent Property Valuations\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDifferent property valuation rates for buyer and seller.\n•\nDecision:\no\nValuation in the buyer’s hands cannot exceed the seller’s valuation; High Court ruled in favor of the assessee.\no\nRelevant Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 13(1)(d), 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 37 of 2002, decided 12-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naeem Shah for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BIGMAN BAKERS, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 270 = 2003 SLD 270 = 2003 PTD 2172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Validity of Tax Survey Findings under Income Tax Laws\nDetailed Summary:\nThe case revolves around objections to sales assessed by the Tax Department based on their third survey. The Department had implicitly accepted that the assessee’s representation regarding the assessment was under consideration but had yet to be decided. Despite this, the Tax Department attempted to finalize the assessment based on an unbinding estimate from the third survey. The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) concluded that such estimates could not serve as a legitimate basis for tax assessment, especially given the assessee’s assessment history, which warranted due consideration. This inaction by the authorities in addressing the pending representation constituted maladministration.\nRecommendation:\nThe FTO recommended that the pending representation of the assessee be resolved strictly on merit, supported by a physical inspection, and be completed within 30 days from the issuance of this order.\nCitations: Complaint No.938 of 2002 and Complaint No.582 of 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Survey For Documentation of National Economy Ordinance, 2000=3 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1346 of 2002, decision dated: 9-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Ahmad Shah for the Complainant. Muhammad Arif, Additional Commissioner, Sialkot Range and Muhammad Younas, I.T.O.", + "Party Name:": "TEHSEEN ANJUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 271 = 2003 SLD 271 = 2003 PTD 2260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Supervision in the Administration of Tax Laws\nDetailed Summary:\nThis case addressed two distinct issues regarding the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO):\n1.\nJurisdiction (S.9, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000):\nThe FTO's mandate includes diagnosing, investigating, and rectifying injustices stemming from maladministration by tax authorities. However, the FTO’s jurisdiction does not extend to examining the validity of directives or orders issued by the President of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) or its functionaries.\n2.\nSupervision and Compliance (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 66-A, 80C, 143B, and 50(7)):\nThe case also highlighted the non-compliance with directives issued by the President within a specified period. While the initiation of proceedings under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance was free from maladministration, the lack of compliance with the President's order constituted a lapse. It was the duty of senior supervisory officers within the CBR to ensure timely execution of such directives. The absence of such supervision resulted in this non-compliance.\nRecommendation:\nThe FTO recommended that the CBR devise a systematic approach or issue orders to regulate compliance with directives. This should include strict supervisory controls and holding senior officers accountable for any non-compliance.\nCitations: 1999 SCMR 2189.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,80C,143B,50(7) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1194, 1195 and 1196 of 2002, decision dated: 29-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETDAUTHOR(S):) SALEEM AKHTAR FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saqib Bashir, ITP for the Complainant. Pervaiz Alain, IAC and Shahid Jamil, Legal Adviser", + "Party Name:": "PARVEZ AKHTAR (CONTRACTOR) and 2 others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 272 = 2003 SLD 272 = 2003 PTD 2284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Tax Assessments and Maladministration\nDetailed Summary:\nThe case addressed issues of arbitrary and high-handed behavior in the assessment of income by tax authorities, which falls under maladministration as defined by S.2(3) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000.\n1.\nMaladministration:\nThe FTO found that assessments conducted without spot inquiries or evidence about the scale and scope of business operations were arbitrary and constituted maladministration.\n2.\nImproper Remarks and Illegal Gratification (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 62, 61 & 56; Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.122):\nAssessments based on remarks such as “business was flourishing” or “good business experience” lacked evidentiary support. The arbitrary nature of these assessments suggested mala fides and lent credibility to allegations of corruption against the officials.\nRecommendation:\nThe FTO directed that the assessments be amended under S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to reflect accurate tax liability in accordance with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,61,56 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1107 of 2002, decision dated: 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Kanwar Jamal Akhtar for the Complainant. Muhammad Naeem, D-CIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAROOQ AZAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION; ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 273 = 2003 SLD 273 = 2003 PTD 2530 = (2003) 87 TAX 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Corporate Assets Tax to Leasing Companies\nDetailed Summary:\nThe case concerned whether leasehold assets should be taxed as corporate assets under the Finance Act, 1991. The Department contended that the assessee (a leasing company) remained the legal owner of the leased assets, making them subject to Corporate Assets Tax. The assessee argued that ownership had transferred to lessees through lease agreements.\nFindings:\n•\nThe agreements were determined to be rental leases, not hire-purchase agreements. Ownership and rights of alienation remained with the assessee.\n•\nThe lessees were merely beneficiaries entitled to use the assets during the lease term.\nPenalty and Additional Tax:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled against the imposition of additional tax and penalties, citing a lack of justification.\nCitations: PLD 1986 SC 53; 2000 PTD 1057; W.T.A. No. 1338/LB of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1991=12,12(7) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.1064/LB, 1667/LB of 1996 and I.T.A. No.5415/LB of 1997, decision dated: 30-01-2003, hearing DATE : 14-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Awais, A.C.A..Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 274 = 2003 SLD 274 = 2003 PTD 2648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Resolving Allegations and Mistrust Between Taxpayers and Officials\nDetailed Summary:\nThe case highlighted a longstanding mistrust between the petitioner and tax officials, stemming from a history of unresolved complaints. This situation was exacerbated by the neglect of income-tax circles by higher authorities.\nRecommendations:\n•\nRegular visits by senior officials to tax circles to address grievances.\n•\nPeriodic transfers of officials against whom complaints are received.\n•\nFacilitation of meetings between complainants and tax officials to resolve disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1384 of 2002, decision dated: 18-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Aslam Marwat for the Complainant. Dr. M. Usman Khan, A.C.I.T., Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "ASLAM MARWAT, BANNU\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 629 = 1999 SLD 629 = 1999 PTD 895 = (1997) 225 ITR 699", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Investment Allowance on Hotels\nDetailed Summary:\nThe Tribunal's allowance of depreciation at a flat rate of 15% for the entire hotel complex was found to be incorrect. Depreciation benefits are limited to individual components such as buildings, machinery, and furniture under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the claim for investment allowance on the entire hotel complex was also disallowed.\nCitations: CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 155 of 1991, decision dated: 5-08-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDAMODAR CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 630 = 1999 SLD 630 = 1999 PTD 899 = (1997) 225 ITR 721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change in Constitution of a Partnership Firm Upon Death of a Partner\nDetailed Summary:\nThis case examines whether the death of a partner constitutes a change in the firm's constitution or its dissolution. The partnership deed explicitly stated that the firm would not be dissolved upon the death of a partner. Following the death of one partner on October 22, 1974, the remaining three partners continued the business, executing a new partnership deed. The firm maintained the same books of account and operated under the same bank account before and after the death.\nThe Income-tax Officer determined that the death of a partner did not dissolve the firm; it merely constituted a change in the firm's constitution. Consequently, a single assessment was deemed appropriate for the financial year April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975.\nFindings by Judicial Bodies:\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, affirming that the partnership deed excluded dissolution upon a partner's death.\n•\nThe Tribunal initially held that two separate assessments were required but was overturned upon reference to higher authorities.\n•\nThe court ruled that the firm continued as a single entity without interruption, thus requiring only one assessment for the entire period.\nConclusion:\nThe court emphasized the continuity of the firm's business and held that the change in the constitution did not disrupt operations or dissolve the firm. One comprehensive assessment was legally appropriate.\nCitations: Vishwanath Seth v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 249 (All.); CIT v. Basant Behari Gopal Behari & Co. (1988) 172 ITR 662 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 148 of 1980, decision dated: 22-07-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE AND O. P, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.K. Agarwal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGORAKHPUR SHAMIANA HOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 631 = 1999 SLD 631 = 1999 PTD 1458 = (1998) 77 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Tax Demands Without Original Assessment Orders\nDetailed Summary:\nThe case pertains to the validity of a rectification order issued under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for an alleged under-deduction of tax under S.50(4). The First Appellate Authority upheld the Assessing Officer's demand; however, legal scrutiny revealed that no original assessment order existed, making the rectification procedurally invalid.\nFindings:\n•\nThe absence of an original assessment order negated the grounds for rectification under S.156.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer had the authority to issue a demand notice and challan for short deduction/payment of tax without requiring a rectification order.\nConclusion:\nThe appellate order upholding the rectification was vacated, and the rectification order issued by the Assessing Officer was declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,50(4),80C(4),143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2075/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 25-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rahmat Ali Shaikh. Amjad Jamshed, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 632 = 1999 SLD 632 = 1999 PTD 2778 = (1998) 229 ITR 425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Interest Paid to a Partner as Business Expenditure\nDetailed Summary:\nThe assessee-firm claimed that interest paid to its partner, P, was indirectly routed to the bank due to the absence of a firm bank account. The partner allegedly acted as a conduit for transactions between the bank and the firm. However, the records lacked evidence substantiating these claims.\nFindings:\n•\nThe firm's books of account recorded the transaction as interest paid to P, without linking it to the bank.\n•\nP failed to provide evidence that funds borrowed from the bank were advanced to the firm.\n•\nThe absence of corroborating evidence led to the conclusion that interest was paid directly to P, making S.40(b) applicable.\nConclusion:\nThe disallowance of the interest deduction was justified due to insufficient evidence supporting the firm's claim.\nCitations: CIT v. Abdul Rehman & Sons (1993) 199 ITR 709 (Guj.); CIT v. Agra Tannery (1989) 179 ITR 44 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1Z18 of 1984 (Reference No. 1037 of 1984), decision dated: 1st October, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTHULASIDAR & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 633 = 1999 SLD 633 = 1999 PTD 2946", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income and Additional Assessment\nDetailed Summary (a):\nThe appeal addressed the restoration of the original assessment order and deletion of penalties under S.111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. No separate appeal was filed against the penalty deletion, making it inadmissible for consideration.\nDetailed Summary (b):\nThe Assessing Officer issued an additional assessment under S.65, citing a certificate of unconsidered income components during the original assessment. The Tribunal ruled this as a change of opinion rather than a legitimate basis for additional assessment, dismissing the appeal for restoration of the original order.\nConclusion:\nPenalties were invalid, and additional assessments based on pre-existing information were dismissed as unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,65,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 344/KB to 346/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 15-03-1999, hearing DATE : 13-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Aziz Memon, D.R.. Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Responden", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 634 = 1999 SLD 634 = 1999 PTD 3373 = (1998) 230 ITR 619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Alleged Concealment of Income During Transition from Individual to Partnership\nDetailed Summary:\nThe assessee claimed a transition from an individual business to a partnership from April 1, 1967, though the partnership deed was executed on August 26, 1967. The IAC alleged concealed income for the intervening period, but the Tribunal found ambiguity in the case.\nFindings:\n•\nThe Tribunal noted two plausible interpretations of the business status, ruling out definite concealment.\n•\nThe entire year's income was disclosed by the assessee, invalidating the concealment allegation.\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was canceled, affirming the Tribunal's decision to uphold the assessee's position.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 271(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.61 of 1981, decision dated: 3rd July, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): OM PRAKASH AND P. K. GULATI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nAMAR NATH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 635 = 1999 SLD 635 = 1999 PTD 3740 = (1999) 237 ITR 24 = (2000) 81 TAX 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope and Interpretation of Moneys Payable under Section 41(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nDefinition of Moneys Payable (S.41(2)):\no\nThe term moneys payable in Section 41(2) refers strictly to actual cash payments and does not extend to benefits or payments in kind. This strict interpretation aligns with the Legislature's deliberate use of specific language, contrasting with other sections of the Act where broader terms like cash or in any other manner whatsoever are employed.\n2.\nBalancing Charge and Insurance Reinstatement:\no\nThe case examined a situation where an insurance policy offered the insurer the option to replace or reinstate an asset instead of making a cash payout.\no\nUpon exercise of this option, the agreement transitions into a reinstatement contract retroactively from its inception, following the doctrine of relation back. \no\nConsequently, no moneys payable arose under Section 41(2), and the balancing charge provisions were deemed inapplicable.\n3.\nCase Facts:\no\nA Dakota aircraft owned by the respondent company was insured for ₹4,00,000. Following an accident, the insurer chose to replace the aircraft instead of compensating in cash.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer applied Section 41(2) during reassessment, calculating taxable profits as the difference between the asset's original cost and its written-down value.\no\nThe High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the reinstatement option negated any applicability of Section 41(2).\n4.\nJudicial Precedents Cited:\no\nThe ruling relied on principles established in Brown v. Royal Insurance Co. (1859) 1 E & E 853, emphasizing that reinstatement agreements alter the nature of contracts.\no\nOther supporting cases included Anderson v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (1885) 55 LJQB 146 (CA) and Kasturi & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 541.\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that Section 41(2) only applies to actual monetary payments and not benefits derived from reinstatement.\nCitations:\n•\nKasturi & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 541.\n•\nBrown v. Royal Insurance Co. (1859) 1 E & E 853.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5536 of 1990, decision dated: 17-03-1999. (Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated July 17, 1984, of the Madras High Court in T.C. No. 1373 of 1977)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. P. WADHWA AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney-General and M. L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Dhruv Mehta and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with them). K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate (V. Balachandran, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKASTURI & SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 636 = 1999 SLD 636 = 1999 PTD 3752 = (1999) 237 ITR 889", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of CBDT Circulars and Treatment of Interest on Sticky Advances\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nBinding Nature of CBDT Circulars (S.119):\no\nCirculars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 are binding on tax authorities. These circulars aim to mitigate undue hardship and provide a uniform framework for assessing specific issues.\no\nThe power of the CBDT to issue circulars ensures proper administration of the law, enabling flexibility in its enforcement to account for practical realities.\n2.\nTreatment of Interest on Sticky Advances (S.145):\no\nInterest on doubtful or sticky loans transferred to suspense accounts is not considered taxable income until actual recovery.\no\nThe 1984 CBDT circular provided that such interest would not be taxed if no recovery occurred for three consecutive years. Any recovery after this period would be taxed in the year of receipt.\no\nThis practice aligns with accounting principles that exclude notional income for accurate determination of taxable income.\n3.\nJudicial Findings:\no\nThe High Court held that circulars were valid and not inconsistent with Section 145, as they clarified the treatment of doubtful debts under the Act.\no\nEarlier rulings, such as in Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 179 (SC), were overruled for not considering the binding nature of the CBDT circulars.\nConclusion:\nCBDT circulars allowing the exclusion of interest on sticky advances from taxable income until actual recovery are binding and ensure fair tax treatment.\nCitations:\n•\nKerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 179 (SC) (overruled).\n•\nCIT v. UCO Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 235 of 1996, 11888, of 1995, 9885 to 9887 and 10408 of 1996, decision dated: 13-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D. P. MOHAPDTRA AND R. C. LAHOTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Ramesh Singh, Ms. Bina Gupta, Siddharth Goswami and Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Advocates with him) (in C.A s. Nos.235 of 1996 and 11888 of 1995). Sanjay Kunnur and R. N. Keshwani, Advocatess (in C.As. Nos.9885 to 9887 and 10408 of 1996). K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S.D. Sharma and S. K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him)s (in all the Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "UCO BANK\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nC. As. Nos.9885 to 9887 and 10408 of 1996\nTAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 5 = 1976 SLD 5 = (1996) 76 TAX 302 = 1998 PTD 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Immunity and Secrecy of Foreign Currency Accounts under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nScope of Immunity (S.5):\no\nSection 5 grants full immunity to foreign currency account holders, prohibiting any inquiry into the source of funds by tax authorities.\no\nThe Act also provides exemptions from wealth tax and income tax on balances and income from foreign currency accounts.\n2.\nSecrecy and Non-Interference:\no\nBanks are required to maintain absolute secrecy regarding foreign currency accounts.\no\nSection 5(4) prohibits restrictions on deposits or withdrawals, ensuring the free operation of these accounts.\n3.\nNon-Obstante Clause (S.3):\no\nThe provisions of the Act override all other laws, ensuring that no inquiries or investigations contradict the immunity granted under Section 5.\n4.\nJudicial Interpretation:\no\nThe court affirmed the wide scope of protection under the Act, emphasizing that no agency could breach the confidentiality of foreign currency accounts.\nConclusion:\nForeign currency accounts enjoy comprehensive immunity and secrecy under the Act, protecting account holders from inquiries into their funds.\nCitations:\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=3,4,5,5(a),9 ", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No. 16 of 1995 in W.P. No. 14532 of 1994, hearing DATE : 15-07-1997.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. RIAZ AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nMALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE \nIFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nSAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: A.K. Dogar\nRespondent(s) by: Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Dy. A.G. assisted by Muzammal Akhtar Shabbir", + "Party Name:": "HUDABIYA ENGINEERING (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 512 = 1998 SLD 512 = 1998 PTD 87 = (1997) 225 ITR 739 = (1998) 77 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Interest on Excess Tax Paid by Non-Resident Shipping Businesses\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nTaxation of Non-Resident Shipping Businesses (S.172):\no\nSection 172 allows for ad hoc assessment of non-resident shipping businesses, enabling tax recovery before the departure of a ship from an Indian port.\no\nSubsection (7) permits the assessee to opt for regular assessment within the relevant assessment year, superseding the ad hoc assessment.\n2.\nExcess Payment as Advance Tax:\no\nPayments under Section 172(4) are treated as advance tax for the purposes of regular assessment.\no\nExcess payments identified during regular assessment must be refunded to the assessee with applicable interest.\n3.\nJudicial Interpretation:\no\nThe court ruled that treating excess payments under Section 172(4) as advance tax aligns with the Act’s provisions for equitable tax treatment.\no\nInterest on refunds for excess tax paid is mandated, ensuring fairness in tax recovery and assessment.\nConclusion:\nExcess tax payments made by non-resident shipping businesses must be treated as advance tax, entitling the assessee to refunds and interest under regular assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Clitters (1981) 130 ITR 301 (reversed).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.8-13/(NT) of 1984, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G.B. Pai, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocate for Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, Advocate with him)s. Ranbir Chandra, B.K. Prasad, Rajiv Sharma and Radhakrishnan, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "A.S. GLITTRE D/5 I/S GARONNE and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 637 = 1999 SLD 637 = 1999 PTD 3423 = (1998) 230 ITR 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change in Constitution or Dissolution of Firm on Partner's Death\nDetailed Summary:\nThe case addressed the dissolution of a two-partner firm upon the death of one partner. A new firm was constituted between the sole surviving partner and the deceased partner's widow under a fresh partnership deed.\n1.\nKey Points:\no\nThe partnership deed did not include a provision for continuity of the firm after a partner's death.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer treated this as a change in the firm's constitution under Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and passed a single assessment order for the entire period.\no\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal concluded that the old firm dissolved upon the partner's death under Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and directed separate assessments for the two periods.\n2.\nJudicial Findings:\no\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, affirming that the death of one partner resulted in the firm's dissolution.\no\nTwo separate assessments were mandated: one for the period before the partner's death and one for the period after, as a new firm emerged.\nConclusion:\nThe dissolution of the original firm and formation of a new firm required separate assessments for each period.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (1965) 57 ITR 510 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Empire Estate (1996) 218 ITR 355 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 165 of 1985, decision dated: 13-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian, Senior Advocate for the Commissioner. P.C. Tripathi. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHERALLY MEHERALLY & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 83 = 2012 SLD 83 = 2012 SCMR 1151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Finalized Assessments for Sale of Working Interest\nDetailed Summary:\nAn oil exploration company contested a notice proposing to reopen its finalized assessment regarding gains from the sale of working interests.\n1.\nKey Points:\no\nThe petitioner argued that the sale fell outside the applicable law's domain and that the notice was unjustified.\no\nThe High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, stating that the petitioner could raise objections before the competent authority.\n2.\nJudicial Findings:\no\nThe Supreme Court held that addressing objections at this stage would prejudice the petitioner's case before the tax authorities.\no\nThe petitioner retained the right to contest factual and legal issues during subsequent proceedings.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court declined to intervene, emphasizing that all objections should be addressed by the tax authority in due course.\nCitations:\n•\nAl Ahram Builders v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5A) & (9) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.773 of 2012, decision dated: 25-05-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Baber Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court No. 2. Nemos Nos. 1 and 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OCEAN PAKISTAN LTD.\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 75 = 1983 SLD 75 = 1983 PTD 10 = (1983) 47 TAX 47 = 1983 PTCL 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Revisional Order Regarding Carrying Forward Losses\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a foreign-based company, challenged the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Zone, Karachi, on 3-9-1979. The challenge was on the ground that the petitioner had a vested right under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act to carry forward the excess amount of losses from the year 1962-63 for set off against profits in subsequent years.\nIn the 1962-63 assessment, the company was assessed as a resident company, and while it made a profit of Rs. 34,242 from its business in Pakistan, the total world losses amounted to Rs. 16,29,319. However, from 1963-64 onwards, the company was assessed as a non-resident, and the world losses from 1962-63 were excluded from the assessments. The petitioner applied for rectification of the assessment orders for 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1967-68, requesting that the world losses from 1962-63 be carried forward. This request was denied by the Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.) as the company’s status had changed from resident to non-resident after 1963-64.\nThe petitioner then filed a revision application before the Commissioner of Income-tax, which was also rejected. The Commissioner held that the petitioner had not raised the issue of carrying forward losses for the years 1962-63 in the assessments for 1963-64 and 1964-65 and had failed to challenge them in the prescribed manner. Furthermore, the question of carrying forward losses had not been raised in the appeals for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The Commissioner, therefore, refused to interfere with the assessment orders.\nHeld:\nThe court agreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax's decision not to exercise revisional powers, stating that the assessment orders for the years 1963-64 to 1967-68 had become final, and the petitioner had not raised the issue of carrying forward the losses in the proper forum. The petitioner had not succeeded in showing grounds for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction. The decision in Grindlays Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I.L.T.L.C. No. 157 of 1973) was cited as a precedent for the case. As a result, the petition was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respective parties.\nCitations: Grindlays Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I.L.T.L.C. No. 157 of 1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 118 of 1974, decision dated: 5-07-1982, hearing DATE : 13th April 1, 1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Hyder Ali Pirzada", + "Party Name:": "M/S AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL) KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 76 = 1983 SLD 76 = 1983 PTD 320 = (1983) 48 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Liability and Adjustments of Losses\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nTrading Liability (S.10(2-A)):\no\nA liability continued to exist as a trading liability in the assessee's accounts, even though the allowance was made three years prior. The posting in accounts did not alter the liability's nature.\n2.\nAdjustment of Losses (S.24):\no\nThe Income-tax Officer declined to adjust brought-forward losses against income from rental looms, as the adjustment was permissible only against income from the same business.\nConclusion:\nThe officer's decisions were upheld as legally sound and consistent with tax provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A),24 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 519/KB, 520/KB, 510/KB and 511/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 14-04-1983, hearing DATE : 8-02-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. R. Dewon, C A. Abrar Ahmed, D R. Abrar Ahmed, D R. A. R. Dewan, C A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 2 = 1984 SLD 2 = 1984 PTD 4 = (1984) 49 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Car Assets\nDetailed Summary:\nThe Tribunal allowed depreciation on a car asset owned by the assessee, irrespective of its use for personal or business purposes.\nJudicial Findings:\nThe court ruled that statutory depreciation was admissible, but the Tribunal’s order disregarded Section 10’s specific provisions, leading to a partial disallowance of claims.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's order partially disallowing depreciation was valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi)(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 509 of 1972, decision dated: 15-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munirur Rahman and Shaikh Hyder for Applicant. A. Azizs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS MILLWALA & SONS LTD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 3 = 1984 SLD 3 = 1984 PTD 48 = (1985) 52 TAX 106 = 1984 PTCL 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Exemption on Dividend from Profits Exempt under Section 15BB\nDetails:\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (Central) filed a reference under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, challenging the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had allowed exemption of tax on dividend income of Rs. 16,360 received by the respondent from M/s Moghal Tobacco Company Ltd. The respondent claimed exemption on the grounds that the company's profits were exempt under section 15BB of the Act. The Income Tax Officer had rejected the exemption, but the Tribunal reversed this in favor of the respondent. The question before the High Court was whether such dividend income should be included in the total income of the shareholder or not.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal's view and held that in light of earlier decisions, particularly in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (East) v. Yasin Ali Akbar H. Ibrahim (PLD 1982 Kar. 847), the dividends received from a company whose profits are exempt under section 15BB are also exempt from tax and should not be included in the shareholder's total income. The Court noted that assessment orders for periods prior to 20th December 1971 were not validated by the subsequent Finance Ordinance XXI of 1972. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in its ruling.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (East) v. Yasin Ali Akbar H. Ibrahim, PLD 1982 Kar. 847", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),15BB ", + "Case #": "Income tax. Reference No. 423 of 1972, decision dated: 8-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND ALI MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Nasrullah Awan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (CENTRAL) KARACHI\nvs\nABDUL KARIM HAJI AHMED THROUGH MESSRS HAJI HASHAM AHMED AND BROTEHRS, JODIA BAZAR, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 4 = 1984 SLD 4 = 1984 PTD 49 = (1984) 50 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Service Charges as Non-Income\nDetailed Summary:\nThe court examined whether service charges collected by a hotel for its employees constituted taxable income.\nFindings:\n•\nThe charges were not part of the hotel’s trading transactions.\n•\nThere was no evidence suggesting the collection was a colorable device to evade taxes.\nConclusion:\nService charges for employees were not taxable as the hotel’s income.\nCitations:\n•\nHotel Metropole Limited, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) PTD 371.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6C),6(iv) ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 413 to 417 of 1972; decided on 30-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND. Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. A. A. Dareshani", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HOTEL METROPOLE LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL). KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 5 = 1984 SLD 5 = 1984 PTD 53 = (1984) 49 TAX 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Pension Contributions\nDetailed Summary:\nContributions by employers to employees' pension funds were deemed not due and payable until specific contingencies occurred.\nConclusion:\nSuch contributions were not taxable under Salaries as they were not due or payable during the relevant period.\nCitations:\n•\nEdwards H.M. Inspector of Taxes v. Hoberts.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,39(4)(b)(1)(bb),66,66A ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 474, 475, 476 and 477 of 1972, decision dated: 13-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant\nNasrullah A wan", + "Party Name:": "A. J. HARTSHORN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 6 = 1984 SLD 6 = 1984 PTD 58 = (1984) 49 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Payment of Declared Income Tax\nDetailed Summary:\nThe assessee failed to pay taxes on declared undisclosed income within the prescribed timeline, despite being allowed concessions for installment payments.\nConclusion:\nThe imposition of penalty and interest was justified under the circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1),3C,FifthSched. ", + "Case #": "1. T. A. No. 864 KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 26-06-1983, hearing DATE : 20-06-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Shaban. Yusuf Sharih", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 7 = 1984 SLD 7 = 1984 PTD 61 = (1984) 50 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Acceptance of False Declarations by Processing Committees\nDetailed Summary:\nThe Processing Committee and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the declared excess income, validating the assessee's book results for the relevant year.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s order was upheld as legal and justified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 269, 34A and 345 of 1972, decision dated: 7-04-1983. dates of hearing: 5th and 7-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARAT (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS CRESCENT PAK SOAP AND OIL MILLS LTD.KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 8 = 1984 SLD 8 = 1984 PTCL 34 = (1983) 48 TAX 73 = 1984 PTD 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Investment – Valuation of Property – Applicability of Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 vs. Section 4(a) of the Gift Tax Act\nDetails:\nThe assessee, an individual, filed a return for tax year 1979-80 declaring property and share income. Upon comparison of wealth statements for 1978 and 1979, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) identified investment in three properties valued at Rs. 3,00,000. The assessee claimed the funds originated from the sale of a house and shop (Rs. 1,80,000) and loans (Rs. 2,20,000) backed by affidavits. The ITO rejected these sources, citing underreported consideration in registered sale deeds, and revalued the properties at Rs. 14,00,000. The ITO allowed Rs. 6,00,000 as explained and added Rs. 8,00,000 as unexplained income under sections 13(1)(aa), (d), and (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nThe assessee argued:\n(a) Registered sale-deed values are conclusive under the Evidence Act.\n(b) Supporting sale-deeds of comparable properties were ignored.\n(c) Valuation by the Excise & Taxation Officer (E & TO) under Capital Gains Tax Rules should prevail.\n(d) Even the CIT(A)'s revised valuation was excessive.\nThe department contended that the CIT(A)’s reduction of value was unwarranted and unsupported.\nHeld:\nJurisdiction of ITO under Section 13: The Tribunal held that the ITO has statutory authority under Section 13(1)(d) to determine deemed income when investments exceed declared assets and the assessee provides no satisfactory explanation. Registered sale deeds are not conclusive in income-tax proceedings; provisions of civil law and the Evidence Act do not strictly apply.\nInapplicability of Section 13(1)(aa) and (e): These clauses were not in force or relevant to investments as opposed to expenditures . Only Section 13(1)(d) applied in this case.\nGift Tax Act Argument Rejected: Section 4(a) of the Gift Tax Act applies to sellers, not buyers. Thus, the assessee's argument that under-declared purchase price should only be taxed as a gift from seller to buyer under the Gift Tax Act was rejected. The two laws operate independently and simultaneously.\nExcise & Taxation Valuation Not Binding: Valuation by E & TO is not binding on the ITO. The E & TO’s assessments were deemed administrative in nature, lacking judicial scrutiny or standard methodology. Hence, they cannot override or limit the ITO’s discretion.\nOutcome: Department’s appeal was dismissed; assessee’s appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for valuation to be based on comparable registered sale transactions.\nCitations:\n1983 PTD (Trib.) 241 (re: E & TO valuation not binding on ITO)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),13(1),(d)13(1)(e),58 Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,4,4(a) Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964=8 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1933 and 2342 of 1982-83, decision dated: 11-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Anjum A.C., D.R.. Khawaja Muhammad Hafeez", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 83 = 2008 SLD 83 = 2008 PTD 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Oversight in Notice Delivery\nDetailed Summary:\nThe Appellate Tribunal recalled its earlier order, acknowledging an oversight in interpreting a notice's return due to the unavailability of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's rectification of its order was fair and appropriate.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Recalling) No.218/KB in M.A. (Rect.) No.78/KB of 2006 and M.A. (Recalling) No.219/KB in M.A. (Rect.) No.79/KB of 2006, decision dated: 17-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHRAFUDDIN BHATTI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P.. B.A. Memon, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 84 = 2008 SLD 84 = 2008 PTD 442 = (2008) 97 TAX 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax Obligations of Pay-Phone Companies\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nFailure to Deduct Tax (Section 161(1)(a)):\no\nThe assessee, a pay-phone company, was declared in default for not deducting 10% withholding tax on sales under Section 236(1)(b)(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nThe authorities argued that pay-phone companies fell under the withholding tax regime via the Finance Ordinance, 2002.\no\nThe Tribunal ruled that pay-phone systems, using smart cards, differed in nature from pre-paid cards. Thus, Section 236(1)(b)(3) did not apply to pay-phone companies.\n2.\nAmbiguity in Tax Laws:\no\nProvisions of Section 236(1)(b)(3) were unclear regarding PCO operators. Established legal principles dictate that any ambiguity in taxation laws must benefit the taxpayer.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal vacated prior orders, exempting the assessee from withholding tax obligations.\nCitations:\n•\n2004 PTD 3032.\n•\n(2006) 94 Tax 2007.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161(1)(a) & 236(1)(b)(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 160/IB and 161/IB of 2007, decision dated: 26-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahzad Ahmed Malik, F.C.M.A.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 85 = 2008 SLD 85 = 2008 PTD 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability of Washerman/Dhobi Services under Presumptive Tax Regime\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nKey Findings:\no\nThe Assessing Officer canceled the tax assessment under Section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, considering tax deducted under Section 50(4) of the 1979 Ordinance as the final liability.\no\nThe assessee argued that washerman/dhobi services fall under services and should not be taxed under the Presumptive Tax Regime (Section 80C).\n2.\nJudicial Review:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that services rendered under a contract or otherwise were not covered by the Presumptive Tax Regime.\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revising the Commissioner’s order, directing assessments under normal law after issuing notices.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for reassessment under the normal provisions of tax law.\nCitations:\n•\n2005 PTD (Trib.) 668.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C & 50(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A,153(9) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1096-L of 2005, decision dated: 11-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMANT, JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Rana Mushtaq Ahmad Toor, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Muhammad Naeem Afzal Khan, Taxation Officer", + "Party Name:": "MUNIR HUSSAIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 86 = 2008 SLD 86 = 2008 PTD 481 = (2005) 91 TAX 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Additions and Ignoring Declared Losses\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nEx-Parte Finalization of Assessment:\no\nThe Assessing Officer ignored declared losses and made arbitrary additions without providing reasons.\no\nThe actions were deemed arbitrary and contrary to law, establishing maladministration.\n2.\nLoans vs. Trading Liabilities:\no\nAdditions were made considering loans as trading liabilities.\no\nThe Ombudsman found that most loans were carried forward from prior years and could not be considered as income.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revising the assessment orders and addressing maladministration.\nCitations:\n•\nGlaxo Laboratories Limited v. IAC of Income Tax and others PLD 1992 SC 549.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),25(c),63,156,129 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 310 of 2004, decision dated: 7-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Ahmad, Adviser, Dealing Officer. Dr. Muhammad Asghar for the Complainant. Mrs. Nafeesa Satti, DCIT,", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MAHMUD ASGHAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 87 = 2008 SLD 87 = 2008 PTD 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Delays and Compensation\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nDelayed Refunds:\no\nThe Department failed to implement appellate orders or issue reassessment orders, resulting in undue delays in issuing refunds.\n2.\nOmbudsman’s Findings:\no\nRefunds were withheld arbitrarily and unjustly.\no\nCompensation for delayed refunds was warranted under Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\nThe Ombudsman directed immediate refund issuance along with compensation.\nCitations:\n•\nComplaint No.253 of 2004.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 721-L of 2004, decision dated: 15-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Akbar Nagi, Advisor. Dealing Officer. A.D. Randhawa for the Complainant. Ahmad Shujah Khan, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SOFIA ABIDA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 88 = 2008 SLD 88 = 2008 PTD 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Indenting Commission and Excess Tax Deduction\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nRefund Claim:\no\nThe assessee claimed a refund for excess tax deducted at 5% instead of the applicable 1.5% on indenting commission for cotton yarn exports.\no\nThe Tribunal held that the rate of 1.5% applied, and excess tax was refundable.\n2.\nJudicial Findings:\no\nA cumulative reading of relevant schedules clarified the correct rate of deduction.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal allowed the refund, directing the Assessing Officer to process it.\nCitations:\n•\n(2007) 96 Tax 180 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=233(3),115(4),FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.234/LB of 2007, decision dated: 7-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj Khalid. S.A. Masood Raza Qazalbash, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 89 = 2008 SLD 89 = 2008 PTD 500 = (2005) 91 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments Based on Change of Opinion\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nAssessment Issues:\no\nThe return was initially accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme, but a later notice under Section 122(5A) alleged errors.\n2.\nMaladministration:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the reopening of assessments constituted a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reassessment.\nConclusion:\nThe notice under Section 122 was canceled, and refunds were directed to be processed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A,122(5A),170,171,210 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,9(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),59(1),80C,96,143B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 149-L of 2004, decision dated: 17-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Kh. Riaz Hussain for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, (D-CIT)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TOP END PRODUCTIONS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 90 = 2008 SLD 90 = 2008 PTD 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excess Tax Deduction on Gross Receipts\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nExcess Deduction:\no\nTax was deducted on gross payments rather than net receipts, resulting in excess deductions.\n2.\nRemand for Verification:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman remanded the case for verification and directed the Commissioner to address the refund claim appropriately.\nConclusion:\nThe case was sent back for proper examination and processing of refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,85,80C,50(4),143B,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 636-L of 2005, decision dated: 19-07-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Ali Khan, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Mian Muhammad Asif for the Complainant. Manzoor Hussain shad, (IAC)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAJI AMIN SONS &CO., SIALKOT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 91 = 2008 SLD 91 = 2008 PTD 479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Withholding Refunds\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nRefund Withholding:\no\nRefunds determined under the Self-Assessment Scheme were not issued due to administrative inefficiencies.\n2.\nOmbudsman’s Recommendation:\no\nThe withholding of refunds was deemed maladministration. Immediate issuance of refunds with additional payments was recommended.\nConclusion:\nRefunds were to be issued promptly with compensation for delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),65,170R-71,176,122,102 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 260-L of 2004, decision dated: 15-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mushtaq, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Iftikhar Shabbir, ITP for the Complainant. Abdul Rehman Warriach, DCIT, for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SHAHEENA ASGHAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 92 = 2008 SLD 92 = 2008 PTD 512 = (2005) 91 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Maladministration in Retrospective Application of Tax Laws\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nJurisdiction Issues:\no\nNotices issued under Section 122 of the 2001 Ordinance for assessments completed before July 1, 2002, were deemed unlawful.\n2.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended withdrawing such notices and issuing clarifications to prevent future errors.\nConclusion:\nThe Department was directed to correct procedural errors and adhere to legal principles.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Monnoo Industries Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Lahore 2001 PTD 1525.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,59(1),62,122A ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1129 to 1132 of 2003, decision dated: 16-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Mr. Aquib Hussain, ITP, AR for the Complainant. Mrs. Irum Sarwar, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PASBAN SECURITY SERVICES (PVT.), FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 93 = 2008 SLD 93 = 2008 PTD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman and Complaint Closure\nSummary:\n•\nAn ex-parte assessment was set aside under Section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, addressing the complainant's grievance.\n•\nBoth parties confirmed resolution, and the complaint was closed under Regulation 23(iv) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,132 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-744-L of 2005, decision dated: 19-07-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Ajmal Khan for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, (IAC)s", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD, BAWARCHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 94 = 2008 SLD 94 = 2008 PTD 527 = (2005) 91 TAX 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Ss. 59(3), 56, 61, 13(1)(aa) & Second Sched., Cls. (39) & (77A)---Supreme Court Rules, Part-II, R.24---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Self-­assessment---Income from salary and rent---Filing of salary certificate---Exemption was claimed on account of honorarium/reward---Issuance of notices under Ss.61 and 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---Admittedly, complainant/assessee filed only salary Certificate (LT.-11E) whereas he was required to file return of income (I.T.-11B) under R. 190(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1982, because besides salary, complainant/assessee had income from house properly therefore no valid return was filed---Honorarium /reward and special allowance was claimed to be exempt---Taxation Officer instead of issuing notice under S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, issued notices under Ss.61 and 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and demand notice was served on the basis of IT-30 produced by PRAL under S.59(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which proved maladministration on account of incompetence in discharge of responsibility; that if there was no valid return, a notice under S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was required to be served calling for a valid return that notice under S.61 could be issued only when there was a valid return; hence proceedings under S.61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were contrary to law; that there was no basis on the foregoing facts, to issue a notice under S.13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; hence contrary to law; complainant/assessee had claimed certain exemptions, which after obtaining a valid return could be considered on merits ; that order was not passed under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 despite proceedings under S.61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and that order was passed under S.59(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 after making adjustments on account of alleged legally inadmissible claims, although it required a proper consideration and finding through an order under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Commissioner undertakes written counselling of the concerned Taxation Officer to pay more attention to correct application of relevant provisions of law so that assessees are saved from undue harassment and that the Commissioner in discharge of his responsibility under S.122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 may call for the record of proceedings considered in which the orders have been passed by the Taxation Officer working under him and proceed under S.122A(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as he deems fit. \n \n(b)Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---\n \n----S.9(2)(b)---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Invalid return---Where an assessment is based on an invalid return, it is contrary to settled law and ab initio void and invalid ; it is a defect that is jurisdictional in nature and does not refer to the of the Assessing Officer in assessment of complainant/ assessee's income.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(3),56,61,13(1)(aa) & SecondSched.,Cls.(39),(77A) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A,122A(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b) Income Tax Rules, 1982=190(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 368 of 2004, decision dated: 4-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Ahmad and S.M. Sibtain, Advisers (Dealing Officers). Muhammad Siddiq Mughal, Advocate for the Complainant. Mazhar Iqbal, ACITfor Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M. A. FAROOQI, REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 95 = 2008 SLD 95 = 2008 PTD 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex-Parte Assessments Without Proper Notice\nDetailed Summary:\n•\nThe Inspector’s report indicated abandonment of business, but notices under Section 61", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,61,71 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 432 of 2004, decision dated: 12-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMA", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Abdul Malik Khan, ITP, AR for the Complainant. Akhtar Munir, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "SULTAN ALI ISMAILI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 96 = 2008 SLD 96 = 2008 PTD 548 = (2005) 91 TAX 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Denial Due to Late Tax Deposit by Withholding Agent\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant/assessee filed for a refund, citing that tax had been deducted on their behalf but deposited late by the withholding agent.\no\nThe Department denied the refund, claiming the late deposit did not meet legal requirements. Additionally, the Department misinterpreted the challan’s details, asserting the payment was made under Section 52A instead of Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\nIssues Identified:\no\nThe challan clearly showed the complainant’s name in the details of payment section, making it evident that the payment was on their behalf.\no\nThe withholding agent’s delay in depositing the deducted tax was unrelated to the complainant's eligibility for a refund.\no\nThe Department’s insistence on incorrect grounds for denial of the refund led to undue hardship.\n3.\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Observations:\no\nThe challan’s details confirmed the payment was for the complainant.\no\nThe Department's delay in issuing the refund was deemed deliberate and constituted maladministration.\no\nThe responsibility for the withholding agent’s failure rested solely on the withholding agent, and the complainant should not suffer as a result.\n4.\nRecommendations:\no\nRefund of Rs. 3,83,329 for the relevant years was to be issued under Section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nAdditional payment for delayed refunds was to be calculated and disbursed as per Section 171 of the Ordinance.\no\nMeasures were recommended to ensure timely issuance of refunds and prevent similar cases in the future.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recognized maladministration, resulting from the Department's failure to issue refunds promptly, and directed immediate rectification.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,102,50(4),52A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 139-L of 2004, decision dated: 16-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Zuberi, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Kjh. Riaz Hussain for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, D-CIT)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TOP END PRODUCTIONS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 97 = 2008 SLD 97 = 2008 PTD 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Tax Authorities and Maladministration in Transfer of Cases\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant/assessee filed returns under the Self-Assessment Scheme in Lahore but requested the case be transferred to Multan, citing jurisdictional criteria outlined in the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) Circular No. 2(1) S.Asstt/2002(1), dated 27-5-2003.\no\nThe Taxation Officer in Lahore rejected the request, citing Section 5(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which prohibits jurisdictional objections after filing a return.\n2.\nFindings of the Federal Tax Ombudsman:\no\nThe Assessing Officer acted within their mandate but relied on higher authorities for case transfer decisions.\no\nThe Zonal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to identify cases for transfer within the timeline prescribed by the CBR circular, causing delays.\no\nThe complainant's objection to jurisdiction was invalid as they had voluntarily filed returns in Lahore.\n3.\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendations:\no\nThe Central Board of Revenue should hold Regional Commissioners accountable for delays in implementing the circular.\no\nA mechanism for monitoring compliance with circulars was suggested to avoid future instances of maladministration.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that the Taxation Officer acted properly within the law, but systemic lapses at higher levels contributed to inefficiencies.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(5),59(1),61,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=209(7) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 405/L of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Zuberi, Adviser (Dealing Officer). M. Iqbal Hashmi for the Complainant. Ms. Amina Faiz Bhatti, (D-CIT) and M. Abid (D-CIT) for espondent", + "Party Name:": "SHAMI FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 98 = 2008 SLD 98 = 2008 PTD 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Delay and Compensation for Late Payment\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant/assessee was entitled to a refund after a favorable appellate order annulled the initial assessment.\no\nDespite determining the refund amount, the Department delayed issuing the refund voucher for over 10 months without providing a plausible reason.\no\nThe complainant also filed for compensation under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which remained unresolved.\n2.\nFindings of the Federal Tax Ombudsman:\no\nThe Department’s failure to issue refunds promptly was deemed arbitrary and unjustifiable.\no\nThe delay in addressing rectification applications and compensation claims constituted maladministration.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nImmediate issuance of refunds and determination of any additional refunds from rectified applications.\no\nCompensation for delayed refunds to be calculated and paid as per statutory provisions.\no\nWritten warnings for officers responsible for the delays, with negative remarks added to their performance evaluations.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman ordered swift corrective actions to ensure compliance with refund and compensation regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=94,129(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-525-K of 2004, decision dated: 3rd January, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Asghar Abbas, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Ali Sajjad, Advocate for the Complainant. Dr. Pir Khalid Ahmed, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BANO ROLLER & FLOUR MILLS, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 99 = 2008 SLD 99 = 2008 PTD 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Processing Approval for Non-Profit Organization Status\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nA non-profit organization filed an application under Section 2(36) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, seeking renewal of its tax-exempt status.\no\nThe application remained pending for over 13 months due to departmental focus on budgetary targets.\n2.\nFindings of the Federal Tax Ombudsman:\no\nThe Department admitted negligence and attributed the delay to prioritizing budgetary targets over procedural responsibilities.\no\nThe lapse caused undue hardship to the non-profit organization.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Regional Commissioner of Income Tax was advised to establish reasonable timeframes for processing similar applications.\no\nEnsuring accountability and monitoring within the Department to prevent recurrence of such delays.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman appreciated the Department’s acknowledgment of the lapse and emphasized the need for procedural reforms.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(36) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=47(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 622 of 2004, decision dated: 13-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "None for the Complainant. Irfan Raza, Special Assistant to CIT Companies Zone, Islamabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WORLD OF ISLAM TRUST, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 100 = 2008 SLD 100 = 2008 PTD 593 = (2005) 91 TAX 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake and Refund Due to Set-Off of Losses\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant/assessee filed a rectification application, requesting that losses declared by their predecessor during the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 be brought forward and set off against the income determined for the assessment year 2001-2002.\no\nThe application was rejected on the grounds that there were no assessed losses available for adjustment and that the complainant's claim regarding the acceptance of earlier returns under Section 64(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was incorrect.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman observed that returns for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were filed and had attained finality due to the operation of law under Section 64(1).\no\nLosses declared by the predecessor were entitled to be set off in terms of Sections 34 and 35, provided they complied with the requirements of Section 73 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nRefunds arising from the set-off of brought-forward losses should be issued within 45 days as per Section 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nAdditional payments for delayed refunds were to be calculated and provided under Section 171.\no\nOfficers responsible for lapses in file maintenance and recording proceedings were to be identified and disciplined through written warnings and mandatory training at the Tax Management Academy.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman emphasized procedural efficiency and upheld the complainant’s entitlement to rectification and refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170(4),171,221 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,56,61,62,64(1),73,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 837-L of 2004, decision dated: 2-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor, Dealing Officer M. Ashraf Ch. for the Complainant Qamar Haider, (D.-C.I.T.)", + "Party Name:": "TAYMUR COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 101 = 2008 SLD 101 = 2008 PTD 598 = (2008) 97 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Tax on Interest Payable to Non-Residents\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe assessee company claimed exemption from income tax on interest payable to a non-resident company for a foreign loan utilized for industrial investment in Pakistan.\no\nThe exemption was denied on the grounds that the assessee did not file an application for an exemption certificate.\n2.\nLegal Findings:\no\nClause (77-A) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provided a clear exemption for such interest.\no\nThe requirement to file an exemption certificate was neither stipulated in the law nor a condition precedent for claiming the benefit.\no\nThe Department’s treatment of the assessee as being in default under Section 52 for not withholding tax was unjustified.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that interest on foreign exchange loans was exempt and the assessee had no obligation to withhold income tax on such payments.\nReferenced Case:\n1993 PTD 722.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,50(3) & SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4559/IB of 2002, decision dated: 8-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Faisal Banday, A.C.A. Mohy-ud-Din Ismail, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 102 = 2008 SLD 102 = 2008 PTD 604 = (2005) 91 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Receipts from Security Services\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe assessee, a security services company, contested its inclusion in the Presumptive Tax Regime under Section 80C.\no\nNotices issued under Section 61 for assessment were challenged as contrary to law.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal determined that receipts from security services constituted income from services rendered, not from contracts falling under Section 80C.\no\nThe Department accepted the Tribunal’s findings, binding them to adhere to the ruling.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended dropping proceedings initiated under Section 80C.\nReferenced Cases:\n2001 PTD 2969 and various I.T.A. decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,61,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. No.238 of 2004, decision dated: 14-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Faisal LatIf, ACA, for the Complainant. Nasir Iqbal, DCIT for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AKRO PROTECTION SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 103 = 2008 SLD 103 = 2008 PTD 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Amendment of Self-Assessments Finalized Before Finance Act, 2003\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant/assessee’s assessments for 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, finalized under the Self-Assessment Scheme, were reopened under Section 122(5A) after the enactment of the Finance Act, 2003.\n2.\nLegal Findings:\no\nSection 122(5A), effective from July 1, 2003, was deemed inapplicable to assessments closed prior to its enactment.\no\nReopening assessments under this provision violated jurisdictional limitations and was declared void ab initio.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nNotices issued under Section 122(5A) were to be withdrawn.\nReferenced Cases:\nMonnoo Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., 2001 PTD 1525; Honda Shahrah-e-Faisal Association of Persons v. Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, 2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. C-472-L and 473-L of 2005, decision dated: 1st June, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor, Dealing Officer Ahmad Naseer Sheikh for the Complainant Manzoor Hussain Shad, I.A.C.s", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 104 = 2008 SLD 104 = 2008 PTD 629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Compliance with Appellate Tribunal Directions\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessments remained unresolved after a decade, with the Department failing to comply with directions from the Appellate Tribunal.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe scenario was deemed a glaring example of maladministration, marked by neglect, inefficiency, and disregard for legal directives.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Commissioner was directed to revise the assessments in line with Tribunal directions.\no\nOfficials involved in mishandling assessments were to face warnings and performance-related consequences.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,32(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(26) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 736 of 2004, decision dated: 13-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor, Dealing Officer S. S. Salamat for the Complainant M. Majid, D.-C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "SALIM S. SALAMAT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 105 = 2008 SLD 105 = 2008 PTD 634 = (2008) 97 TAX 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Assets Without Approval\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner estimated asset prices without obtaining the mandatory approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe lack of approval rendered the assessment null and void.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority’s decision to remand the case to correct the procedural error was unwarranted.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Taxation Officer was directed to accept the value declared by the assessee.\nReferenced Case:\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 853.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=29,29(3)(b),5(1)(c),ThirdSched. ", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.15/LB of 2007 and I.T.A. No.474/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 106 = 2008 SLD 106 = 2008 PTD 642", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund, Compensation, and Maladministration\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme and claimed a refund along with compensation for delays.\no\nThe Taxation Officer issued a rectification order without maintaining an order sheet or assigning a date. This was alleged to be a response to a complaint and intended to deny the complainant’s claim for compensation.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the rectification proceedings were mala fide and intended to suppress the complainant’s entitlement.\no\nIt was observed that the refund amount claimed was already accepted, and vouchers were issued, highlighting an ulterior motive in denying compensation.\no\nMaladministration was established due to irregularities in record maintenance and procedural lapses.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nCompensation for the delay in issuing refunds was to be calculated from October 1, following the procedure outlined in Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nDisciplinary action was recommended against the concerned Taxation Officer for procedural misconduct.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5),80(c),96,122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii),9(b) & 2(3)(i)(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 60 of 2004, decision dated: 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADEEQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 107 = 2008 SLD 107 = 2008 PTD 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---S. 221---Rectification of mistake---Miscellaneous application before Appellate Tribunal for recall of order---Application was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal as the order had been passed after hearing both the sides as well as treatment meted out by the First Appellate Authority was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal against which no rectification application was filed before the First Appellate Authority as no mistake was apparent from the record.\n \n1976 PTD 109 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 530/LB of 2007 and I.T.A. No.7438/LB of 2005, decision dated: 21st February, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Applicant. Ahmad Nadeem Ahsan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 108 = 2008 SLD 108 = 2008 PTD 679 = (2008) 97 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax---\n \n----Company---Amalgamation of companies---Shares---Goodwill---Cash payment---Issuance of shares in lieu of goodwill was a payment equating with cash payment. \n \n(b) Income Tax---\n \n----Company---Merger of company---Shares---Treatment of value of shares against the goodwill as notional value---Validity---As result of merger of the assessee company and the amalgamating company shares were issued in lieu of goodwill of the amalgamating company---Taxation Officer erred in law while treating the value of the shares against the goodwill as notional value---Even otherwise, under the principle of accounting, goodwill had always been considered an item of balance sheet, and shown as an asset though intangible. \n \n1999 PTD (Trib.) 2152 and Seth Kishori Lal Babulal v. C.I.T. (1963) 49 ITR 502 rel.\n \n(c) Income Tax---\n \n----Goodwill---Explained. \n \n1974 PTD 1; Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition; North Clackamas Community Hospital v. Harris C.A. Or., 664 F.2nd 701, 706 and Bump v. Steward, Wimer & Bump, P.C. Lowa, 336 N.W. 2nd 731, 736 rel.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S.24---Deductions not admissible---Intangibles---Goodwill---Difference in value between the net assets and the purchase price at the time of merger of company was goodwill which was purchased through issuance of shares---Section 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 allowed writing off of intangibles assets and the same could be claimed as an expense by the assessee---Order passed by the First Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n1999 PTD (Trib.) 2152 and Seth Kishori Lal Babulal v. C.I.T. (1963) 49 ITR 502 ref.\n \n(e) Income Tax---\n \n----Capital gain---Receipts arising out of sale of shop was capital receipt---Treatment accorded to the assessee on the issue by the First Appellate Authority was confirmed. \n \n2006 PTD (Trib.) 1979 rel.\n \n(f) Income Tax---\n \n----Capital gain---Allocation of expenses---Expenditure actually incurred by the assessee on earning the exempt income could be set off against the exempt income---Assessee declared gross gain after deducting the expenses incurred in respect thereof, and after setting off these expenses against the said gain, the net gain was declared---Since assessee had already set off the actual expenses relating to the earning of capital gain, no expenses could be allocated to exempt income. \n \n2005 PTD 2586 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 7261/LB of 2005 and 1291/LB of 2006, decision dated: 28-09-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Asif, D.R.. Yousaf Saeed, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 109 = 2008 SLD 109 = 2008 PTD 689 = (2005) 91 TAX 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 59(4) & 71---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(i)(a)---Refund---Compensation---Maladministration---Complainant had filed return under Self-Assessment Scheme---Complainant claimed refund and compensation---Validity---Rectification order bore no date---Order-sheet was not maintained---Such order was passed after receiving notices of complaint---Entire proceedings were mala fide and made up for denying the claim for compensation---Plea of rectification was not pleaded in the reply and was made with ulterior motive which showed that refund amount claimed by the complainant was accepted and the refund vouchers had already been issued---Such was done for denying the claim for compensation---Short document notice was complied within the prescribed period---Assessment would have been made on 30th June---Compensation should therefore be calculated from Ist October in the manner prescribed by section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Maladministration was established---Tax Ombudsman 'recommended compensation and disciplinary action against concerned Taxation Officer for irregularities and non main­tenance of proper record.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7B),59(1),59(4),71 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 212 of 2004, decision dated: 15-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Zafar Iqbal for the Complainant. Masood Aslam, AC-IT, Sargodha Zone, Sargodha for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GOJRA WEAVING FACTORY, TOBA TEK SINGH\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 110 = 2008 SLD 110 = 2008 PTD 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Case Selection for Audit\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe department selected a case for total audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme, arguing that the tax payable was higher under the successor business entity.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to accept the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nIt was determined that the return satisfied the conditions of the Explanation in Paragraph 1.2, Clause (iii), of C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision and dismissed the department’s appeal.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe First Appellate Authority’s order to accept the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme was maintained.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 7438/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R.. Ahmad Nadeem Ahsan, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 111 = 2008 SLD 111 = 2008 PTD 694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Assessment and Jurisdictional Prerequisites\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe department issued a notice under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to revise an already completed assessment.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe notice failed to account for the fact that the matter had already been assessed and re-assessed, with superior officer approval.\no\nMere disagreement among officers or the possibility of higher revenue did not justify treating the completed assessment as erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.\no\nRepeated notices caused undue harassment, revealing maladministration.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended withdrawing the notice and maintaining the completed assessment.\no\nThe department was instructed to ensure no such baseless notices were issued in the future.\nReferenced Cases:\n1992 PTD 545; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 902.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=126(1),122(5A) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=129(e) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1517-K of 2003, decision dated: 6-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor, Dealing Officer Rehan Hassan Naqvi for the Complainant Agha Hadaytullah, (IAC)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TANVEER AND BROTHERS, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 112 = 2008 SLD 112 = 2008 PTD 701", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Assessment and Void Orders\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Taxation Officer issued an order in compliance with Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, after the prescribed time limit had expired.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe order passed on June 14, 2005, was void as it exceeded the time limitation prescribed under Section 66A.\no\nAppeals filed by the complainant before the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the time-barred nature of the order.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceled the time-barred order, and restored the declared return.\nReferenced Case:\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 3377.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,63,64,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.637/LB of 2006, decision dated: 19-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Munawar. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 113 = 2008 SLD 113 = 2008 PTD 707 = (2004) 90 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment under Self-Assessment Scheme\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner issued a notice alleging errors in tax calculation under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner miscalculated the tax and failed to acknowledge that tax already withheld exceeded the calculated liability.\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found the actions to be either incompetence or deliberate harassment.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nProceedings under Sections 122 and 66A were to be dropped.\no\nRefunds, if due, were to be issued promptly with compensation for delays.\no\nWritten warnings were recommended for officers involved in procedural lapses.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59(1),66A,59(1),24(c),24(ff),24(fff),52,86,139 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1106-K of 2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Sibtain, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Raza Merchant for the Complainant. Chaman Lal Oad, IAC", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHEEN COURIER SERVICES, Proprietor Amir Ali Shroff, Karachi\nvs\nTAXATION OFFICER (I.A.C.) RANGEII/COMPANIES-I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 114 = 2008 SLD 114 = 2008 PTD 718 = (2008) 97 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retention of Service Charges by Provincial Governments\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Provincial Government retained 5% of service charges deducted at source, leading to a dispute between the Federal and Provincial Governments.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe issue of service charge retention fell under Article 146 of the Constitution and required resolution through inter-governmental mechanisms.\no\nThe Finance Secretary of the Provincial Government was not responsible for withholding taxes under Section 50(4).\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe appellate Tribunal annulled the orders treating the Finance Secretary as responsible for deductions.\no\nIt emphasized resolving such disputes at the governmental level.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=146(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 758/PB to 762/PB of 2004, decision dated: 21st February 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LIAQAT ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmad. Yousaf Ghaffar, D.R. assisted by Malik Akhtar Hussain", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 115 = 2008 SLD 115 = 2008 PTD 779 = (2008) 97 TAX 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Royalty and Technical Service Fees\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Assessing Officer classified part of the royalty and technical service fees received by the assessee as dividend income.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe classification was based on incorrect assumptions about the royalty agreement and technical assistance's role in business efficiency.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly annulled the assessment order, which was upheld by the Tribunal.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe declared version of royalty and fees was accepted without interference.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,79,80AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2080/LB to 2082/LB of 2006, decision dated: 12-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R. Asim Zulifqar, ACA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 116 = 2008 SLD 116 = 2008 PTD 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds, Jurisdiction, and Time-Barred Complaints\nDetailed Summary:\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant sought a refund for tax deducted in Tribal Areas, claiming exemption under Article 247 of the Constitution.\no\nThe Taxation Officer delayed the refund and transferred the case on jurisdictional grounds.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nAssessment was completed without jurisdiction, constituting maladministration.\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended verifying the income source and issuing refunds promptly if the income arose in Tribal Areas.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Taxation Officer was directed to comply with procedural requirements and ensure timely resolution of refund claims.\nReferenced Cases:\nPLD 2001 Kar. 695; (2000) St Tax 360.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,57,143B,62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(3),2(3)(i)(a)(b),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.143 of 2004, decision dated: 25-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mushtaq, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Sheikh Ghulam Asghar for the Complainant. Qaiser Mehmood, D.C.I.T. for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAZAR KHAN, CONTRACTOR, D.G. KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 117 = 2008 SLD 117 = 2008 PTD 752 = (2008) 97 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Presumptive Tax Regime, Commission Income, and Natural Justice\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe assessee filed statements declaring commission income but did not deduct tax at source. Instead, the assessee directly paid the tax amount.\no\nAssessing Officer framed the assessment under normal law.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nWhile there was a failure to deduct tax at source, this did not disqualify the assessee from the presumptive tax regime under Section 80C(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nFiling a statement under Section 143-B was valid as per the law applicable during the relevant assessment years.\no\nAn assessment order issued without giving the assessee a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice and Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe First Appellate Authority’s decision was vacated, and assessments were canceled.\no\nReference Cases: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1201; 1999 PTD 1358; (2006) 93 Tax 279 (H.C. Ind.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,143B,80C,50(4)(4A),56,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5637/LB and 5638/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Bashir, ITP and Irfan Ahmed Pasha. Ashraf Ahmed Ali and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, DRs", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 118 = 2008 SLD 118 = 2008 PTD 770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Procedural Flaws in Assessment\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe assessment was based on an inspector's report without confronting the assessee with relevant facts or details.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe assessment was finalized in a careless manner, violating legal procedures and principles of natural justice.\no\nIt was tainted with bias and arbitrariness, falling under the definition of maladministration.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended suspending the Assessing Officer’s assessment powers until the inquiry against him was completed.\no\nAn evaluation of the Inspector’s performance was also mandated.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,63 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1222-K of 2003, decision dated: 18-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Nasser (Dealing Officer). Udha Ram Rajput for the Complainant. Sultan Wazir, I.A.C. Larkana Range, Larkana", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHOAIB\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 119 = 2008 SLD 119 = 2008 PTCL 360 = 2008 PTD 773 = (2008) 98 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Retrospective Application of Tax Laws\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessments finalized under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, were reopened under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe new law cannot retrospectively extend limitations that had already expired.\no\nIf the limitation had not expired under the previous law, the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 6) would govern.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nLimitation under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, remained unchanged for closed and finalized cases.\no\nReference Cases: Messrs Kashmir Edible Oil v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 PTD 1621); Fauji Oil Terminal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006 PTD 734).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(4A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 & 66A-7 General Clauses Act, 1897=6 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos.87, 39, 70, 71, 72, 84 and 85 of 2006, heard on 11-03-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arshad Majeed Date of hearing. 11th March, 2008", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nFAYYAZ AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 89 = 2010 SLD 89 = 2010 PTD 1289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection and Lawful Authority\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Commissioner selected a case for audit without predefined criteria.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe order amended by the Taxation Officer under Section 122(1)(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, lacked lawful authority.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal quashed the amendment.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe order of the First Appellate Authority was vacated.\no\nReference Cases: 2009 PTD 1507.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(4)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1025/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st October, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 84 = 2012 SLD 84 = 2012 PTD 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Issuance of Refund and Maladministration\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant sought a refund of tax deducted on contract receipts, which was not issued despite clear directions by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe department failed to act on the Ombudsman’s recommendation, constituting maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2001.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Federal Board of Revenue was directed to issue the refund within 21 days or face proceedings under Section 16 of the Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,122A,153(1)(b),170(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.123/ISD/IT(65)/1138 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Istataat Ali, Advisor Dealing Officer. Muhammad Zaheer, FCA Authorized Representative. Muhammad Kashif Ahmad, OIR Departmental Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALANDICK AND COMPANY LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 85 = 2012 SLD 85 = 2012 PTD 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Income Tax and Non-Compliance with Tribunal Decisions\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe complainant’s business, located in a tax-exempt area, was subjected to audit proceedings despite a tribunal decision affirming the exemption.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nInitiating audit proceedings without new evidence violated the tribunal's binding decision.\no\nNon-implementation of the tribunal’s decision constituted maladministration.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Federal Board of Revenue was directed to implement the tribunal’s decision promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),124(1),148 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.126/Isd/IT(66)1159 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Istaat Ali, Advisor Dealing Officer. Abdul Rehman and Sikandar Nawaz, General Manager Authorized Representative. Faheem Sikandar, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LAL GHEE AND OIL MILLS MALAKAND AGENCY\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 86 = 2012 SLD 86 = 2012 PTD 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Service of Notices and Denial of Opportunity\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe taxpayer contended that the assessment under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was made without proper notice or opportunity.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe Taxation Officer failed to serve statutory notices properly, justifying the First Appellate Authority’s annulment of the assessment.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nRevenue’s appeal was dismissed.\no\nReference Case: 2002 PTD 541.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,121,116(1),111(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.816/LB of 2011, decision dated: 26-10-2011, hearing DATE ; 29-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Hussain, D.R.. Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 87 = 2012 SLD 87 = 2012 PTD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary and Capricious Exercise of Discretion\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe taxpayer challenged the arbitrary amendment of assessment orders.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe assessment was finalized unilaterally and without proper reasoning, amounting to gross maladministration.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended vacating the order and re-assessing the case after granting the taxpayer a fair hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,122,122(9) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.534/LHR/IT(420)1068 of 2011, decision dated: 1st December, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor for Dealing Officer. Rana Munir Hussain for Authorized Representative. Usman Ahmad Khan, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "UMER SHAHID Proprietor U.S. Motors, Lahore\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 88 = 2012 SLD 88 = (2012) 105 TAX 418 = 2012 PTD 498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Approval for Additions and Delegated Powers\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe taxpayer challenged the legality of additions made with Inspecting Additional Commissioner approval.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe addition lacked proper authorization under Section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(13),2(65),210 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1647/IB of 2005, decision dated: 14-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nIKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Mohy ud Din Ismail, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS ALMEHDI INTERNATIONAL SHAH PLAZA, MUREE ROAD, RAWALPINDI\nVS\nC.I.T.(A), RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 89 = 2012 SLD 89 = (2012) 106 TAX 17 = 2012 PTD 969 = 2012 SCMR 880 = 2013 PTCL 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Appeal on Tax Recovery Process\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nLeave was granted to examine whether Section 80-DD introduced a new tax liability or merely accelerated recovery.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe case emphasized analyzing legislative intent regarding tax recovery.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe case was remanded for reconsideration by the Commissioner.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(2),50(5),52A,80DD,Second Schedule,clause118C Customs Act, 1969=18(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 831, 832, 1216, 1217, 1441 of 2007 and 410 of 2010, decision dated: 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.,KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeals Nos. 831, 832, 1216, 1217 and 1441 of 2007).\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 410 of 2010).\nAbdul Raul Rohaila, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos. 831 to 832 and 1441 of 2007).\nSh. Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 1216 of 2007).\nM. Ilyas Mian, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 1217 of 2007).\nM. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Habib Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 410 of 2010).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, Peshawar and another\nvs\nMessrs SHAHZAD GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and 4 Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 4 = 2014 SLD 4 = 2014 SCMR 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Conviction Based on Statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C.\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe accused was convicted of murder based solely on his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nConviction solely on the accused's statement must consider the exculpatory and inculpatory parts together unless independent evidence supports the prosecution.\no\nSuspension of the sentence was allowed pending appeal.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal against the conviction was admitted for further deliberation.\no\nReference Cases: Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan (PLD 1991 SC 520); Faqir Muhammad v. State (PLD 2011 SC 796).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=426,342 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302(b) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.800-L of 2013, decision dated: 15-08-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Walayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Mazher Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State", + "Party Name:": "IFTIKHAR AHMED\nvs\nThe STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 5 = 2014 SLD 5 = 2014 SCMR 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail on Grounds of Further Inquiry\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe accused, along with co-accused, was charged with attempted murder and unlawful assembly.\no\nThe FIR alleged multiple shots at the victim's abdomen, but medical evidence showed injuries to thighs and legs.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nConflict in Evidence: Discrepancy between the ocular account and medical evidence.\no\nProbability of False Implication: The accused was the co-accused's father and may have been implicated due to familial ties.\no\nImprisonment Duration: The accused had already been in jail for over seven months.\no\nMatching Evidence: While an empty shell matched the recovered pistol, this was insufficient to overcome other ambiguities.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe accused was granted bail as the case warranted further inquiry.\no\nLegal Principle: Commencement of trial does not preclude bail if the case requires further investigation.\no\nReference Cases: Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State (1997 SCMR 32).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=324,334,148,149 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.165 of 2013, decision dated: 25-07-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Shahnawaz Asim, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Syed KHALID HUSSAIN SHAH\nvs\nThe STATE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 90 = 2012 SLD 90 = (2012) 105 TAX 453 = 2012 PTD 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Tax Laws\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nA taxpayer residing abroad was assessed under Section 122C for the tax year 2008, following non-compliance with a notice.\no\nThe taxpayer argued the provision was introduced in 2009 and was not applicable retrospectively.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nJurisdiction: Assessment under Section 122C for 2008 was without jurisdiction.\no\nEvidence: Documents substantiated the taxpayer's residence abroad and the transaction’s legality.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAssessment was declared void and the departmental appeal dismissed.\no\nReference Cases: CIT v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (1988 PTD 66); Rustam F Cowasjee v. C.B.R (1985 PTD 123).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,122C,114(4),127 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 955/IB of 2010, decision dated: 14-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ayesha Khalid, D.R.. Aurangzeb, ITP", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nASIF JAHANGIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 91 = 2012 SLD 91 = 2012 PTD 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment and Refund Issues\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTaxpayer filed returns and claimed a refund under the presumptive tax regime, which was later amended under Section 122(4).\n2.\nFindings:\no\nDoctrine of Merger: The amendment lacked definite information, rendering it invalid.\no\nConsistency in Litigation: Facts discussed previously could not be reopened without substantial new evidence.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision, declaring the amendment null and void.\no\nReference Cases: 1992 PTD 566 (SC Pak); 2008 PTD 216.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,122(4),221,120,170,177(4),114,115(4),113A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 864/KB of 2011, decision dated: 3rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAISTA ABBAS, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naseer Ahmed, ACIR and Muhammad Nabeel Rana, D.R.s. Abdul Tahir Ansari, ITP", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., SUKKUR\nvs\nMessrs STAR LINK COMMUNICATION, Proprietor M. Raheel, Sukkur" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 92 = 2012 SLD 92 = 2012 PTD 851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification and Disallowance of Wages\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTaxpayer was assessed for income from real estate and embroidery businesses, which included disallowed wage expenses.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nBusiness Nature: No evidence supported real estate dealings; the transaction was isolated.\no\nWages: The disallowance lacked proper verification or confrontation.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAdditions were deleted, affirming the taxpayer’s claims.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,18(1),122(9),177(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1511/LB of 2010, decision dated: 13-01-2012, hearing DATE : 12-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Waseem Ch. Sajjad Tasleem, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "AMJAD MAJEED KHAN, Proprietor Messrs Amco International, Lahore\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O.-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 93 = 2012 SLD 93 = 2012 PTD 862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Deregistration Delays\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe department delayed the deregistration process, preventing access to the E-FBR Portal for six years.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe delay constituted gross maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n3.\nRecommendations:\no\nDirected the department to expedite deregistration and provide a report on pending cases.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.135/ISD/ST(35)/1195 of 2011, decision dated: 17-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasir Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer. Sher Mast Khan, Authorized Representative. Saleem-ur-Rehman, DCIR, Peshawar Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ & SONS KOHAT, PESHAWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 94 = 2012 SLD 94 = (2012) 105 TAX 325 = 2012 PTD 868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Satellite Charges as Royalty\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nA telecommunication company contested satellite charges classified as royalty and subject to withholding tax.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nDefinition of Royalty: Payments were deemed royalty as per Article 12 of the Pakistan-UK Double Taxation Treaty.\no\nService Argument: Telecommunication services involved scientific equipment use, meeting the definition of royalty.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal was dismissed, and expenses disallowed under Section 21(c).\no\nReference Cases: Webster’s New World Dictionary, ITA No. 1023/IB/2006.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=21(c),152,122(5A),177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.726/IB of 2009, decision dated: 15-02-2011, hearing DATE : 5-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, NAZIR AHMAD, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBERS, ABDUL RAUF AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq, Mansoor Baig and Shaukat Amin Shah, FCAs. Shahid Iqbal, LA", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nC.I.T. (LEGAL) LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 95 = 2012 SLD 95 = (2012) 105 TAX 458 = 2012 PTD 880", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment and Appealability\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAppeal against an order under Section 122-C was dismissed in limine due to its exclusion from Section 127.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nSection 127 permits appeals against orders that enhance liability, making Section 122-C orders appealable.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal allowed the appeal, clarifying non-retrospective application of Section 122-C for earlier tax years.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.667/IB of 2011, decision dated: 24-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aurangzeb, ITP. Ziaullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "DRUGS SERVICES, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 96 = 2012 SLD 96 = 2012 PTD 894", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Deduct Withholding Tax\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nA Tehsil Municipal Administration failed to deduct withholding tax from payments made to Citizen Community Boards.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nJurisdictional Responsibilities: Withholding tax recovery was an internal administrative issue.\no\nEvidence Gap: Assessee failed to prove the boards were registered.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal dismissed due to procedural lapses and time-barred filing.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=49,153,153(1)(c),161 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.956/IB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd December, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Ullah Khan D.R. for Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 97 = 2012 SLD 97 = 2012 PTD 901 = (2013) 107 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation in Professional Tax\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nA company with offices in multiple provinces contested professional tax imposition by more than one province.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nProvincial taxation powers under Article 163 allow multiple levies.\no\nProfessional tax is not classified as income tax, eliminating double taxation concerns.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nPetition dismissed; tax was validly imposed.\no\nReference Cases: Province of Punjab v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 2005 SC 988).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Finance Act, 1994=5,6,7th Schedule,11 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=164,199,260 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-388 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd February, 2012, hearing DATE : 21st November, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAISAL ARAB AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner. Saifullah Khan, A.A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "HABIB JUTE MILLS LTD\nvs\nPROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Finance Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 132 = 2011 SLD 132 = (2011) 103 TAX 209 = 2012 PTD 911", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Claims\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nMultiple claims were disallowed, including inter-corporate dividend exemptions and employee colony expenses.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nInter-Corporate Dividend: Exemption was valid without mandatory compliance with Section 59-AA.\no\nEmployee Colony: Expenses were integral to business operations and thus deductible.\no\nSoftware Depreciation: Allowance required amortization over a useful life of three years.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld legitimate claims and directed revisions for consistent tax practices.\no\nReference Cases: 2000 PTD 2906; State of Bombay v. United Motors (AIR 1953 SC 252).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=59,53,59AA,131,Second Schedule,20,21,13,21c,22,24,59b, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.144/KB and 162/KB of 2010, decision dated: 1st July, 2010, hearing DATE : 26-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Shabbar Zaidi, FCA. Shafquat Hussain Kehar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 98 = 2012 SLD 98 = (2012) 105 TAX 466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Appeals and Rejection of Declared Version\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTaxpayer contested non-service of the First Appellate Authority’s order, claiming the limitation period began from receipt of a certified copy.\no\nAssessing Officer made an addition based on the estimated vehicle value without verifying the transaction's arm's length nature.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nLimitation Period: In absence of proof of service, limitation starts from receipt of a certified copy.\no\nEstimation Errors: Additions must be based on estimated value minus declared value. Collusiveness must be verified if the declared version is rejected.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAddition deleted; Tribunal confirmed the First Appellate Authority's order.\no\nReferences: 2007 PTD 1 L.H.C.; PLD 1990 SC 666.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,131,111(1)(b),122(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1/IB of 2012, decision dated: 7-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Zia Ullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "AAMIR HUSSAIN\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 99 = 2012 SLD 99 = (2012) 106 TAX 76 = 2012 PTD 964 = 2013 PTCL 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Compliance in Amendment of Assessments\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessment was amended without providing sufficient time to respond to notices as mandated by C.B.R. Circular No. 7(2), 1994.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nNotices issued provided only five days for compliance, violating the requirement of 15 clear days.\no\nHigh Court's advisory jurisdiction focuses on resolving substantial legal issues, not factual controversies.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAmendment set aside for procedural violations.\no\nReferences: 1970 SCMR 872; 2007 PTD 333.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,132,133(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 1 of 2012/BWP, heard on 1st March, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Siddique Chohan for Petitioner. Sh. Zafar-ul-Islam and Niaz Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nZULFIQAR ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 100 = 2012 SLD 100 = (2012) 106 TAX 60 = 2012 PTD 976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAppeal filed over two years late without a plausible explanation for the delay.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nProcedural laws do not favor condonation without a plausible and detailed explanation for each day of delay.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court dismissed the appeal in limine for being time-barred.\no\nReferences: Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid (1997 SCMR 1224).", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=139 ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No.128 of 2000, decision dated: 12-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, C, J AND NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ayyaz Shaukat", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs DREAMLAND MOTELS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 101 = 2012 SLD 101 = (2012) 106 TAX 93 = 2012 PTD 1329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Selection for Audit Without Proper Notice\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTaxpayer challenged the legality of audit proceedings initiated without prior notice or opportunity to be heard.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nNatural Justice: Notice and reasons must precede actions under Sections 122 and 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nFailure to comply with these principles renders proceedings void.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAudit selection declared illegal; fresh proceedings to be initiated per law.\no\nReferences: PLD 2002 SC 408; 1981 SCMR 1061.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,122(8)122(9),133 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.29 of 2009, decision dated: 22-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ATTAULLAH KHAN AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Arshad Ali for Petitioner. Rehmanullah Khans", + "Party Name:": "Dr. ASHFAQ AHMAD KHAN\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 90 = 2010 SLD 90 = (2010) 101 TAX 245 = 2010 PTD 1692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Doctrine of Merger\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessee sought rectification, claiming improper notice service led to denial of a hearing.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nRectification cannot reverse an appellate authority's previous substantive order.\no\nAn order lacking jurisdiction does not merge with subsequent valid orders.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal declared rectification order invalid and vacated it.\no\nReferences: Civil Petitions Nos. 752–754 of 2008; 2003 SCMR 1401.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122(5),184(1),221,221(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 285/IB to 289/IB of 2008, decision dated: 25-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRPERSON \nISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Taj, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 91 = 2010 SLD 91 = (2010) 102 TAX 182 = 2010 PTD 1772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Deduction of Tax on Accrued Interest\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nA bank was accused of failing to deduct tax on accrued profits credited to customer ledger accounts.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nDeduction arises only when profits are credited to accounts accessible by the customer.\no\nLedger entries do not constitute taxable credit unless withdrawable by customers.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nDemand quashed; Revenue allowed to proceed against the bank for misuse of provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),31,150(a),151,158(a),161,205 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17(1)(a),17(1)(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos. D-1109, 1120, 1200, 1135, 1211, 1222, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1618 and 1660 of 2010, decision dated: 2-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAQBOOL BAQAR AND SALMAN HAMID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed A. Andrabi for the Petitioner. Ali Mumtaz Shaikh", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED through Group Executive\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 92 = 2010 SLD 92 = 2010 PTD 1777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Errors in Tax Assessment\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe taxpayer contested assessment by an unauthorized officer.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nJurisdiction lies with specific zones for regular taxpayers, not the Monitoring and Tax Unit.\no\nImproper jurisdiction renders subsequent assessments void.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAssessment annulled; remanded for de novo proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,148to156,233,234,235 & 236 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Recalling) No. 168-KB of 2009 in I.T.A. No. 1446/KB of 2005, decision dated: 25-09-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Pasha for Applicant. Shamsul Huda, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 93 = 2010 SLD 93 = 2010 PTD 1797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legislative Intent and Tax Retrospectivity\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nChallenge to the retrospective imposition of a luxury vehicle tax by Punjab Finance Act, 2008.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nRetrospective imposition upheld based on unambiguous legislative intent.\no\nCourts avoid interference unless clear discrimination is demonstrated.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nPetition dismissed; tax upheld.\no\nReferences: Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Finance Act, 2008=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189,201,25,70(4),77,141,142(a),199,FourthSchedule,25 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.8886, 13426, 14698, 14699, 15564, 15491, decision dated: 24-12-2009. dates of hearing: 3rd and 9-12-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shan Gul, A.A.G., Malik Zubair Khalid, Standing Counsel, Zaka-ur-Rehman, Addl. A.G. along with Farrukh Sher Gondal, Excise and Taxation Officer Motor Registering Authoritys\nTaffazul H. Rizvi, Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Muhammad Azhar Siddique, Zia Haider Rizvi, Ms. Najma Rasheed, Shahid Mahmood Sheikh, Shahbaz Butt, Salman Akram Raja, Ras Tariq Ch., Fozi Zafar, Shahid Azeem, Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq, Muhammad Kashif Chaudhry, Arshad Malik, Nasar Ahmad, Asjad Saeed, Hafeez-ur-Rehman, Labeeb Zafar Bajwa, Muhammad Ashraf Joya, Rana Muhammad Zahid, Atif Amin, Malik Ahsan Mehmood, Kamran Masood Mirza, Malik Asad Rasool Khan, Jawad Hassan, Sh. Muhammad Umar, Khurram Hussain, Muhammad Anwar Khokhari, Mirza Abbas Baig, Pir. S.A. Rashid, Ijaz Ahmad Awan, Nouman Mushtaq Awan, Komal Malik Awan, Mian Waheed Nazir, Muhammad Arif Mehdi, Ata-ul-Mustafa Rizvi, Moazim Ali Shah, M. Iqbal, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Muhammad Javed Arshad and Sher Zaman Khan for Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "Syed MUHAMMAD MURTAZA ZAIDI\nvs\nMOTOR REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 94 = 2010 SLD 94 = (2010) 101 TAX 370 = 2010 PTD 1881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Gifted Prize Bonds\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessee contested inclusion of gifted prize bonds under deemed income provisions.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nPrize bonds do not equate to cash as required under Section 12(18).\no\nCross-cheque or banking channel transactions apply only to cash gifts.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAddition deleted; Tribunal upheld Appellate Authority’s finding.\no\nReferences: PLD 1985 SC 159.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 643/IB of 2003, decision dated: 21st February, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Shakoor, D.R.. Sikandar Hayat", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 95 = 2010 SLD 95 = (2010) 101 TAX 417 = 2010 PTD 1998", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Orders Without Written Basis\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nProceedings initiated without a formal written order by the Assessing Officer.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nIT-30 form and demand notice fulfill requirements under Section 59(1) when declared income is accepted.\no\nAdditional proceedings justified when discrepancies arise in wealth statements.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld initiation of proceedings; appeal dismissed.\no\nReferences: 2003 PTD 2276 (Trib.); 1998 PTD 3718 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 67(PB) of 2002, decision dated: 8-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmed. Khawaja Sadar Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 133 = 2011 SLD 133 = (2011) 103 TAX 113 = 2010 PTD 2261 = 2011 PTR 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices to Non-Resident Assessees\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessment order passed ex parte as the assessee, a non-resident, was not served personally, nor was a statutory representative appointed.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nTaxation Officer must first appoint a representative for a non-resident after providing them an opportunity to respond.\no\nNon-service and lack of proper representation rendered the assessment unenforceable.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal delay condoned; case remanded for a decision on merits.\no\nReferences: 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1466; 2009 PTD 1067 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,137(2),172 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.472/IB of 2010, decision dated: 2-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINIMS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Atif Waheed Advocate/A.R..\nZiaullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 96 = 2010 SLD 96 = (2010) 102 TAX 505 = 2010 PTD 2197 = 2011 PTR 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Compensation for Delayed Refund\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nCompensation for delayed refund was treated as a capital receipt by Commissioner (Appeals). The department argued it was a revenue receipt.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nNature of the receipt—capital or revenue—requires detailed examination.\no\nCompensation for delayed refunds needs to align with legal principles.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nCase remanded for reconsideration under applicable law.\no\nReferences: 2003 PTD 1436; 2006 PTD 1800.\nc", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5A),131,170,171 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.147/KB of 2010, decision dated: 8-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAEED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Gohar Ali, D.R.. Ms. Lubna Pervez", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 97 = 2010 SLD 97 = (2010) 102 TAX 229 = 2010 PTD 2349 = 2011 PTCL 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Requirements in References and Appeals\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAppeal not accompanied by a certified copy or filed in prescribed format.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nProcedural lapses like missing certified copies or incorrect format can be overlooked if they are hyper-technical.\no\nTax deducted at source under presumptive tax regime is adjustable under Section 153(1)(b).\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal entertained; procedural issues deemed minor.\no\nReferences: Khalid Saeed v. Shamim Rizwan 2003 SCMR 1505.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,115(4),153(1) ", + "Case #": "T.R. Nos. 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 of 2008, heard on 12-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TARIQ, JAVAID AND SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Asghar Saroha. Malik Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, LEGAL DIVISION, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs CRESS GAS CARRIERS, SAHIWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 98 = 2010 SLD 98 = (2010) 101 TAX 527 = 2010 PTD 2367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection Without Prior Notice\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAudit initiated without prior notice or justification under Section 177(4).\n2.\nFindings:\no\nAbsence of criteria and failure to issue notice rendered the selection void.\no\nFiscal statute ambiguities should be resolved in favor of taxpayers.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAudit selection quashed; tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer.\no\nReferences: Mohsin Raza v. Chairman F.B.R. 2009 PTD 1507.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,161,177(2),177(4)(b)177(4)(d),205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.336/IB and 417/IB of 2009, decision dated: 6-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz M. Idrees Advocate and Abdul Basit, F.C.A. for the Appellant. Shahid Iqbal, L.A. and Sardar Ali Khawaja, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 99 = 2010 SLD 99 = (2010) 101 TAX 541 = 2010 PTD 2414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Evidence in Investments\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nInvestment from the sale of agrarian land disputed due to lack of documentation.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nIllness and death of the authorized representative impacted evidence submission.\no\nReconciliation and jurisdiction issues necessitated further inquiry.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAssessment set aside; case remanded for reevaluation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,132(1)(a)(i),13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.767/IB of 2003, decision dated: 27-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR-UL-HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tabraz Ahmed Qureshi. Abdul Shakoor, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 100 = 2010 SLD 100 = 2010 PTD 2483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Cooperative Housing Societies\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nSociety claimed exemption under the doctrine of mutuality.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nMutuality doctrine applies if profits are used exclusively for members' welfare.\no\nTribunal directed a lawful and reasoned decision after hearing.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nCase remanded for proper assessment.\no\nReferences: PLD 1977 Lah. 345.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.78/LB and 79/LB of 2010, decision dated: 19-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. Muhammad Jameel Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 101 = 2010 SLD 101 = (2010) 102 TAX 253 = 2010 PTD 2490 = 2011 PTR 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax Defaults and Concessional Rates\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTax deducted at concessional rates for retiring employees under a Voluntary Separation Scheme.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nWithholding agent must deduct tax at prescribed rates unless proof of concessional eligibility is submitted.\no\nAdditional tax applies for delayed payments.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nCase remanded to verify options filed for concessional rates.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,12(6),149(2),205,12(8),205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.750/IB of 2009, decision dated: 4-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Amin Shah, F.C.A.. Shahid Iqbal, L.A. and Sardar Ali Khawaja, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 120 = 2008 SLD 120 = 2008 PTD 787 = (2008) 97 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Presumptive Taxation and Jurisdictional Errors\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTax officer’s order challenged for lack of jurisdiction and improper procedure.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nJurisdiction lies with the relevant LTU for large taxpayers.\no\nPresumptive tax issues must align with procedural and jurisdictional mandates.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nOrders vacated; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,129,153 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5924/LB to 5928/LB, 1582/LB to 1587/LB of 2005 and 6979/LB of 2004, decision dated: 17-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfar Hussain, DRs (in I.T.As. Nos.5924/LB to 5928/LB of 2005)\nAsim Zulifqar Ali, ACA and Humayun Hayat, ACAs (in I.T.As. Nos.5924/LB to 5928/LB of 2005)\nAsim Zulifqar Ali, ACA and Humayun Hayat, ACAs (in I.T.As. Nos.1682/LB to 1587/LB of 2004 and 6979.LB of 2004)\nGhazanfar Hussain, DRs (in I.T. As. Nos.1682/LB to 1587/LB of 2004 and 6979.LB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 121 = 2008 SLD 121 = 2008 PTD 797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Ex Parte Assessments\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessment completed without providing the assessee an opportunity to respond.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nNon-compliance and lack of notice violated natural justice principles.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman identified maladministration.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAssessment set aside; case remanded for a fresh hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1171-K of 2003, decision dated: 13-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Asghar Abbas, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Amin-ud-Din Ansari for the Complainant. Ms. Naheed Azhar, I.A.C., along with Saadullah ITO", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PLAYWAY NURSERY & PRIMARY SCHOOL, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD of REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 122 = 2008 SLD 122 = 2008 PTD 800 = (2008) 97 TAX 153 = (2008) 97 TAX 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Export-Related Interest Income\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessee contested taxation of interest income under “Income from Other Sources.”\n2.\nFindings:\no\nIf interest arises from export exigencies, it is exempt.\no\nTribunal directed reassessment to verify the source of deposits.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAssessment remanded for detailed verification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31,80CC,143B,50(5A),62 Income Tax Rules, 1982=190(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1663/LB to 1667/LB of 2006, decision dated: 18-10-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.. Rizwan Arshad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 123 = 2008 SLD 123 = 2008 PTD 805", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Based on Blanket Agreements\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nTaxpayers disputed audits initiated under agreements between tax authorities and professional associations.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nAgreements lacking statutory backing are not enforceable.\no\nTax assessment must adhere to legal provisions, not blanket agreements.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nProceedings closed due to lack of maladministration evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62,63 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1072 of 2003, decision dated: 8-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Muhammad Anwar Bhatti for the Complainant. M. Nawaz Ahmad, I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAFIQUE CENTRE, GOJRA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 124 = 2008 SLD 124 = 2008 PTCL 378 = (2008) 98 TAX 2 = 2000 PTD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gross Profit Rate Consistency\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nRetail departmental store’s gross profit rates were accepted in prior assessments.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nPrinciple of consistency upheld due to absence of material changes.\no\nTribunal’s acceptance of gross profit rate endorsed.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nReference answered in favor of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 466 of 1990, decision dated: 31st August, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Munawar Hassan, holding brief on behalf of Faroagh Naseem", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CASH & CARRY SUPER MARKET LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 125 = 2008 SLD 125 = 2008 PTD 811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Reopened Assessments\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nAssessment made while a transfer application was pending before the Commissioner.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nHasty assessment without waiting for a transfer decision indicates malice.\no\nNatural justice principles violated.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended inquiry against the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1085 of 2003, decision dated: 15-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Syed Anees Ahmad for the Complainant. Tahir Tanveer, D.C.I.T. and Hussain Shahzad Raja, Taxation Officer", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GHOUSIA TRAVELS, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 102 = 2010 SLD 102 = (2010) 101 TAX 100 = 2011 PTD 1296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim and Maladministration\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the tax department process and issue the complainant's refund claim, but the department delayed compliance and filed a review petition.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe recommendation was well-reasoned, with no errors in the record.\no\nThe department's negligence and arbitrary delay constituted maladministration.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nReview petition rejected.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed the identification of officers responsible for the delay and initiation of contempt proceedings under S.16 of the Ombudsman Ordinance.\no\nReference: 2004 PTD 2915.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10 ", + "Case #": "Review Application No.10 of 2009 in Complaint No.1620-L of 2008, decision dated: 31st December, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt, Authorized Representative. Munim Sultan, Advocate/LA Javed Shahryar, Additional Commissioner, Ms. Samia Ijaz, DCIT, Ms. Sairah Bano, DCIT, Babar Chohan DCIT, Ali Mansoor ACIT, Adnan Khan ACIT, Ehsanur Rehman Sh., Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SPEL FUJIYA LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 134 = 2011 SLD 134 = 2011 PTD 1442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Capital Value Tax (CVT)\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nRegistrar refused to register a sale deed due to alleged CVT deficiencies. The petitioner sought relief via constitutional jurisdiction, bypassing alternate remedies.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nAdequacy of alternate remedies depends on their efficacy, cost, and timeliness.\no\nThe petitioner’s right to property was impaired by delays in registration.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nPetition allowed; CVT guidelines found inconsistent with the Punjab Finance Act.\no\nDouble taxation was ruled impermissible unless explicitly stated by the legislature.\no\nReferences: 1992 SCMR 250; Municipal Council, Kota v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 1060.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Finance Act, 2010=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3681 of 2011, decision dated: 13-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ali Zafar along with Talib Hussain for Petitioner. Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Asstt. A.G., Punjab, Khawaja Salman Mahmood, Asstt. A.G., Punjab and Tariq Saeed Khan, Senior Law Officer Board of Revenue, Punjabs", + "Party Name:": "ALLIED BANK LTD\nvs\nDISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) and other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 5 = 2009 SLD 5 = 2009 PTD 173 = (2008) 98 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision by Commissioner and Rectification of Mistakes\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe Commissioner invoked S.122A of the Income Tax Ordinance for a revision, allegedly without suo motu authority.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nSection 122A requires the Commissioner to act suo motu; invoking the section upon the suggestion of another officer violates its spirit.\no\nRevisional orders must comply with procedural and substantive legal requirements.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nOrder annulled; the Commissioner’s action was ruled ultra vires.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,122A,122(5A),127 General Clauses Act, 1897=21(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1262/LB to 1266/LB of 2007, decision dated: 1st September, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R., Ghulam Kazim Hussain IAC (MN) and Akram Khan ITO (MN)s. Niaz Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 6 = 2009 SLD 6 = 2009 PTD 654 = (2009) 99 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit and Amendment of Assessment\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nThe department challenged the First Appellate Authority’s annulment of a Taxation Officer's amendment disallowing tax credit under S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nTax credit provisions under Ss.107A and 107AA override conflicting provisions like S.80-D.\no\nTaxation Officer’s actions contravened the legislative intent and procedural requirements.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppeals dismissed; First Appellate Authority’s annulment upheld.\no\nReferences: 1993 SCMR 274; 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1780.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,107AA,80D,221,122,129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.644/KB, 645/KB, 947/KB and 948/KB of 2005, decision dated: 16-12-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farrukh Ansari, D.R.. Abid Shaban and Jan-e-Alam, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 7 = 2009 SLD 7 = 2009 PTD 744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer Tax on Immovable Property\n1.\nCase Background:\no\nDispute arose over whether the applicable transfer tax rate was determined on the date of auction or registration of the sale deed.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nTax becomes due when the sale deed is registered, per R.4(1) of the Punjab Government Rules.\no\nAuthorities’ decision to apply the auction date rate lacked legal validity.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nPetition allowed; transfer tax was directed to be levied at the rate prevailing on the date of registration.\no\nReferences: 2003 YLR 2640; PLD 2006 SC 302.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1686 of 2002, heard on 15-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Sh. for Petitioner. Hafiz S.A. Rehman. Syed Husnain Kazmi, A.A.G", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IMPERIAL BUILDERS through Manager\nvs\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Legal Government and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 8 = 2009 SLD 8 = 2009 PTD 677 = (2009) 99 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Gratuity Fund and First-Year Allowance\n1.\nGratuity Fund:\no\nPayments to an approved gratuity fund are allowable as deductions under S.24(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority's approval of such deductions, based on compliance with the law, was upheld.\no\nReferences: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 2237.\n2.\nFirst-Year Allowance:\no\nService industries, including banking and insurance, qualify as industrial undertakings eligible for first-year allowance under R. 5A of the Third Schedule.\no\nThe Taxation Officer's interpretation that only manufacturing industries qualify was deemed incorrect.\no\nReferences: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1499; 2004 PTD 1666.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,ThirdSched.,5A, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 107/KB and 169/KB of 2004, decision dated: 16-12-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmatullah Wazir, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 107/KB of 2004)\nMuhammad Arshad, F.C.A. and Zubair Abdul Sattar, F.C.A.s (in I.T.A. No. 107/KB of 2004)\nMuhammad Arshad, F.C.A. and Zubair Abdul Sattar, F.C.A.s (in I.T.A. No. 169/KB of 2004)\nRehmatullah Wazir, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 169/KB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 9 = 2009 SLD 9 = 2009 PTD 927 = (2009) 99 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit of Medical Practitioner and Admissibility of Expenses\n1.\nAudit Proceedings:\no\nThe Taxation Officer's ex parte assessment lacked adherence to Part-VIII of Chapter X of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nFixing a percentage (15% or 55%) for allowable expenses is contrary to the law's requirement for admissibility and verifiability of each expense.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe case was remanded with directions to evaluate expenses in line with statutory provisions and provide the taxpayer with a reasonable opportunity to explain.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,174(2),120,Chap.X,Part-VIII Income Tax Rules, 2002=30(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.94/IB of 2008, decision dated: 2-08-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Alam Khan, D.R.. Respondent in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 10 = 2009 SLD 10 = 2009 PTD 938 = (2009) 99 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Export Quota Sales and Deferred Costs\n1.\nExport Quota Sales:\no\nIncome from the sale of export quotas does not qualify as export sales proceeds under S.22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 unless actual foreign exchange is realized.\no\nThe case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to determine the taxability after clarifying relevant facts.\n2.\nDeferred Costs:\no\nConsistency in tax treatment requires allowing amortization of deferred costs recognized in prior years.\n3.\nRectification of Initial Depreciation:\no\nS.23(5) amendments clarified that initial depreciation is retroactive.\no\nRectification disallowing initial depreciation was found improper.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,23(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2237/LB of 2005 and 1223/LB of 2006, decision dated: 2-07-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Jalal Ahsan, F.C.A.. Jan Muhammad Ch. L.A. and Muhammad Aslam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 11 = 2009 SLD 11 = 2009 PTD 947 = (2009) 99 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Powers and Deletion of Penalties\n1.\nRectification:\no\nA First Appellate Authority cannot recall its decision under S.221(1) for rectification when it involves reappraisal of facts or evidence.\no\nOutcome: Rectification order was vacated by the Appellate Tribunal.\n2.\nPenalties:\no\nPenalties imposed for failure to file returns and comply with notices were deleted as there was no evidence of intentional concealment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,182,184,186 & 114(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.277/IB to 280/IB of 2008, decision dated: 27-08-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zaheer Qureshi, D R. Khalid Masood", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 12 = 2009 SLD 12 = 2009 PTD 953 = (2009) 99 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Purchases\n1.\nDiesel and Buses:\no\nPayments for diesel purchases are exempt from tax deduction under S.R.O. No. 586(I)/91.\no\nTax deductions for bus purchases were deleted as the recipient discharged its tax liability.\no\nReferences: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2883.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.595/LB of 2005, decision dated: 3rd June, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Muhammad Akram Khan, D.R.,. Ahmad Nauman, I.T.P./A.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 13 = 2009 SLD 13 = (2009) 100 TAX 274 = 2009 PTD 955", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Role of the President in Federal Tax Ombudsman Appeals\n1.\nQuasi-Judicial Role:\no\nThe President acts in a quasi-judicial capacity under S.32 of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\no\nDecisions must include recorded reasons, ensuring alignment with principles of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11983 of 2005, decision dated: 20-03-2009, hearing DATE : 13-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, C, J. AND RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan, Legal Advisor for Income Tax Department. Aamir Rehman, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAHIB JEE\nvs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 14 = 2009 SLD 14 = 2009 PTD 961 = (2009) 99 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption and Minimum Tax\n1.\nExemption:\no\nProvisions of S.80-D do not apply when the taxpayer enjoys exemptions under Cl.126-D of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nReferences: 1997 PTD 1555; 2001 PTD 1829.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,SecondSched.,(126D),80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5930/LB of 2003, 3584/LB of 2004, 4862/LB and 4863/LB of 2005, decision dated: 13-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt, A.R.. Masood Akhtar Shaheedi, D.R. (ITU)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 15 = 2009 SLD 15 = 2009 PTD 982 = (2009) 99 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Assessments and Proration of Sales\n1.\nSales Tax and Proration:\no\nSales tax included in sales figures for proration was erroneous as it led to inflated deductions.\no\nOutcome: Tribunal upheld the revision under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.51/LB of 2007 in I.T.A. No.7490/LB of 2005, decision dated: 17-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. M. Iqbal, A.R.. Dr. Malik Muhammad Khan, D.R. (IT.U.) Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 16 = 2009 SLD 16 = (2009) 100 TAX 30 = 2009 PTD 1117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay and Filing Under Presumptive Tax Regime\n1.\nCondonation:\no\nAppeals filed late due to the taxpayer's absence were condoned, showing sufficient cause.\n2.\nPresumptive Tax Regime:\no\nFiling statements under S.115(4) does not constitute opting for the Presumptive Tax Regime unless explicitly stated in writing.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=115,122(4),115(4),Second Schedule,Part-IV Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143B,SecondSchedule ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Cond.) No.1/LB of 2009 and I.T.A. No.1028/LB of 2008, decision dated: 20-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAD MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ANWAR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Atta-ur-Rehman, ITP.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 17 = 2009 SLD 17 = 2009 PTD 996 = (2009) 99 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Software Engineering Services\n1.\nSoftware Services:\no\nIncome from software services does not fall under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\no\nThe Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision to treat such income under the normal tax regime.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,80C(2)(a)(i),143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1385/LB of 2006, decision dated: 3rd June, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. M. Akram Khan, D.R.. Abdul Hameed Ch., F.C.A./A.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 18 = 2009 SLD 18 = (2009) 100 TAX 92 = 2009 PTD 1136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments and Additional Assessments\n1.\nReopening Assessments:\no\nAssessments can only be reopened based on definite information indicating concealment.\n2.\nLegal Principles:\no\nDiscrepancies in procedural compliance invalidate assessments.\no\nLegal pleas impacting the root of a case may be raised at any stage.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,13(1)(aa),59(1),65(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1316/LB to 1318/LB of 2002, decision dated: 3rd February, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ANWAR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulifqar Ali Sh., ITP for Applicant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 19 = 2009 SLD 19 = 2009 PTD 1149 = (2009) 99 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Rates for Petroleum Companies\n1.\nAgreement-Specified Rates:\no\nThe tax rate for petroleum companies engaged in production prior to 26-9-1954 remains fixed at 50% as per the agreement with the Government of Pakistan.\no\nProvisions of S.26(b) and the Fifth Schedule confirm the rate remains unaffected by subsequent changes in the law.\no\nOutcome: The Assessing Officer and appellate authorities correctly upheld the 50% rate.\n2.\nProviso to S.26(b):\no\nThe proviso applies only to companies achieving commercial production before 24-9-1954.\no\nThe assessee failed to provide evidence of production before this date, making the proviso inapplicable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26,26(b),FirstSched.,FifthSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 394/IB and 395/IB of 2008, decision dated: 27-11-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Mehmood, F.C.A.. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 20 = 2009 SLD 20 = 2009 PTD 1155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Processing Refund\n•\nMaladministration:\no\nA lapse of four years in deciding whether to comply with a refund order under S.156 constitutes maladministration.\no\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Commissioner expedite action under S.122 and conduct an inquiry into the delay.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=122,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1393-L of 2003, decision dated: 1st April, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mushtaq, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Nauman Ali Bukhari for the Complainant. Muhammad Asim Halim, DCIT for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL RASHEED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 21 = 2009 SLD 21 = 2009 PTD 1163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exclusion from Self-Assessment Scheme\n1.\nShort Documents Notice:\no\nThe Assessing Officer's action to exclude the return from the Self-Assessment Scheme was arbitrary and lacked proper documentation.\no\nEvidence of interpolation in the order sheet undermined the validity of the exclusion.\n2.\nMaladministration:\no\nThe process employed was unjust and fell under maladministration.\no\nOutcome: The exclusion was reversed, and the return was accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61,32A,80DD Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(b),9(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1291 of 2003, decision dated: 12-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Zahid Hussain, ACMA, AR along with Sajid Hussain, Accountant for the Complainant. Faheem Muhammad, DCIT Companies Zone, Peshawar for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHINIOT ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., HARIPUR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 22 = 2009 SLD 22 = (2009) 100 TAX 346 = 2009 PTCL 269 = 2009 PTD 1167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Supply vs. Sale\n1.\nDefinitions:\no\n Supply implies a contractual and specific delivery of goods, while sale includes broader transactions.\no\nOnly supplies, not general purchases, are subject to withholding tax under S.50(4).\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Tribunal distinguished between the two terms, limiting tax deductions to supplies.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),52 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 175 of 2001, heard on 14-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner. Ch. Shehram Sarwar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs CRESCENT FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 126 = 2008 SLD 126 = 2008 PTD 812 = (2008) 98 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay\n•\nDelay in Complaint Filing:\no\nThe Ombudsman entertained the complaint without addressing a one year and nine months delay.\no\nOutcome: Such delays should not be assumed to have been condoned without explicit justification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-142 of 2007, decision dated: 8-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND FARRUKH ZIA SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Younus. Sofia Saeed Shah and Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs QAZI GULFRAZ through Proprietor\nvs\nPRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN, PRESIDENT, SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 127 = 2008 SLD 127 = 2008 PTD 819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Based on Inspector's Report\n1.\nInspector's Report:\no\nThe report claiming the taxpayer was a petition writer lacked credible evidence.\no\nCertificates from advocates confirmed the taxpayer’s visits were related to land cases, not petition writing.\n2.\nMaladministration:\no\nRelying on an unsubstantiated report constituted maladministration.\no\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended cancellation of the assessments and action against the involved officials.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61,62 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1415 of 2003, decision dated: 17-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Sher Muhammad for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, D.C.I.T", + "Party Name:": "Ch. SHER MUHA.MMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 128 = 2008 SLD 128 = 2008 PTD 833", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Appeal Effect and Refund\n•\nDelayed Refund:\no\nThe department delayed the refund due to failure to implement an appellate tribunal's order.\no\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the department to process the refund with compensation under S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100,62,66A,156,89 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171,170 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1653-K of 2003, decision dated: 16-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Nasser, Dealing Officer. M.D. Gangat, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Dr. Tauqeer Irtiza, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WORLDWIDE MOTORS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 129 = 2008 SLD 129 = 2008 PTD 848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption in Tribal Areas\n1.\nExemption Status:\no\nTaxation provisions were not extended to the complainant’s tribal area, making the tax deduction under S.50(4) unlawful.\no\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed rectification and a refund.\n2.\nMaladministration:\no\nThe refusal to refund constituted maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(2),50(4),59A,80C,143B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a),(b),(V) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.306 of 2004, decision dated: 18-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer) Ahmed Munir for the Complainant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "AHMED MUNIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 130 = 2008 SLD 130 = 2008 PTD 851 = (2008) 97 TAX 396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Penalty Imposition\n•\nTime Barred Penalty:\no\nPenalty imposed after eight years was barred by mandatory provisions of the law.\no\nOutcome: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,116,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6218/LB of 2005, decision dated: 1st September, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 131 = 2008 SLD 131 = 2008 PTD 853 = (2004) 90 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Denial Without Justification\n1.\nCredit for Payment:\no\nThe department’s refusal to allow credit for tax paid was without lawful justification, amounting to maladministration.\no\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the refund within 30 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,56,63,62,132,13(1)(aa),143B Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1502-K of 2003, decision dated: 3rd January, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Asghar Abbas, Consultant (Officer). Mehtab Khan for the Complainant. Ejaz Asad Rasul, I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "Syed HUSSAIN ASIF, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 132 = 2008 SLD 132 = 2008 PTD 859 = (2008) 97 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Order on Authorized Representative\n1.\nService Requirements:\no\nS.129(4) mandates orders be served on the appellant and the Commissioner, not just the authorized representative.\no\nOutcome: Delay in service justified condonation of the appellant's late appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=129,129(4), & 131(2)(d), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(4) ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Cond.) Nos. 13/LB to 15/LB and I.T.As. Nos.361/LB to 363/LB of 2007, decision dated: 1st September, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwaar-ul-Haq for Applicant. Rana Javed Iqbal, C.I.T.(LTU)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 133 = 2008 SLD 133 = 2008 PTD 877 = (2008) 98 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Res Judicata in Tax Proceedings\n1.\nApplicability of Res Judicata:\no\nThe principle does not apply to tax proceedings as each year is independent.\no\nOutcome: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s proposed questions as they did not raise any legal issue.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos.56 to.59 of 2005 and C.T.R. No.3 of 2007, decision dated: 14-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar ul Haq. Sajjad Ali Jaffari", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 134 = 2008 SLD 134 = 2008 PTD 896", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Rectification in Ex Parte Assessments\n1.\nBest Assessment Standard:\no\nAn ex parte assessment must adhere to a best judgment standard, considering reasonable and justifiable deductions.\no\nThe ex parte assessment lacked allowances for legitimate expenses.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) recommended setting aside the order and passing a fresh order following the appellate directions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,23,61,62,63,66A,132,156(3),102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1389-K of 2003, decision dated: 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Asghar Abbas, Consultant (Officer). Abdul Razak along with Khaleeq Ahmed, Manager Finance for the Complainant. Sohaib Ahmed Sehi, I.A.C. for and Saleem Pervaiz, A.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "KHALEEQ AHMED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 135 = 2008 SLD 135 = 2008 PTD 901 = (2008) 97 TAX 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Declared Sales and Depreciation Allowances\n1.\nDeclared Sales and Gross Profit:\no\nThe Taxation Officer unjustifiably rejected sales and expenses despite the evidence provided.\no\nThe gross profit rate of 2.9% was reasonable for a new flour mill, comparable to established mills.\n2.\nDepreciation Claim:\no\nDepreciation for the full year must be allowed, irrespective of machinery usage duration.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal accepted declared sales, gross profit, and depreciation claims.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6998/LB and 6999/Lii of 2005, decision dated: 4-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Muhammad Yousaf, I.T.P.,. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 136 = 2008 SLD 136 = 2008 PTD 908", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Service of Notices\n1.\nService Irregularities:\no\nNotices were improperly served and consolidated assessments for three years relied on vague and incorrect data.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended canceling the ex parte assessments and ordered corrective actions and retraining of officials involved.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,56,58 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1332-L of 2003, decision dated: 21st November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Adviser (Dealing Officer). M. Ijaz Bhatti for the Complainant. Dr. Muhammad Idrees (D.C.I.T.)", + "Party Name:": "SHAHZAD KAJ OVERLOCK\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 137 = 2008 SLD 137 = 2008 PTD 916 = (2008) 97 TAX 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Insurance Company Expenses\n1.\nCommission Expenses:\no\nDisallowed entries for commission transactions were upheld as legitimate expenses.\n2.\nManagement Expenses:\no\nThe disallowance was based on obsolete provisions. The tribunal upheld that no restrictions applied.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nDisallowances were deleted by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(c),50(4A),FourthSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1386/LB of 2006, decision dated: 1st September, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.. Iqbal Hashmi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 138 = 2008 SLD 138 = 2008 PTD 920", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Forgery in Service of Notice\n1.\nFraudulent Notice:\no\nSignatures on the notice were forged, invalidating the proceedings.\no\nThe Additional Assessment Order relied on pre-existing data, lacking definite information. \n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended canceling the assessment and disciplinary action against the responsible officer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,154 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1245-L of 2003, decision dated: 22-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Safdar Hussain Nagra for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain (D.C.I.T.)", + "Party Name:": "Malik TANVEER ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 139 = 2008 SLD 139 = 2008 PTD 925", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment under Incorrect Provisions\n1.\nExport Income Misclassification:\no\nExport income was incorrectly assessed under S.63 instead of S.80-CC, despite evidence of export documents.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the rectification application.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,80CC,134,156 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1927 of 1999, heard on 2-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson", + "Party Name:": "FAISALABAD TEXTILE CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEALTH TAX COMPANIES RANGEIV, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 140 = 2008 SLD 140 = 2008 PTD 929 = (2008) 97 TAX 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Irrevocable Presumptive Tax Regime\n1.\nIncorrect Amendment of Assessment:\no\nTaxpayer's lack of written declaration for presumptive tax regime made amendments under S.122(5A) invalid.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nOrders were canceled, and declared versions were accepted with refund directions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),122(3),114(6)177(4)(6),115(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,143B,50(4),SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 536/LB and 537/LB of 2006, decision dated: 2-07-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zeeshan Riaz, A.C.A.. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 141 = 2008 SLD 141 = 2008 PTD 936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Amnesty Scheme\n1.\nUnjust Notice and Assessment:\no\nThe notice issued two years post-declaration under the Tax Amnesty Scheme lacked procedural fairness and demonstrated mala fide intent.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended acceptance of the declaration and withdrawal of subsequent proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),63,59D ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1296-K of 2003, decision dated: 16-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahida Taj, Director (Dealing Officer). Ch. Zahoor Elahi Bhatti and Inayatullah Khan for the Complainant. Abid Mahmood, D.C.I.T./T.O.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUSAF\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 142 = 2008 SLD 142 = 2008 PTD 940", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal of Exemption Certificate\n1.\nEfficacy of Remedy:\no\nThe High Court overruled the department's denial of exemption based on accrued rights and substantial losses.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nA one-time exemption certificate was issued, with future assessments subject to verification.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(6),159 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.334 of 2008, decision dated: 4-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil", + "Party Name:": "INDUS JUTE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONI, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 143 = 2008 SLD 143 = 2008 PTD 941", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Adjustment and Harassment\n1.\nRefund Adjustment Against Sales Tax:\no\nDepartmental refusal to adjust income tax refunds against sales tax liabilities caused undue hardship.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended issuing refunds, allowing adjustments, and withdrawing penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=104 Sales Tax Act, 1990=6(2),26(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-694/K of 2003, decision dated: 8-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Athar Saeed, Advocate. Moshin Waheed, ACA. Misri Ladhani, Additional L.T.U. Abdul Hameed Memon, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax L.T.U.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BAYER CROPSCIENCE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 144 = 2008 SLD 144 = 2008 PTD 965 = (2008) 98 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Opportunity for Personal Hearing\n1.\nPresidential Decision:\no\nRepresentations accepted without personal hearing were valid if parties had prior notice and opportunity to file comments.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nDivision Bench upheld the President's order, allowing intra-court appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32 ", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.296 of 2004 in Writ Petition No.17565 of 2003, heard on 20-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, C.J. AND ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistans. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid Khan No. 1", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD and another\nvs\nAKHLAQ CLOTH HOUSE, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 145 = 2008 SLD 145 = 2008 PTD 970 = (2004) 90 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Summary Rejection of Refund Application\n1.\nViolation of Principles:\no\nRejecting refund claims without notice or hearing violated procedural laws.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO directed a fresh decision on the refund claim with proper hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114(6),122,122(9),170(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7A),62,143B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b),11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1609-K of 2003, decision dated: 5-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Asghar Abbas, Consultant (Officer) Azhar Chaudhry for the Complainant Ejaz Asad Rasul, I.A.C. and Dr. Tariq Ghani, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COMMODITY LINKS INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 146 = 2008 SLD 146 = 2008 PTD 975", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Based on Joint Ownership\n1.\nImproper Framing of Assessment:\no\nRevenue failed to prove sole proprietorship in the property.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended revising the assessment and determining rental income with proper notices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,21,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a)(b),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1485-L of 2003, decision dated: 15-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mushtaq, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Latif Ahmad Qureshi for the Complainant. Muzammal Hussain Butt, D.C.I.T. for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "TARIQ AZIZ MALIK\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 147 = 2008 SLD 147 = 2008 PTD 986", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction and Negligence\n1.\nNegligence in Allowance of Deductions:\no\nThe department failed to explain partial credit for deductions.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO directed addressing refund claims and initiating disciplinary action against responsible officers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1499-K of 2003, decision dated: 27-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Asghar Abbas, Consultant (Officer). Haider Naqvi for the Complainant. Mrs. Adeela Bokhari, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Syed MUHAMMAD AHMAD NAQVI, PROPRIETOR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 148 = 2008 SLD 148 = 2008 PTD 991", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Delayed Refund\n1.\nCompensation Period:\no\nCompensation for delays in refund issuance was owed from three months after the appellate order.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO directed issuance of refunds with compensation under S.171 of the Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 Finance Act, 1985=102(2)(a),135,171 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1636-K of 2003, decision dated: 3rd April, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Asghar Abbas, Consultant (Officer) Raza Merchant for the Complainant Tauqeer Irtaza, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAZIR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 149 = 2008 SLD 149 = 2008 PTD 998", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Collected by WAPDA\n1.\nRefund on Excessive Collection:\no\nTax deducted by WAPDA was refundable as it exceeded liability under S.50(7-E).\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended allowing refunds and eliminating discriminatory practices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7E)(7-H),80C(3),143B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.181-L of 2004, decision dated: 4-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Karamat Ullah, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Rana ABDUL SHAKOOR KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 150 = 2008 SLD 150 = 2008 PTD 1007 = (2008) 97 TAX 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Public Holiday in Assessments\n1.\nInvalid Order on Public Holiday:\no\nAssessments made on a public holiday were deemed void for exceeding statutory deadlines.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO annulled the assessments and upheld the educational institution's exemption claim.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,64,64(3),Second SchedulePart-I,Clause86 General Clauses Act, 1897=20A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6557/IB, 6558/IB 1475/IB, 1486/IB of 2005 and 1170/IB to 1172/IB of 2006, decision dated: 8-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, CHAIRPERSON\nMUHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleem Ahmed, I.T.P. and Khawaja Ali Rauf (I.T.As. Nos.6557/IB, 6558/IB of 2005 and 1170/IB to 1172/IB of 2006). \nNemo (I.T.As. Nos. 6557/IB, 6558/IB of 2005 and 1170/IB to 1172/IB of 2006). \nNemo (I.T.As. Nos. 1475/IB and 1476/IB of 2005). \nSaleem Ahmed, I.T.P. and Khawaja Ali Rauf (I.T.As. Nos. 1475/IB and 1476/IB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 151 = 2008 SLD 151 = 2008 PTD 1036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) and Self-Assessment Scheme\n1.\nJurisdiction of FTO:\no\nFTO can investigate maladministration even in assessment cases, reinforcing its broad scope under the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme (2002-2003):\no\nA return accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme was improperly subjected to random balloting and subsequent assessment proceedings without justification.\no\nFTO recommended the proceedings be dropped, and the return be accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.960-L of 2003, decision dated: 3rd October, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Javed Iqbal Qazi for the Complainant. S.M. Ali, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Sh. WAJID ALI, Proprietor\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 152 = 2008 SLD 152 = 2008 PTD 1040 = (2008) 97 TAX 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Rejection of Books of Accounts and Allowance Claims\n1.\nRejection of Books of Accounts:\no\nBooks were rejected without confrontation, violating the requirements of S.62, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nTribunal annulled the assessment and directed acceptance of the declared version.\n2.\nDeductions and Claims:\no\nClaims for bad debts and leasehold improvements were disallowed arbitrarily, despite being legitimate under law and precedent.\no\nTribunal deleted disallowances and directed equal treatment for similar claims.\n3.\nMercantile Accounting:\no\nExpenses disallowed for non-payment in the booked year were reversed, upholding accrual principles under S.23.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,23,62,50,SecondSched,24(b),52,80c Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1373/LB, 4335/LB, 2947/LB of 1997, 5487/LB, 5378/LB of 1999, 2641/LB, 2996/LB of 2000, 3227/LB of 2002, 5162/LB, 5174/LB of 2003, 3922/LB to 3924/LB, 5129/LB to 5131/LB of 2004 and 1530 of 2005, decision dated: 23rd January, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, A.C.A. and Humayun Hayat, A.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.1373/LB, 4335/LB, 2947/LB of 1997, 5487/LB of 1999, 2641/LB of 2000, 3227/LB of 2002, 3922/LB to 3924/LB of 2004)\nGhazanfar Hussain, DR (L.T.U.) (in I.T.As. Nos.1373/LB, 4335/LB, 2947/LB of 1997, 5487/LB of 1999, 2641/LB of 2000, 3227/LB of 2002, 3922/LB to 3924/LB of 2004)\nGhazanfar Hussain, DR (L.T.U.) (in I.T.As. Nos.5378/LB of 1999, 2966/LB of 2000, 5129/LB to 5131/LB of 2004, 5162/LB, 5174/LB of 2003 and 1530/LB of 2005)\nAsim Zulfiqar Ali, ACA and Humayun Hayat, ACA (in I.T.As. Nos.5378/LB of 1999, 2966/LB of 2000, 5129/LB to 3031/LB of 2004, 5162/LB, 5174/LB of 2003 and 1530/LB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 23 = 2009 SLD 23 = 2009 PTD 1184 = (2004) 90 TAX 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Estimation and Administrative Excess\n1.\nSales Estimates:\no\nSales figures estimated by survey teams for the year 2002-2003 were arbitrary and unsupported by valid grounds.\no\nFTO recommended fresh inquiries and appropriate reduction in sales estimates.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.587 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Nasir Nawaz Mufti, ITP, AR for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, DCIT Circle 17, Sargodha", + "Party Name:": "Malik SHAKEEL AHMED, SHAKEEL REVRI FROSH\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 24 = 2009 SLD 24 = 2009 PTD 1187 = (2009) 99 TAX 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax, Tax Credits, and Scrap Sales\n1.\nMinimum Tax:\no\nS.80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is a charging provision, and tax credit under S.107AA is applicable against it.\n2.\nScrap Sales:\no\nScrap sales are not part of turnover or income and are not subject to tax under S.80D.\n3.\nLegal Interpretation:\no\nLater laws prevail over earlier ones when in conflict.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107AA,8000,80D-80cc Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=169 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.591/KB, 592/KB, 593/IB of 2005 and 326/KB & 69/KB of 2004, decision dated: 13-08-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVED IQBAL, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Gohar Ali, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.591/KB to 593/KB of 2005 and 326/KB of 2004)\nSheikh Jalal-ud-Din, FCA and Mr. Saif-ud-Din Adeebs (in I.T.As. Nos.591/KB to 593/KB of 2005 and 326/KB of 2004)\nSheikh Jalal-ud-Din, FCA and Mr. Saif-ud-Din Adeebs (in I.T.A. No. 69/KB of 2004)\nGohar Ali, D.K. (in I.T.A. No. 69/KB of 2004)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 25 = 2009 SLD 25 = 2009 PTD 1218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Assessments and Maladministration\n1.\nMaladministration in Assessment:\no\nArbitrary orders were passed without considering facts or grounds of appeal.\no\nFTO directed the filing of a rectification application for a speaking order by the Commissioner (Appeals).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),2(3)(i)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.280 of 2003, decision dated: 24-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Aurangzeb, ITP for the Complainant. Raza Munawar, IAC, Jhelum and Muhammad Aslam, Taxation Officer, Talagang", + "Party Name:": "Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 26 = 2009 SLD 26 = 2009 PTD 1242 = (2005) 91 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Issuance of Refunds and Procedural Failures\n1.\nRefund Claims:\no\nRefunds were delayed due to procedural lapses, including missing IT-30 forms.\no\nFTO recommended issuing refunds promptly after verification and addressing systemic issues causing delays.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Maladministration:\no\nNon-passing of assessment orders for returns accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme constituted maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120(1),170(4),164(2),165(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Rules, 2002=51,51A,52 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos.835-L and 836-L of 2004, decision dated: 27-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Nemo for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain Butt (D-CIT)", + "Party Name:": "Mst. LAIL UNNISA and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 27 = 2009 SLD 27 = 2009 PTD 1281 = (2009) 99 TAX 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Trial Production, Surcharge, and Other Income\n1.\nTrial vs. Commercial Production:\no\nIncome during trial production is taxable under normal law, as there is no separate concept in the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nInterest Income:\no\nInterest on deposits is assessable under S.30 as income from other sources. \n3.\nSurcharge on Minimum Tax:\no\nSurcharge is not leviable on minimum tax under S.80D, as it applies only to tax payable under normal provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,30,31(1)(b),80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 569/IB, 629/IB and 631/IB of 2005, decision dated: 20-11-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Ayaz, P.C.A.. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Zaheer Qureshi, D.Rs.,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 28 = 2009 SLD 28 = 2009 PTD 1297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Service of Notices and Procedural Lapses\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): S.162 and S.154.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nThe Taxation Officer treated the taxpayer as a defaulter for short tax deductions under S.154.\no\nThe order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.\n3.\nDecision:\no\nThe First Appellate Authority canceled the Taxation Officer's order for procedural non-compliance.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of evidence for service of notice, dismissing the Department’s appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=154,162,218 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.414/KB of 2007, decision dated: 4-04-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Saeed Siddiqui, D.R.. Abdul Tahir Ansari, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 29 = 2009 SLD 29 = 2009 PTD 1298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Constitutional Petitions – Moulding Relief & Theory of Subsequent Events\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973): Art. 199.\no\nAnti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000): S.64(5).\no\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908): O.VII, R.7.\n2.\nPrinciples:\no\nCourts have the authority to mould relief based on subsequent events, provided no prejudice is caused to either party, and the developments are relevant to the original cause of action.\n3.\nAnalysis of Specific Reliefs:\no\nLack of Appellate Tribunal under S.64 of the Anti-Dumping Ordinance:\n\nIn the absence of a statutory tribunal, the petitioner retains the right to seek remedies under Art.199, ensuring no vacuum for enforcing rights.\no\nMaxims:\n\nUbi Jus Ibi Remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy).\n\nLex Semper Debet Remedium (the law always provides a remedy).\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nCourt dismissed the petitioner's plea for interim relief on procedural grounds, emphasizing that statutory obligations like tribunal formation cannot be directed against procedural realities.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)=64,64(5) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.549 of 2008, heard on 13-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Majid Ali Wajid. Ch. Aamir Rehman, D.A.G., Muhammad Nawaz Waseer, Standing Counse-1, Shahzad A. Elahi and Ahmed Sherazs", + "Party Name:": "ALL PAKISTAN TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION through Secretary\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 30 = 2009 SLD 30 = 2009 PTD 1308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Monitoring of Withholding Taxes under S.176\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): S.176, S.177, and S.165.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee argued that calling books of accounts for monitoring of withholding taxes violated the Universal Self-Assessment Scheme.\no\nThe Taxation Officer’s authority was challenged.\n3.\nLegal Interpretation:\no\nS.176: Empowers the Commissioner or authorized officer to call for records related to tax affairs, including withholding taxes.\no\nNo need for separate authorization (e.g., circulars or explicit permissions) when acting under statutory powers.\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO upheld the legality of the Taxation Officer's actions, dismissing the complaint of maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=176,177,148to156,161,162,182,233,236 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1387-K of 2005, decision dated: 13-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Asad Arif, Advisor (Dealing Officer). S. M. Rehen, FCA for the Complainant. Tahir Tanveer, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KIIA PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LTD. Through Messrs S.M. Rehan & Company, Karachi\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 31 = 2009 SLD 31 = 2009 PTD 1313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Rectification of Mistake – Tax Deductions\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): S.221.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee submitted a revised certificate bifurcating payments into work, supplies, and transportation.\no\nTaxation Officer refused rectification without verifying the certificate with the issuing authority.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nFirst Appellate Authority: Directed rectification and refund issuance based on revised details.\no\nAppellate Tribunal: Upheld the decision, emphasizing the rectifiable nature of the factual mistake and rejecting the Department’s appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=128,221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.457/KB and 458/KB of 2007, decision dated: 1st April, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Saeed Siddiqui, D.R.. Abdul Tahir Ansari, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 32 = 2009 SLD 32 = (2009) 100 TAX 382 = 2010 PTCL 280 = 2009 PTD 1314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Reassessment under S.65 and Limitation\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.65 and S.166.\no\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922): S.15-BB.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee was exempt under S.15-BB for the year 1971-72.\no\nReassessment was initiated in 1982 under S.65, alleging improper reserve utilization.\n3.\nLimitation Issue:\no\nS.65(3): Reassessment must occur within ten years of the end of the assessment year (30-6-1982).\no\nThe record lacked clarity on whether reassessment occurred within this timeframe.\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court remanded the case for the Tribunal to ascertain the exact date of reassessment to confirm compliance with the limitation period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,166 Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.10 of 1997, decision dated: 5-06-2009, hearing DATE : 19-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. QAISER IQBAL AND ARSHAD SIRAJ MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shakeel Ahmed holding brief of Nasrullah Awan for Applicants. Mazhar Jafri", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 33 = 2009 SLD 33 = (2009) 100 TAX 1 = 2009 PTD 1332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Local Authority Exemption for National Highway Authority (NHA)\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Second Schedule, Part-I, Cl.124AA.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nNHA claimed tax exemption, asserting its status as a local authority. \n3.\nCriteria for Local Authority:\no\nJurisdiction restricted to a local area.\no\nPowers of local self-government.\no\nAbility to impose taxes.\no\nMaintenance of a local fund.\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nNHA’s operations (nationwide regulatory functions, lack of tax-imposition powers, etc.) failed the test of local authority status.\no\nTribunal upheld the denial of exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(31A),49,49(2),49(4),122(5A) General Clauses Act, 1897=3(31) National Highway Authority Act, 1991=10,12,13,19,21 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSchedule,Part-I,Clause124AA,88,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.187/IB of 2005, decision dated: 28-02-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Tariq Jamil, FCA and Farrukh Jamil, ACA. \nMuhammad Asif, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 34 = 2009 SLD 34 = 2009 PTD 1602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Industrial Unit Classification for Tax Benefits\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nWest Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958): Ss.3, 7, and 10.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nTelephone Exchange claimed classification as an industrial unit for tax benefits.\n3.\nIndustrial Unit Definition:\no\nOperations such as manufacturing, altering, or transforming materials qualify as industrial activities.\no\nTelephone Exchange operations (telecommunication installations, power transmission) fit within this definition.\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Exchange was deemed an industrial unit, entitling it to reduced taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958=3,7,10 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition 42 of 2009, decision dated: 19-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar ul Haq for Petitioner. Ch. Rizwan Mushtaq and Rana Ameer Ahmad Khan, A.A.Gs. Muhammad Nawaz Waseer, Standing Counsel. Akram Ashraf Gondal, Director Excise and Taxation, Lahore Region-A", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED (PTCL) through Regional General Manager, Lahore\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 35 = 2009 SLD 35 = 2009 PTD 1694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Confidentiality of Tax Records and Judicial Oversight\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): S.216(3).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nHigh Court application sought summoning of the Income Tax Record Keeper to produce records for proceedings.\n3.\nLegal Interpretation:\no\nS.216(3): Allows exceptions to confidentiality only under specified circumstances, such as Federal Government or tax authorities being parties to a case.\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court dismissed the application, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to override confidentiality provisions under S.216.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=216 ", + "Case #": "C.M.A. No.702-S of 2009 in Civil Suit No.1727 of 2008, decision dated: 18-05-2009, hearing DATE : 11-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Azeem Azhar Raja Advocate/Special Attorney for Applicant. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Arbab Abbasis", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. KHALIDA AZHAR\nvs\nVIQAR RUSTAM BAKHSHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 103 = 2010 SLD 103 = (2010) 101 TAX 65 = 2010 PTCL 788 = 2009 PTD 1707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes – Aggregation of Turnover\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 80-D, 80-C, 80-CC.\n2.\nPrinciples:\no\nFiscal statutes require literal interpretation, and statutory language prevails without assumptions.\no\nTax under S.80-D is applied on the aggregate turnover from all sources, including local sales not subject to withholding tax.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal’s direction to aggregate turnover under S.80-C and S.80-CC was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,80C & 80CC ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. Nos. 218 to 222 of 2005, heard on 27-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zahid, Syed Sajjad Ali Jaffri, Shahbaz Butt, Shahid Jamil Khan, Rana Muhammad Afzal and Syed Naveed Andrabi. Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs MASOOD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 36 = 2009 SLD 36 = 2009 PTD 1716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Refund for Services – Presumptive Tax Regime\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss. 170(4), 153(1)(b).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nTaxation Officer rejected a refund claim, arguing the taxpayer's services fell under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\no\nBoth the Appellate Tribunal and High Court ruled services were chargeable under general provisions, not presumptive tax.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe appeal allowed by the First Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Tribunal, enabling the refund.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,170(4),153(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 397/KB to 399/KB of 2007, decision dated: 13-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Farooq Azam, Memon, D.R.. Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 37 = 2009 SLD 37 = 2009 PTD 1868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Literal Interpretation and Scope of Taxing Statutes\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973): Arts. 148, 149.\no\nWest Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (1958): S.3.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nA hotel claimed to be an industrial unit for property tax benefits, citing a Federal Government circular.\no\nThe court noted property tax is a provincial domain and the circular could not override statutory provisions.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court rejected the claim, holding property tax laws should be interpreted literally, but granted temporary relief from recovery measures.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=148,149,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 11094 and 14349 of 2003, decision dated: 29-04-2009, hearing DATE : 10-04-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Aitzaz Ahsan and Faisal Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner. Ch. Rizwan Mushtaq, A.A.G., Rana Amir Ahmed Khan, A.A.G., M. Nawaz Waseer, Standing Counsel; Akram Ashraf Gondal, Director Excise, Lahore Region \"\"A\"\", Syed Riaz Hussain, Incharge, Legal Cell, Excise Department, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "AVARI HOTELS LIMITED through Controller\nvs\nDEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND TAXATION GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through Secretary and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 104 = 2010 SLD 104 = (2010) 101 TAX 122 = 2010 PTCL 236 = 2009 PTD 2139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Rectification by Successor-in-Office\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): S.221.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nSuccessor rectified an original appellate order, overruling previous findings without justifiable grounds.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court annulled the rectified order, as it exceeded the scope of S.221 and disregarded established reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.84 of 2008, decision dated: 9-07-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND SYED ZULFIQAR ALI BUKHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, MULTAN\nvs\nKHALID ADREES BHATTI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 153 = 2008 SLD 153 = 2008 PTCL 391 = (2008) 98 TAX 80 = 2008 PTD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Perquisites and Taxable Income\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss. 12, 13.\no\nIncome Tax Rules (2001): R.9(3) & (5)(b).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nEmployer-provided vehicle expenses were included as taxable perquisites for employees.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Tribunal upheld the inclusion of running/maintenance costs as taxable income under the definition of perquisites. ", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,13 Income Tax Rules, 2001=9(3),(5)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.As. Nos.357, 358 and 367 of 2007, decision dated: 5-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz H. Nishtar for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL GHORI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 154 = 2008 SLD 154 = 2008 PTD 1099", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Maladministration in Ex Parte Assessments\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 56, 61.\no\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance: Ss.9, 11.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee challenged ex parte assessments for three years.\no\nRevenue failed to conduct inquiries or provide justification for demand creation.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO declared the assessment arbitrary and violative of natural justice, recommending cancellation and fresh inquiry.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.756 of 2003, decision dated: 13-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). None present for the Complainant. Tahir S. Bhatti, ACIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW BISMILLAH AUTOS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 155 = 2008 SLD 155 = 2008 PTD 1102 = (2008) 97 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Workers Welfare Fund and Rectification\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss. 221(1A), 122(5A).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nRectification orders imposed Workers Welfare Fund retrospectively without proper notice.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the orders as illegal and void ab initio due to procedural lapses and unreasonable delay.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,221(1A),122(5A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 285/LB to 287/LB of 2007, decision dated: 19-09-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Noor Muhammad Qureshi. M. Muzaffar Khan Lashari ,D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 156 = 2008 SLD 156 = 2008 PTD 1111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Additions in Profit and Loss Accounts\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.62.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAdditions were made without statutory confrontation or procedural adherence.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nAppellate Tribunal deleted the additions, upholding the assessee’s appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7304/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 157 = 2008 SLD 157 = 2008 PLD 446 = (2008) 98 TAX 69 = 2008 PTD 1157 = 2008 PTCL 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Exemptions and Strict Compliance\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Second Sched., Part I, Cls. 122-C, 118-C.\n2.\nPrinciples:\no\nTax exemptions require strict compliance with conditions, and once fulfilled, authorities cannot arbitrarily deny them.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the exemption after compliance with required conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition Nos. 827-829 of 2007, decision dated: 19-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz A. Sheikh, Member F.B.R. for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONES, PESHAWAR\nvs\nMessrs RIVER SIDE CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD. GADOON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 544 = 2000 SLD 544 = 2000 PLC 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.80 of 1998, decision dated: 5-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Muhammad Iqbal. Abdur Rehman Qadir", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK CHINA FERTILIZERS LIMITED through Managing Director\nVs\nSHAH QAISAR FAROOQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 545 = 2000 SLD 545 = 2000 PLC 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.KAR 12 of 1999, decision dated: 20-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Nabi and Gohar Iqbal for Applicants. Shahid Anwar Bajwa (on Pre Admission Notice).", + "Party Name:": "ASGHAR HUSSAIN\nVs\nBOC GASES, BOC PAKISTAN LIMITED through Managing Director" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 158 = 2008 SLD 158 = 2008 PTD 1192 = (2008) 98 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4122/LB and 4123/LB of 2003, decision dated: 4-03-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Nauman Sh., I.T.P.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 159 = 2008 SLD 159 = 2008 PTD 1199 = (2007) 96 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,63,13(1)(aa) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.18 of 2006, decision dated: 27-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Advisor, (Dealing Officer). Nemo for the Complainant. Javed Anwar, DCIT, IP&E, Unit-3, Sargodha and Muhammad Qudrat Ullah Khan, Taxation Officer, IP&E, Unit-11, Mianwali", + "Party Name:": "Ch. SARFRAZ AHMED\nvs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 546 = 2000 SLD 546 = 2000 PLC 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application NOXAR 13 of 1999, decision dated: 18-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TAMIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Applicant and Masood A. Khan (on Pre Admission Notice)", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAREEF\nVs\nFAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY, RAWALPINDI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 547 = 2000 SLD 547 = 2000 PLC 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.22 of 1998, decision dated: 19-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ghazi Shah. Abdul Shakoors", + "Party Name:": "ASTAM KHAN, EX ASSISTANT MUNSHI, FDC TIMBER MARKET, GOHARABAD, ABBOTTABAD\nVs\nFOREST DEPARTMENT CORPORATION through General Manager (Operation) Office and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 548 = 2000 SLD 548 = 2000 PLC 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.74 with Civil Miscellaneous No.28 of 1996, decision dated: 23rd November, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Umar Hayats. Ijaz Anwars", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SERVIER RESEARCH AND PHARMACEUTICALS (PAKISTAN) PVT. LTD. and another\nVs\nMUNIR AHMAD BHATTI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 549 = 2000 SLD 549 = 2000 PLC 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No. KAR 46 and Miscellaneous Application No. 216 of 1999, decision dated: 13-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Faruq Ghani for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAJAM & NISAR TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD. Through\nVs\nMUHAMMAD NIAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 550 = 2000 SLD 550 = 2000 PLC 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No. KAR 52 and Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 1999, decision dated: 31st August, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR RAHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Faruq Abdul Ghani for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL FIBRES LTD. through Manager\nVs\nMUHAMMAD AKRAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 551 = 2000 SLD 551 = 2000 PLC 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.KAR 53 and Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 1999, decision dated: 31st August, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Rehan Aqeel for Applicant and Respondent on Pre Admission Notice", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAFHAN BESTFOODS LIMITED through Dy. Director, Human Resources and Administration\nVs\nNASIR JAMAL QURESHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 552 = 2000 SLD 552 = 2000 PLC 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subjects: Labour Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969): Ss. 25A, 36, 38(3a).\n2.\nKey Issues:\no\nGrievance petitions: Non-prosecution or procedural violations led to dismissals.\no\nEmployer-employee disputes: Courts determined workman status and compliance with termination procedures.\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\nCourts and Tribunals emphasized compliance with mandatory procedures and dismissed claims lacking statutory adherence or bona fides.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No. KAR 44 and Miscellaneous Application No. 189 of 1999, decision dated: 9-08-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A.K. Azmati for Applicant. Turab Ahmed and Miss Rehana", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BLUE RIBBON BAKERS through Proprietor\nVs\nFAROOQ AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 160 = 2008 SLD 160 = 2008 PTD 1206 = (2008) 97 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Assessment of Receipts and Depreciation\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.62, Third Schedule, R.2.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nDiscrepancies in hospital depreciation rates (factory vs. non-factory building).\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld lower depreciation (5%), rejecting the hospital’s classification as a factory.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,2 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4844/LB and 6416/LB of 2005, decision dated: 10-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R.. Qamar Rashid, A.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 161 = 2008 SLD 161 = 2008 PTD 1210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Refunds and Procedural Requirements\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss. 170, 171, 177, 122(5A), 239(8).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nRefund applications were improperly rejected on technical grounds (e.g., lack of power of attorney for all heirs).\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended setting aside improper orders and issuing refunds without further delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171,177,122(5A) & 239(8) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143B,80C,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.727-L of 2005, decision dated: 20-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor, (Dealing Officer). Muhammad Shahid Baig for the Complainant. Naureen Yaqoob (DCIT) and Muzammil Hussain (IAC)s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHID CABLES INDUSTRY through Chaudhry Shahid Latif\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 162 = 2008 SLD 162 = 2008 PTD 1219 = (2008) 97 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Limitation for Assessment and Non-Issuance of Notice\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 64 & 62.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee submitted two letters to the Tax Department requesting assessment orders, which were neither conveyed nor available.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the assessment due to procedural lapses.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the annulment, finding the assessment time-barred and noting non-issuance of mandatory notices under S.62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=64,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 347/LB of 2006, decision dated: 11-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R.. Zaeem-ul-Farooq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 163 = 2008 SLD 163 = 2008 PTD 1233 = (2008) 98 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Penalty for Non-Filing of Return\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXIX of 1979): Ss. 108 & 55.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee argued no returns were filed as losses were sustained in the first business year.\no\nThe Tribunal deleted the penalty, emphasizing the absence of mala fide intentions.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, recognizing statutory discretion under S.55 and lack of deliberate non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,55 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 82 of 1993, decision dated: 25-04-2008, hearing DATE : 9-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND PIR ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant. Muhammad Fareed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs SKY PAK INTERNATIONAL (PVT.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 164 = 2008 SLD 164 = 2008 PTD 1243 = (2008) 98 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Deduction at Source for Contractual Services\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 50(4) & 80-C.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nTribunal set aside tax imposed under S.80-C, emphasizing that services provided under contracts fall under general tax provisions.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court dismissed the reference, affirming the Tribunal's findings and adopting a taxpayer-favorable interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),80C ", + "Case #": "P.T.R Nos. 12 to 16 of 2004, decision dated: 10-04-2008, hearing DATE : 14-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zahid. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Shahbaz Butt, Ijaz Ahmad Awan and M.M. Akrams", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nKHURSHID AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 165 = 2008 SLD 165 = 2008 PTD 1246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Maladministration in Estimation of Sales\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.62.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nSales were arbitrarily estimated at 20 times working capital without inquiry or show-cause notice.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended annulment of the order and a fresh assessment following due process.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1199-L of 2003, decision dated: 18-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sadiq for the Complainant. Anwar Sheikh, A.C.I.T.s. Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer)", + "Party Name:": "AMEER BEGUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 166 = 2008 SLD 166 = 2008 PTD 1253 = (2008) 97 TAX 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Rectification of Mistakes in Tax Orders\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): S.221.\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.38(8).\n2.\nKey Points:\no\nIgnoring binding precedents or previous years’ errors cannot justify rectification in the current year.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled rectifications made contrary to established legal positions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=38(8) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.1115/LB of 2006, decision dated: 1st September, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shabbir Ahmed, I.T.P. for Applicant. Rai Tallat Maqbool, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 167 = 2008 SLD 167 = 2008 PTD 1280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Refund Claims and Maladministration\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 62, 59A, 50 & 102.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nRefund claims for multiple years were delayed due to procedural issues and appeals.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed prompt verification of claims and issuance of refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,62,59A,50,171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(v) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1679 of 2003, decision dated: 2-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, ITP for the Complainant. Imtiaz Ahmad, DCIT for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Khawaja MAQBOOL ELAHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 168 = 2008 SLD 168 = 2008 PTD 1285 = (2008) 97 TAX 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Time-Barred Orders\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 52 & 86.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nTaxation Officer passed an order beyond the statutory four-year limitation.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal declared the order void for being time-barred and annulled the assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.126/LB of 2007 and I.T.A. No.2511/LB of 2004, decision dated: 6-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulfiqar Ali Sh., I.T.P.. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 169 = 2008 SLD 169 = 2008 PTD 1292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Withholding Refunds and Maladministration\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss. 80-DD, 50(5) & 103.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nRefunds were withheld despite Tribunal decisions favoring the taxpayer.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nOmbudsman deemed withholding as maladministration and recommended compensation for delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80DD,50(5),103 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.948 of 2003, decision dated: 22-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, (Dealing Officer). Tahir Razzaq Khan, F.C.A. for the Complainant. M. Nasir Khan, DCIT, Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAN ASIA FOOD PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD., HATTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 170 = 2008 SLD 170 = 2008 PTD 1477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Disallowance of Profit and Loss Expenses\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.23.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nTravel expenses were disallowed without valid reasoning.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal partially restored the disallowed expenses, emphasizing the lack of cogent reasons.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.51/LB of 2008, decision dated: 16-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A.D. Asghar. Shaban Bhatti D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 171 = 2008 SLD 171 = 2008 PTD 1487 = 2009 PTCL 229 = 2009 PTD 1487 = (2008) 98 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Material Non-Submission and Assessment\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss. 13(1)(a), 61, 62 & 143-B.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nAssessee failed to submit requisite documents, leading to assessment under default provisions.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court upheld the assessment, citing negligence and lack of material evidence from the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,133(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 271 of 2005, decision dated: 5-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Naqvi for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "MANDVIWALLA ENTERTAINMENT (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 172 = 2008 SLD 172 = 2008 PTD 1522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Workers Welfare Fund and Rectification\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.156.\no\nWorkers Welfare Fund Ordinance (1971): Preamble.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nRectification order revised levies for multiple tax years under two Ordinances.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the revised levy for applicable years under the Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=Preamble Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4/KB to 11/KB of 2008, decision dated: 16-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Gohar D.R.. Abdul Tahir Ansari, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 173 = 2008 SLD 173 = 2008 PTCL 372 = (2008) 98 TAX 204 = 2008 PTD 1525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Jurisdictional Overreach in Reassessment\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Ss.62 & 66-A.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nInspecting Additional Commissioner reopened an assessment finalized in appeal.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the reassessment, finding it beyond jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66,66A(1A) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.10 of 2004, decision dated: 14-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND MALIK SAEED EJAZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Asghar Saroha for Petitioner. Sardar Riaz Karim", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN\nvs\nCHAUDHRY TRADING COMPANY, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 174 = 2008 SLD 174 = 2008 PTCL 484 = (2008) 98 TAX 176 = 2008 PTD 1547", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Ultra Vires Notification by FBR\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss.153(6A), 53(2).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nFBR reduced exemptions via an SRO, exceeding its legislative powers.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court declared the SRO ultra vires, affirming that such power rests with the legislature.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(6A),(6B),53(2),Second Schedule, ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition Nos. 7179, 7259, 7260 and 7261 of 2007, decision dated: 20-06-2008. dates of hearing: 7th and 9-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Sajjad Ali Jafari,s. Muhammad Nawaz Waseem, Federal Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH\nvs\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Secretary, Finance Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 175 = 2008 SLD 175 = 2008 PTD 1549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Deficiencies in Show-Cause Notice\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Ss.122(1)(5).\n2.\nFacts:\no\nShow-cause notice lacked clarity regarding subsections and specific assessment orders.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the amended order due to procedural deficiencies.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,122(1)(5),111(4)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1331/LB of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 176 = 2008 SLD 176 = 2008 PTD 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subject: Rectification of Mistakes and Discriminatory Treatment\n1.\nKey Provisions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): S.156.\n2.\nKey Points:\no\nApplications for rectification were deemed allowed due to inaction by Taxation Officers within statutory limits.\n3.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld rectification by default and dismissed departmental appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.381-KB to 383-KB of 2006, decision dated: 20-10-2007, hearing DATE : 26-09-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Fahimul Haq, D.R.. Salman Pasha and Nadeem Dawoodis", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 177 = 2008 SLD 177 = 2008 PTD 1809 = (2008) 98 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Applicability of Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) to a government-owned corporation.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nWorkers' Welfare Fund Ordinance (1971), Ss. 2(f) & 4: Defines the scope of WWF and its chargeability.\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 221: Covers rectification of mistakes.\n•\nCompanies Ordinance (1984), S. 2(4): Provides definitions of a company or corporation.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee, a government-owned corporation manufacturing commercial explosives, challenged the WWF levy.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy, but the assessee filed a rectification application claiming that the definition of corporation was misunderstood in the Tribunal's order.\nTribunal’s Observations:\n•\nThe Tribunal initially held that the term corporation was not defined in any relevant Act, an assertion found factually incorrect.\n•\nAssessee argued that under legal definitions and precedents, WWF was not chargeable on its income.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal allowed the rectification application, agreeing that the initial oversight was a mistake apparent on the record.\n•\nWWF was deemed not chargeable on the income of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f),4 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) Nos.69/IB, 60/IB to 65/IB of 2004 in I.T.A.No.2142/IB of 1995-96, I.T.As. Nos.114/IB and 115/IB of 2002, I.T.As. Nos.849/IB to 852/IB of 1998-99 and I.T.As. Nos.438/IB to 441/IB of 2007 and I.T.A No.446/IB of 2007, decision dated: 3rd June, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN, MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaq, F.C.A/AR for Applicant. Mir Alam Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 178 = 2008 SLD 178 = 2008 PTD 1873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Rejection of refund application based on procedural grounds.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 170(4) & 115(4): Deals with refunds and revised statements.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee initially filed statements under presumptive tax regime but later revised them, opting out of the regime.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer rejected the refund application, claiming that revising such statements was not permissible under S. 170(4).\nArguments:\n•\nAssessee: Revised statements complied with the law, and refunds were legitimately due.\n•\nDepartment: Refund claims could not be entertained due to procedural violations.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal found the Taxation Officer’s actions beyond his jurisdiction.\n•\nIt ordered the acceptance of the revised statements and directed the issuance of refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=115,170(4),115(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 576/LB to 578/LB of 2008, decision dated: 8-08-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashraf Ahmed Ali, D.R.. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 179 = 2008 SLD 179 = 2008 PTD 1884 = (2008) 98 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Limitation for rectification of assessments finalized under the repealed ordinance.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 221 & 239(4): Preserves pending proceedings under the repealed ordinance.\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 156(4): Sets a 4-year limitation for rectifications.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessments finalized under the 1979 Ordinance were rectified under the 2001 Ordinance beyond the prescribed limitation.\n•\nDepartment argued that the extended limitation under S. 221 of the 2001 Ordinance applied.\nTribunal’s Analysis:\n•\nS. 239(4) explicitly saved pending proceedings under the 1979 Ordinance.\n•\nLimitation for rectification under the 1979 Ordinance (4 years) was still applicable.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal annulled the rectification orders, declaring them time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,234(4), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.523(IB) and 524(IB) of 2006, decision dated: 20-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Aurangzaib, ITP/ARs. Mir Alam Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 180 = 2008 SLD 180 = 2008 PTD 1897 = (2008) 98 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Refunds to carriage contractors classified under “services.”\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 153(1)(b), 170: Deals with taxation of services and refunds.\nFacts:\n•\nCarriage contractors sought refunds, claiming their services fell under general tax provisions, not final discharge provisions.\n•\nDepartment opposed the refunds, stating contractors were not eligible for such classification.\nArguments:\n•\nAssessee: Carriage contractors provide services and qualify for refunds under S. 153(1)(b).\n•\nDepartment: Refunds contravened statutory provisions.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal and High Court ruled in favor of the contractors, emphasizing their classification as service providers entitled to refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(1)(b),170,FirstSched., ", + "Case #": "T.R. Nos.12, 17, 18, 33 to 41 of 2008, 6 of 2006 and 5, 6 and 7 of 2007, decision dated: 8-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND MALIK SAEED EJAZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Khalid Javaid Bukhari for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN\nvs\nREHMAN ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 181 = 2008 SLD 181 = 2008 PTD 1901", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Refund of tax collected in customs duties despite a valid exemption certificate.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 170(4): Refunds for excess tax.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), S. 2(3): Maladministration in tax matters.\nFacts:\n•\nDespite presenting an exemption certificate, the complainant was charged income tax by Customs.\n•\nEfforts to seek clarification from the department were ignored.\nOutcome:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found the Customs Department’s inaction to clarify the matter as maladministration.\n•\nDirected the issuance of clarification and refund through the Income Tax Department.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 110 of 2004, decision dated: 12-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Muhammad Alamgir, Sales and Marketing Director for the Complainant. S. Fawad Shah, D.C. Customss", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ACCOMPANY SURGICAL through Muhammad Alamgir\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 182 = 2008 SLD 182 = 2008 PTD 1910 = (2008) 98 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Rectification of discriminatory tax treatment.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 156(3): Limitation for rectification.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessee alleged a higher tax rate was applied compared to similar cases.\n•\nApplications for rectification remained pending beyond the statutory period.\nTribunal’s Analysis:\n•\nApplications were deemed accepted by law due to the Taxation Officer’s failure to act within the limitation period.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal upheld the deemed rectification and directed refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,156(3),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.384/KB to 387/KB of 2006, decision dated: 20-10-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Fahimul Haq, D.R.. Salman Pasha and Nadeem Dawoodi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 183 = 2008 SLD 183 = 2008 PTD 1921", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Maladministration in issuing refunds after vacating appellate orders.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 66-A: Rectification after appellate relief.\nFacts:\n•\nDespite appellate relief, refunds were withheld pending further appeals.\nOutcome:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate issuance of refunds with compensation for delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66A,100,156,129,134,136,137 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,239 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 31-L of 2004, decision dated: 31st March, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mushtaq and S.M. Sibtain, Advisors (Dealing Officers). Muhammad Ejaz Ali Bhatti, Advocate for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasul, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUNIR BROTHERS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 184 = 2008 SLD 184 = 2008 PTD 1936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Refund of income tax collected in electricity bills due to maladministration.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 50(7E) & 50(7H): Tax deducted through electricity bills.\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 170(4): Procedure for refunds.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), S. 2(3): Maladministration.\nFacts:\n•\nIncome tax collected in electricity bills was claimed as refundable by the complainant.\n•\nDespite filing a refund application, no action was taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax.\nFindings:\n•\nTaxes collected under specific sections were refundable if excess was charged.\n•\nThe Commissioner failed to issue an order under S.170(4) within 45 days.\nOutcome:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found the Commissioner guilty of maladministration.\n•\nDirected the issuance of the refund and submission of a compliance report within 30 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,170(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7E),50(7H) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 284-/L of 2004, decision dated: 15-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mushtaq, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Rana Mushtaq Ahmed Toor, ITP for the Complainant. Mr. Karamat Ullah, DCIT, for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN JANJUA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 185 = 2008 SLD 185 = 2008 PTD 1940 = 2009 PTCL 69 = (2009) 99 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Omission to adjudicate grounds raised in a rectification application.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 156: Rectification of mistake.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199: High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessee alleged that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) failed to address three key grounds in a rectification application.\nFindings:\n•\nHigh Court held that all judicial forums must adjudicate and dispose of issues argued before them.\n•\nThe omission to address specific grounds constituted a lapse in duty.\nOutcome:\n•\nHigh Court remanded the appeal to ITAT, directing it to consider and decide on the omitted grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1495 of 2008, heard on 7-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Jan Muhammad Chaudhary", + "Party Name:": "Dr. ZAFAR HAIDER\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through Chairperson and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 186 = 2008 SLD 186 = 2008 PTD 1942 = (2008) 98 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Whether High Court directions extended the statutory period for rectification.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S. 156(3): Limitation for rectification applications.\n•\nHigh Court Directions: Two-month timeline for adjudicating rectification applications.\nFacts:\n•\nThe Taxation Officer argued that High Court directions extended the rectification timeline by two months.\n•\nAssessee contended the statutory limitation under S.156(3) remained binding.\nFindings:\n•\nHigh Court directions to decide the application within two months did not override statutory limitations.\n•\nRectification applications were deemed granted due to the Taxation Officer’s failure to act within the prescribed time.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal vacated departmental orders and deemed the rectification applications granted by operation of law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,156(3),62,SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.7221/LB to 7225/LB of 2005, decision dated: 26-05-2008, hearing DATE : 22-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt. Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 187 = 2008 SLD 187 = 2008 PTD 1960 = (2009) 99 TAX 61 = 2009 PTCL 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Validity of audit selection under Universal Self-Assessment Scheme (USAS).\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 177(4): Audit selection provisions.\n•\nCBR Circular No. 1 of 2004: Conditions for revising returns under USAS.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199: Judicial review.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessee filed a revised return under USAS and increased tax liability by 20% as per CBR Circular.\n•\nDespite compliance, the department issued a notice for audit under S.177(4).\nFindings:\n•\nThe department failed to rebut the assessee’s contention that compliance with the CBR Circular barred audit selection.\nOutcome:\n•\nHigh Court declared the audit notice illegal and without lawful authority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5786 of 2008, decision dated: 22-09-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan and Zulfiqar Khan for Petitioner. Sajjad Hussain Jafaris", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BILAL IKRAM\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 188 = 2008 SLD 188 = 2008 PTD 1962", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Arbitrary ex parte assessment lacking procedural compliance.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 63 & 62: Procedure for ex parte assessments.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), S. 2(3): Maladministration.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessing Officer arbitrarily passed an ex parte order without considering case history or relevant material.\nFindings:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found the process arbitrary, baseless, and indicative of maladministration.\n•\nRegional Commissioner took disciplinary action against the Assessing Officer.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman closed the case, commending the Regional Commissioner’s corrective measures.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. No. 1611 of 2003, decision dated: 29-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ameer-ud-Din Shaikh for the Complainant. Taj Muhammad Jonejo, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Complaint No. No. 1611 of 2003, decided on 29th January, 2004\nMessrs MAMA AND SONS\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 189 = 2008 SLD 189 = 2008 PTD 1979", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Deduction of withholding tax from exempt Special Saving Certificates.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Second Sched., Cls. 78(E) & (50): Exemptions for Special Saving Certificates.\n•\nS.R.O. 871(I)/1998: Relevant statutory exemption.\nFacts:\n•\nTax was deducted on interest from Special Saving Certificates despite statutory exemption.\n•\nAssessee sought clarification from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR), but no response was provided.\nFindings:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman noted inaction by CBR as maladministration.\nOutcome:\n•\nCBR directed to issue a clarification on the exemption within 30 days, allowing the complainant to present their case.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,78(E) & (50) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1250-K of 2003, decision dated: 13-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Asghar Abbas, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Muhammad Rafique Rana, complainant present along with Abid Shirazi, Advocate. Mrs. Lubna Ayub Asif, IAC Range-II Zone-E, Karachi present", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE RANA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 190 = 2008 SLD 190 = 2008 PTD 1998 = (2009) 99 TAX 27 = 2009 PTCL 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Limitation under amended sections of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 regarding appeals and references.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 136 & 66: Amendments replacing appeal with reference. \nFacts:\n•\nLegislative amendments changed appeals under S.136 to references in 2000.\n•\nLimitation under S.66(1)(c) was argued to remain unaffected.\nFindings:\n•\nThe term appeal in S.66(1)(c) must be read as reference post-amendment.\n•\nOmissions by the draftsman were unintentional and did not reflect legislative intent.\nOutcome:\n•\nAppeals or references under amended S.136 override limitations under S.66(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,66,66(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8974 of 2008, heard on 30-07-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Jan Muhammad Chaudhary", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ROYAL EDU CARE through Proprietor\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/TAXATION OFFICER, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 167 = 2005 SLD 167 = 2005 PTD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Self-assessment scheme compliance and proportional expense adjustments.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 59(1), 62 & 143B: Self-assessment provisions.\n•\nCBR Circular No. 12 of 1991: Guidelines on proportional expenses.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessee contested adjustments made under normal law.\n•\nThe case was not selected for total audit or earmarked for normal proceedings.\nFindings:\n•\nAssessee complied with the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nAdjustments by the Assessing Officer lacked legal grounds.\nOutcome:\n•\nCase accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme; adjustments annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,59(1),62,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2304/LB of 2003, decision dated: 26-07-2004, hearing DATE : 24-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan. Anwar Ali Shah D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 168 = 2005 SLD 168 = 2005 PTD 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Deletion of penalty under Finance Act, 1991.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nFinance Act (1991), S.12(4)(7): Filing requirements for Corporate Assets Tax.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessee failed to file a return despite legal requirements.\n•\nCIT(A) relied on a precedent involving confusion caused by multiple CBR circulars.\nFindings:\n•\nSupreme Court upheld the obligation for filing returns under Corporate Assets Tax.\n•\nCIT(A)'s reliance on confusion was misplaced.\nOutcome:\n•\nPenalty reinstated; CIT(A)’s order vacated.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 Finance Act, 1991=12(4)(7) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.90/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Najam-ud-Din Khan, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 169 = 2005 SLD 169 = 2005 PTD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Tax exemption claims under Arts. 165 & 165-A of the Constitution.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 165 & 165-A: Federal property exemption.\nFacts:\n•\nWAPDA's contractor paid export tax and educational cess.\n•\nWAPDA sought exemption claiming it acted on behalf of the Federal Government.\nFindings:\n•\nContractors were not exempt from taxes under Arts. 165 & 165-A.\n•\nTax liability was a contractual obligation.\nOutcome:\n•\nPetition dismissed; contractor liable for taxes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165,165A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No, 1313 of 1999, decision dated: 29-11-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, M, JAVED BUTTER AND TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Jehanzeb Rahim, Advocate-General N.W.F.P., Masood. Kousar, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through General Manager and Project Director, Ghazi Barotha Hyedro Power Project and another\nvs\nADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL SWABI and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 171 = 2005 SLD 171 = 2005 PTD 1038 = (2005) 91 TAX 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Self-Assessment Scheme qualification and reference to the High Court.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 59 & 136: Self-assessment qualifications.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessing Officer questioned the adequacy of profit declarations under the scheme.\nFindings:\n•\nHigh Court determined the issue was factual, not a substantial legal controversy.\nOutcome:\n•\nReference declined; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 518 of 1998, decision dated: 31st August, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jameel Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT\nvs\nMessrs POPULAR INDUSTRIES S.I.E., SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 172 = 2005 SLD 172 = 2005 PTD 1066", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Refund delay and additional compensation for delayed payment.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 100 & 102: Refund provisions.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), S.2(3): Maladministration.\nFacts:\n•\nDepartment delayed refund payment beyond the prescribed timeline.\nFindings:\n•\nDelay constituted maladministration; compensation was warranted.\nOutcome:\n•\nRefund with compensation recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100,102 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 255-L of 2004, decision dated: 21st July, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shujah Khan for the Complainant. Ghulam Nabi Tahir", + "Party Name:": "Mir AURANGZEB ALAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 173 = 2005 SLD 173 = 2005 PTD 1145 = (2005) 91 TAX 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: CIF and FOB contracts in relation to tax and accounting methods.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 32, 60-65: Accounting methods.\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, R.216(3)(a): Accounting for export profits.\nFindings:\n•\nFOB/CIF contracts determine contractual obligations but do not affect tax accounting methods.\nOutcome:\n•\nHigh Court declined to entertain questions as they lacked substantive legal basis.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 374, 89, 526, 359, 15, 16, 17 of 1999 and 466 of 2000, decision dated: 15-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA and others\nvs\nMessrs ASIF INDUSTRIES, ALIPUR CHATTA, WAZIRABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 174 = 2005 SLD 174 = 2005 PTD 1314 = (2005) 91 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Time-barred reference under S.136 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S.136: Reference to the High Court.\nFindings:\n•\nFiling beyond the 90-day limitation under subsection (3) rendered the reference invalid.\nOutcome:\n•\nReference dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 15 of 1997, decision dated: 16-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Eid Muhammad Khattak for Applicant. Nazir Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX, ZONEA, PESHAWAR\nvs\nASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 175 = 2005 SLD 175 = 2005 PTD 1316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Retrospective application of S.122(5-A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), S.122(5-A): Reassessment powers.\nFindings:\n•\nProvision not retrospective; notices for pre-enactment assessments were void.\nOutcome:\n•\nHigh Court quashed reassessment notices.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-643 to D-646 of 2004, decision dated: 2-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioners Aqeel. Ahmed Abbasis", + "Party Name:": "HONDA SHAHRAHEFAISAL ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS, KARACHI and others\nvs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 176 = 2005 SLD 176 = 2005 PTD 1328 = (2005) 91 TAX 82 = 2007 PTR 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Income tax on imported edible oil under S.50(5).\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 50(5) & 80-DD: Minimum tax on imports.\nFindings:\n•\nSales tax included in value for income tax purposes; exemption claims dismissed.\nOutcome:\n•\nTax upheld; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5),80DD,SecondSched., Customs Act, 1969=25 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-598 of 2001, heard on 14-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. M.R. Zia Rana for Petitioner. Raja M. Iqbals Nos. 2 and 3. Aqueel Ahmed Abbasi No. 4. Syed Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MADINA ENTERPRISES LTD., JHANG ROAD, FAISALABAD through Legal Manager\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1447 = 2016 SLD 1447 = 2016 MLD 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Self-finance admissions policy and its legality under Art. 25-A.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 25-A: Education as a fundamental right.\nFindings:\n•\nPolicy change to abolish self-finance admissions was valid and within executive powers.\nOutcome:\n•\nPetition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25A,199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 3441 of 2014, decision dated: 27-03-2015, hearing DATE : 27-03-2015.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD QAISER, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioners.\nSabah-ud-Din Khattak.\nRab Nawaz Khan A.A.G. for the State.", + "Party Name:": "RAHIM UD DIN AND OTHERS\nVS\nSABAHUDDIN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 178 = 2005 SLD 178 = 2005 PTD 1913 = (2005) 91 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Qualification under the Self-Assessment Scheme for new assessee.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 59 & 136: Simplified assessment for new assessees.\nFindings:\n•\nAppellate Tribunal rightly accepted the assessee’s claim under the scheme.\nOutcome:\n•\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.237 of 1998, decision dated: 13-03-2004, hearing DATE : 13-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jamil Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs ZARI INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 179 = 2005 SLD 179 = 2005 PTD 2203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Withholding tax liability in a car raffle scheme.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 52 & 50(7C): Tax deduction at source.\nFindings:\n•\nLicensee/contractor was responsible for tax deduction, not the licensor.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal upheld contractor's liability.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,52,50(7C),50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.147/KB of 2001 and in M.A. No.743/KB of 2002, decision dated: 25-10-2004, hearing DATE : 9-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahsan Laliwala, A.R. and Nadeem Iqbal. Ghulam Shabbir Memon D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 180 = 2005 SLD 180 = 2005 PTD 2283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Applicability of S.108(b) and related rules for compliance.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), S.108(b): Rules for compliance.\nFindings:\n•\nNon-compliance of rules did not invoke S.108(b).\nOutcome:\n•\nCompliance remained unaffected by non-specific rule references.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),139,165 Income Tax Rules, 1982=61 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.115 of 2001, decision dated: 4-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khurram Naveed Khan on behalf of Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs KAMIL COTTON INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., TOBA TEK SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 102 = 2012 SLD 102 = (2012) 106 TAX 121 = 2012 PTD 1478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Classification of business income as commission or discount.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 122(5A), 169, & 147: Tax regimes.\nFindings:\n•\nBusiness income fell under the normal tax regime, not the presumptive tax regime.\nOutcome:\n•\nAmendments annulled; appeals allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),169,147,120,32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 429/KB to 433/KB of 2010, decision dated: 31st March, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aleem. None", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HOME DELIVERY SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 103 = 2012 SLD 103 = 2012 PTD 1488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Defects in electronic tax returns for corporate taxpayers.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), S.2(3): Maladministration.\nFindings:\n•\nDefective e-returns constituted systematic maladministration.\nOutcome:\n•\nFBR directed to rectify defects and recover revenue losses.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(1)(b),153(6) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.627/LHR/IT(483)1310 of 2011, decision dated: 28-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi and Hafiz Ahsan Ahmad Khokhar, Advisors Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt for the Complainant. Mirza Nadeem Munawar Baig Chief IR Operations, Basit Saleem Shah Secretary IR ( General), Mujahid Naeem Manager Automation PRAL Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 104 = 2012 SLD 104 = 2012 PTD 1516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Legality of Kohistan Development Fee-Cess under Local Government Ordinance.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Ordinance (2001), S.127: Tax levies.\nFindings:\n•\nTax imposed without due procedure was illegal.\nOutcome:\n•\nFee-cess declared void; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 North West Frontier Province Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 2005=127 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.214 of 2011, decision dated: 22-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID MAHMOOD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. M. Ashraf Gujjar for Petitioner Muhammad Nawaz Khan Sindhu, A.A.G. along with Abdul Qayyums", + "Party Name:": "JOHAR ALI (RAKI) and another\nvs\nDISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER (D.C.O.) and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 105 = 2012 SLD 105 = 2012 PTD 1522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Classification of properties for tax purposes as industrial or commercial.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nUrban Immovable Property Tax Act (1958), Ss. 5 & 5-A: Property classification.\nFindings:\n•\nTelecommunication properties classified as commercial, not industrial.\nOutcome:\n•\nPetition disposed of with directions for clarification by authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958=5,5A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.604 of 2009, decision dated: 13-06-2011. dates of hearing: 28-09-2010 and 9-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khurram Rasheed for Petitioner. Saifullah, Assistant Advocate-General", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD\nvs\nDEPARTMENT OF EXCISE OF TAXATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 106 = 2012 SLD 106 = (2012) 106 TAX 198 = 2012 PTD 1535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDeductions for interest-free loans to employees.\n•\nDisallowance of business expenses and cash transactions.\n•\nProfit and loss expenses disallowed without justification.\n•\nApplicability of amendments in the Workers’ Welfare Fund Ordinance.\n(a) Interest-Free Loans to Employees\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 21(c) & 13(7).\n•\nFindings: Taxpayer provided interest-free loans classified as perquisites under S.13(7), taxable if employees' salaries exceeded the threshold. The Taxation Officer failed to prove this, and salaries remained below the taxable limit.\n•\nOutcome: Addition rightly deleted by First Appellate Authority.\n(b) Cash Transactions\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 21(l).\n•\nFindings: Transactions were below the threshold of Rs.10,000, related to factory petty cash and utilities, and no specific non-compliance was noted.\n•\nOutcome: Disallowance restricted to 50% of the claim.\n(c) Profit and Loss Expenses\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), S. 21(l).\n•\nFindings: Books, vouchers, and documents supported the expenses, and Taxation Officer used vague reasoning for disallowance.\n•\nOutcome: Add-back disallowances annulled.\n(d) Workers’ Welfare Fund\n•\nLegal Provisions: Workers’ Welfare Fund Ordinance (1971), S.4; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 70.\n•\nFindings: Amendments made via Finance Acts (2006 & 2008) were not applicable for Tax Year 2006. Workers’ Welfare Fund cannot be amended via a money bill.\n•\nOutcome: Deletion of levy upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),21(l),13(7) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=70 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1046/KB of 2011, decision dated: 29-02-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAISTA ABBAS, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Murtaza Khoro, D.R.. Sayed Muhammad Maraj", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, Zone-IV, LTU\nvs\nMessrs PHARMEVO (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 107 = 2012 SLD 107 = (2012) 106 TAX 142 = 2012 PTD 1544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax implications of bank merger/amalgamation.\n•\nClaim of bad debts.\n•\nSurplus on revaluation of assets.\n(a) Surplus on Revaluation\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 2(1A) & 57A.\n•\nFindings: No taxable gain arises during mergers; revaluation does not constitute a taxable event.\n•\nOutcome: Additions annulled by Appellate Tribunal.\n(b) Bad Debts\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), S.21.\n•\nFindings: Rights to recovery transferred to the new entity post-merger; hence, claims were invalid.\n•\nOutcome: Disallowance upheld.\n(c) Amalgamation and Real Income\n•\nFindings: Only actual income, not notional gains, is taxable.\n•\nOutcome: Notional surplus excluded from taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=75(1)(a),2(1A),22,57A,177,120,122(9),21,21A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.783/KB and 798 of 2006, decision dated: 19-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARINA N., ZAIDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hassan Naeem (in I.T.A. No. 783/KB of 2006). Faisal Rauf Memon, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 783/KB of 2006). Faisal Rauf Memon, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 798/KB of 2006). Hassan Naeem (in I.T.A. No. 798/KB of 2006)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MASHREQ BANK, PSC, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, (LEGAL DIVISION), RTO, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 108 = 2012 SLD 108 = (2012) 106 TAX 226 = 2012 PTD 1559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRectification under S.65 of Income Tax Ordinance (1979) based on rent-free tenancy.\n(a) Rent-Free Tenancy\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 65, 62, 66A.\n•\nFindings: Information about tenancy was available during the original assessment. Subsequent actions based on the same information were invalid.\n•\nOutcome: Orders invoking S.65 annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66A,62,19(2)(b),19(3), ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Rect) Nos.368/KB to 371/KB of 2005 in I.T.As. Nos.973/KB to 976/KB of 2002, decision dated: 30-06-2007, hearing DATE : 23rd June, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND CHAUDHARY NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kashif Mumtaz. Mushtaq Hussain Qazi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs G.S.A. HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE10, COS. I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 109 = 2012 SLD 109 = (2012) 106 TAX 181 = 2012 PTD 1572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax treatment of dry lease charges for aircraft under Double Taxation Agreement.\n(a) Lease Charges\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), S.122(1)(5); Customs Tariff Chapter 88.\n•\nFindings: Aircraft classified as machines, not commercial equipment; hence, lease charges were not royalty.\n•\nOutcome: Tax levied on lease charges annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1)(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.756/KB of 2011, decision dated: 9th August , 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N., ZAIDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Salman Pasha and Nadeem Ahmed Dawoodis. Abdul Hameed Memon, D.R. Date of hearing. 9th August, 2011", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAWA DEVELOPMENT INC., KARACHI\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 110 = 2012 SLD 110 = (2012) 106 TAX 208 = 2012 PTD 1590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nConstitutionality of Ss. 127 and 130(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n(a) Constitutional Petition\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 127 & 130(4); Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 8, 9, 10-A, & 175.\n•\nFindings: The challenge to the Income Tax Ordinance was without merit, and remedies existed within the tax framework.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,130(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,8,9,10A,175 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1703 of 2012, decision dated: 7-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Usman Awan for Petitioner. Bilal, (ASC) and Babar Bilal No. 4", + "Party Name:": "OCEAN PAKISTAN LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 111 = 2012 SLD 111 = (2012) 106 TAX 158 = 2012 PTD 1593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nAmendment of assessment under S.122(5A).\n•\nClassification of income and adjustment of losses.\n(a) Amendment of Assessment\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 122(5A), 39, 29, 57(1).\n•\nFindings: Repeated investigative notices and lack of clear findings rendered amendments invalid.\n•\nOutcome: Orders annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\n(b) Business Income Classification\n•\nFindings: Financial assistance and other receipts correctly classified as business income; losses rightly adjusted.\n•\nOutcome: Amendments under S.122(5A) annulled.\n(c) Dividend Income\n•\nFindings: Dividends earned under company objectives considered business income.\n•\nOutcome: Classification upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),122(9),120,113,29,39,57(1),56 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (A.G.) Nos.215/KB, 216/KB and I.T.As. Nos.316/KB to 319/KB of 2011, decision dated: 12-08-2011, hearing DATE : 19-07-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Chaudhry Nazeer Ahmed for Applicant. Shahid Fawad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARACHI INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nA.C.I.R., AUDIT-II, R.T.O., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 112 = 2012 SLD 112 = (2012) 106 TAX 223 = 2012 PTD 1611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nScope of a Chartered Accountant’s certificate in tax appeals.\n•\nDistinction between falsity of accounts and accounting method.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 32-A, 62(1), 136.\n•\nThe Chartered Accountant certified the accounts as true and fair. The qualification in the certificate did not equate to falsity but raised procedural concerns (e.g., stock valuation).\n•\nAssessing Officer failed to issue mandatory notice under S.62(1) before rejecting accounts.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal against acceptance of trading accounts was dismissed.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: CIT v. Krudd Sons Ltd. (1994 PTD 174).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,32A,62(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 45 to 49 of 1998, decision dated: 9-12-2011, hearing DATE : 11-11-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IJAZ UL AHSAN AND SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan. Mian Ashiq Hussain", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nAYESHA WOOLLEN MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 113 = 2012 SLD 113 = (2012) 106 TAX 240 = 2012 PTD 1628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRectification under S.111 of Income Tax Ordinance (2001).\n•\nJurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal to annul assessments.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 221, 132(3), 111.\n•\nAdditions made under S.111 violated mandatory legal provisions and were annulled.\n•\nThe Tribunal acted within its powers to annul illegal assessments under S.132(3).\n•\nOutcome: Revenue’s application for rectification was dismissed.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 2153.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,221,132(3) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect.) No.298/KB of 2009 in I.T.As. Nos.342/KB and 323/KB of 2010, decision dated: 10-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asghar Hidayatullah, D.R.. Ejaz Jafri, ITP", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O\nvs\nMst. YASMEEN JAWED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 114 = 2012 SLD 114 = 2012 PTD 1632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRefund claim for over-deduction of tax.\n•\nRecognition of manufacturing activity for advertisement media.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Ss. 170, 171; Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), S.2(3)(ii).\n•\nTaxpayer engaged in manufacturing advertisement media (e.g., billboards) was entitled to a refund.\n•\nDelay in issuing refunds constituted maladministration.\n•\nOutcome: Ombudsman recommended issuance of refund with compensation within 15 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.67/LHR/IT(54)126 of 2012, decision dated: 16-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Chaudhry M. Saleem Jehangir, Authorized Representative. Ashfaq Ahmad, DCIR for Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN, NATIONAL SCREEN ART ADVISOR, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 159 = 2007 SLD 159 = 2007 PTD 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nGift received through a crossed cheque.\n•\nApplication of S.12(18) regarding income deemed to accrue.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), S.12(18).\n•\nGift received via crossed cheque deposited in an Association of Persons’ account was valid.\n•\nAuthorities added requirements not stipulated in the law.\n•\nOutcome: Addition annulled, and appeal allowed.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: 2002 PTD 63.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 8/LB of 2006, decision dated: 3rd May, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar, A.C.A. and Zulfiqar Ali Sheikh, I.T.P.. S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 264 = 2006 SLD 264 = 2006 TAX 345 = 2007 PTD 139 = (2006) 93 TAX 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nAdditions in trading results for a sugar mill.\n•\nIssues of transportation costs, sale rates, consultancy fees, and depreciation.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 12(18), 50(1).\n•\nAdditions based on unverifiable claims (e.g., transportation, sales incentives, molasses sales) were deleted due to lack of evidence.\n•\nDepreciation was restored if the mill’s operations for 141 days were verified.\n•\nOutcome: Additions annulled or set aside for reassessment with proper evidence.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: 1991 PTD 531, 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2231.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5138/LB to 5149 of 2004; decided on 30-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ayub Aftab. Shahid Jamil Khan, L.A. and Mrs. Sabhia Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 265 = 2006 SLD 265 = 2007 PTD 199 = (2006) 94 TAX 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nValidity of a gift transaction not processed through banking channels.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 12(18), 56, 61.\n•\nGift from husband to wife was supported by an affidavit. S.12(18) did not apply as there was no fictitious transaction.\n•\nOutcome: Addition under S.12(18) deleted.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: 2002 PTD 63.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),27(2)(a)(ii)(b),56,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5495/LB of 2002, decision dated: 8-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Naeem Munawar\nRespondent(s) by: Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1134 = 2007 SLD 1134 = (2007) 95 TAX 13 = 2007 PTD 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRevision powers under S.66A and deemed orders under S.59(4).\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 66A, 62(1), 59(4).\n•\nDeemed order under S.59(4) took precedence, rendering S.66A proceedings void.\n•\nOutcome: Proceedings annulled due to a legal defect.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: Black's Law Dictionary, 1989 PTD 909 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62(1),59(4),156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos.494/LB of 2004 and 599/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd September, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Rauf, I.T.P. for Applicant. S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 160 = 2007 SLD 160 = 2007 PTD 509 = 2007 TAX 25 = (2007) 95 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nLoan transaction added under S.12(18).\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), S.12(18).\n•\nLoan was an internal liability adjustment among members, not subject to S.12(18).\n•\nOutcome: Addition annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 930/IB of 2005, decision dated: 22-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem-ul-Haq. Amjad Khan Khattak, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 267 = 2006 SLD 267 = (2006) 94 TAX 265 = 2007 PTD 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRejection of accounts based on gross profit, stock records, and sale rate variations.\nFindings:\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Ss. 62(1), 24(fff), 50(1).\n•\nRejections based on gross profit and stock registers lacked specific defects.\n•\nAdditions regarding depreciation, worker participation funds, and salary expenses were unjustified.\n•\nOutcome: Rejection and additions annulled, and statutory allowances restored.\nReferences:\n•\nCase Law: 1994 PTD 174, 72 Tax 34.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),23,24(fff),24(c),50(1),62,62(1),111(1)(b),130(3),135,SecondSched.Cl(118D),ThirdSched.,Rr.5&5B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1093/LB and 150/LB of 2004, decision dated: 29-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Sajjid Ijaz Hotiana D.K.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 161 = 2007 SLD 161 = 2007 PTD 639 = (2007) 95 TAX 74 = 2007 PTR 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nMemorandum of appeal vagueness.\n•\nAssessment on insufficient notices.\n•\nMerger doctrine and amendment powers.\nFindings:\n1.\nOpportunity to Amend Appeals: If grounds of appeal are vague, parties must be allowed to amend the memorandum. (Rule 10, ITAT Rules, 1981).\n2.\nNotice Deficiency: Notices under S.62 must explicitly identify defects in accounts; general notices render assessments illegal.\n3.\nMerger Doctrine: Once a higher appellate authority issues an order, lower orders merge with it. Taxation officers cannot amend appellate tribunal orders. (S.122, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001).\n4.\nOutcome: Assessments made on general notices annulled, and tribunal orders were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5545/LB and 5546/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30th November 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheraz Mirza, D.R.. Viqar A. Khan, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 162 = 2007 SLD 162 = 2007 PTD 1186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nIllegal inquiries by tax inspectors.\n•\nAppeals based on unauthorized assessments.\nFindings:\n•\nMaladministration in Appeals: Enquiries conducted without authorization and appellate enhancements made without notice to the taxpayer were illegal.\n•\nRecommendations: Rectify appellate orders, amend assessments per legal requirements, and ensure taxpayer hearings are provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,132(2),129(2),146,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 37 of 2004, decision dated: 17-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Elahi for the Complainant. Asif Haider Orakzai, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Lady Dr. GHAZALA AMJAD, ABBOTTABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 181 = 2005 SLD 181 = (2005) 91 TAX 196 = 2007 PTD 1222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRefund processing delays.\n•\nMaladministration and delayed rectifications.\nFindings:\n•\nRefunds due under S.50(7E) were not issued despite adequate documentation and lawful claims.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ruling: Directed immediate issuance of refunds with compensation for delays. Officials responsible for negligence were recommended for written warnings.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,50(7-E),50(7-F) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 476-L of 2004, decision dated: 7-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Arif Malik, A-CIT", + "Party Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 163 = 2007 SLD 163 = 2007 PTD 1636 = 2008 PTCL 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRetirement of partners under the Partnership Act, 1932.\n•\nPrinciples of partnership agreements.\nFindings:\n1.\nRetirement Modes: Retirement must adhere to partnership deed terms or be consensual if no terms exist.\n2.\nEstoppel: Register entries of the firm are conclusive against the firm. (Ss.7, 68, Partnership Act).\n3.\nCourt Observations: Courts upheld partner rights where retirement procedures were bypassed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Partnership Act, 1932=32,33,39,40,41,42,43,44,7,68,32(1)(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2 ", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.30 of 2007, decision dated: 25-04-2007, hearing DATE : 28-03-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO AND RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kamal Azfars. Salah-ud-Din Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "M. YOUSUF ADIL SALEEM & CO. and 7 others\nvs\nHAMID MASOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 452 = 2004 SLD 452 = 2004 PTD 2712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25(2),25(2)(e),25(2)(d),25(12),195 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(4)(b) ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-421 of 2003, dated 18/09/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR LQBAL, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Technical Messrs Clariant Pakistan Limited \nVS \nCollector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi and Another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 183 = 2005 SLD 183 = 2005 PTD 2039", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nCancellation of assessments under S.59-A and S.66-A.\nFindings:\n•\nIllegal Assessments: Assessing officers violated S.59(4) by initiating proceedings without cause under S.59-A and S.66-A.\n•\nOutcome: Assessments were canceled, and original self-assessment returns restored.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,59,59A,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2250/LB and 2251/LB of 2002, decision dated: 19-05-2005, hearing DATE : 7-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas. Ahmad Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 184 = 2005 SLD 184 = 2005 PTD 2029", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nPresumptive tax regime under S.143-B.\nFindings:\n•\nFiling a statement under S.143-B without opting explicitly for the presumptive tax regime is insufficient to invoke it.\n•\nOutcome: Department’s attempt to invoke S.66-A was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,62,66A,80C,143B ", + "Case #": "R.A. No.526/LB of 2004, decision dated: 9-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Akram Tahir, D.R.. Mudassar Shuja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 185 = 2005 SLD 185 = 2005 PTD 1042", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nFindings:\n•\nComplaints related to non-tax agencies (e.g., Anti-Narcotic Force) fall outside Federal Tax Ombudsman jurisdiction unless invoked by Revenue Division.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(6),9(2)(b) Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977=31 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 428-K of 2004, decision dated: 5-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.M. Laliwala for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. RAZIA AHMED LALIWALA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 312 = 1997 SLD 312 = 1997 PTD 2095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDisallowance of expenses based on parallel cases.\nFindings:\n•\nTribunal reduced disallowance from 50% to 25% based on similar cases, ensuring fair treatment of the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4133/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 14-12-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARFRAZ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi, A.R.. Najm-ud-Din, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 313 = 1997 SLD 313 = 1997 PTD 552 = (1995) 213 ITR 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRegistration cancellation for a firm with a minor partner.\nFindings:\n•\nInclusion of a minor as a full-fledged partner invalidated the firm’s registration under S.186, Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=186 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1983, decision dated: 15-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.V. Surte with S.P. Surte and Sunil Mandlol instructed by Messrs P.V. Surte & Co. for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with J.P. Devadhar instructed by Mrs. S.Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JEWAT LADHUBHAI SHAH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 513 = 1998 SLD 513 = 1998 PTD 2350 = (1996) 222 ITR 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nReassessment and depreciation claims.\nFindings:\n•\nReassessment based on excessive depreciation claims was invalid due to a lack of material facts or failure by the taxpayer to disclose.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 312 of 1995, decision dated: 20-06-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B. C. PATEL AND S.M. SONI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.P. Shah for the Petitioner. M.J. Thakore for M.R. Bhatt & Co.", + "Party Name:": "GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD.\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT) (NO. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 514 = 1998 SLD 514 = 1998 PTCL 60 = 1998 TAX 251 = (1998) 77 TAX 251 = 1998 PTD 1898", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nAppeals and unexplained investments.\nFindings:\n1.\nEfficient Appeals: Authorities advised to resolve cases expeditiously.\n2.\nUnexplained Investments: Gold imports not protected under Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 were added to taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa) Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=4,5 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1349/KB arid 747 of 1997-98, decision dated: 2-03-1998, hearing DATE : 24-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Majid, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 1349/KB of 1997-98). A.K. Shamim (in I.T.A. No. 1349/KB of 1997-98). A.K. Shamim (in I.T.A. No. 747/KB of 1997-98). Muhammad Majid, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 747/KB of 1997-98)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 275 = 2003 SLD 275 = 2003 PTD 2340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDelay in appellate decisions.\nFindings:\n•\nMaladministration: Repeated hearings without decisions were deemed negligent. Ombudsman directed timely resolutions and disciplinary actions against negligent officials.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3rdSched,7 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1501 of 2002, decision dated: 20-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mohammad Asghar Saroha for Complainant. S. Shahid Hussain (A-CIT) Bahawalpur", + "Party Name:": "Mian ABDUL KARIM\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 229 = 2004 SLD 229 = 2004 PTD 1916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTrademark ownership disputes.\nFindings:\n•\nRespondents’ failure to use a registered trademark justified its cancellation. Ownership was granted to the applicant.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=6,8,14,37(1)(a)(b),46(2) ", + "Case #": "J. Misc. No.31 of 2001 decided on 8-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GULZAR AHMED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Hameed Iqbal and Hasan Irfan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "GAP, INC. (A COMPANY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE) through Authorized Signatory\nvs\nSHAHID CORPORATION through Shahid Maqbool (Sole Proprietor) and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 178 = 1991 SLD 178 = 1991 PTD 658 = (1991) 63 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nIncome escaping assessment and reopening of assessments.\nFindings:\n•\nReopening assessments under S.34 was valid for concealed income but invalid for procedural errors or revised returns unless backed by independent information.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1),34(2),22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.20 of 1981, decision dated: 18-03-1991. dates of hearing: 6th and 7-02-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AZIM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE EAST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 179 = 1991 SLD 179 = 1991 PTD 1143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nInclusion of a wife's share of loss in her husband's total income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFindings:\n1.\nInclusion of Wife's Share: Under S.64(1)(i), a wife's share of income or loss in a firm where her husband is also a partner can be included in his total income.\n2.\nCarry Forward of Losses: The Supreme Court upheld the assessee's right to carry forward his wife's share of the loss for future adjustment.\n3.\nLegislative Exposition: Explanation 2 of S.64, effective from April 1, 1980, clarified the provision but was not retrospective.\nNotable Case Law:\n•\nC.I.T. v. J.H. Gotla (1985) applied.\n•\nDayalbhai Madhavji Vadera v. C.I.T. (1966) discussed contrasting judicial opinions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=64 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 1 of 1977, decision dated: 26-10-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND, J.S. VERMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "(Direct reference under section 257 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B, in R.A. No. 187 of 1975-76 arising out of I.TA. No. 1480 of 1972-73).\nDr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADRAS\nvs\nP. DORAISWAMY CHETTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 115 = 2012 SLD 115 = 2012 PTD 757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nUse of a taxpayer’s National Tax Number (NTN) by another individual for purchasing a vehicle.\nFindings:\n•\nAssessment Order Invalid: The taxpayer provided evidence (affidavit, payment receipt, delivery letter) showing the car was registered to another person who used the taxpayer’s NTN.\n•\nFirst Appellate Authority Decision: Canceled the assessment due to the lack of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nOutcome: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1245/LB of 2011, decision dated: 30-11-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh. None", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nIBRAR AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 38 = 2009 SLD 38 = (2009) 100 TAX 208 = 2009 PTD 774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nCharging withholding tax and sales tax on fixed electricity charges when no consumption occurred.\nFindings:\n•\nSales Tax & Withholding Tax Invalid: Sales tax applies only to goods supplied, and electricity not consumed cannot be taxed.\n•\nConstitutional Jurisdiction: The court declared deductions without actual electricity consumption unlawful.\n•\nOutcome: Withholding and sales taxes were directed to be removed from bills.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nWater and Power Development Authority v. M.N Steel Re-rolling Mills (1999 SCMR 494).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=235 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.14360 of 2008, heard on 22-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Waseer Standing Counsel. Dr. Muhammad Irtaza Awan No. 5", + "Party Name:": "AHSAN UL HAQ BHATTI\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 685 = 2001 SLD 685 = 2001 PTD 2955 = (2001) 84 TAX 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nInclusion of delivery charges in the sale price for calculating sales tax.\nFindings:\n•\nDelivery Charges Excluded: Following precedent, delivery charges do not form part of the sale price under the Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nSupreme Court Ruling: Supported exclusion of delivery charges.\nNotable Case Law:\n•\nIttehad Chemicals v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 136).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(l) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 347 of 1991, decision dated: 22-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hameed-ud-Din for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik and Khan Muhammad Virks", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL PROMOTERS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 314 = 1997 SLD 314 = 1997 PTD 318 = (1996) 75 TAX 136 = 1997 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nInterpretation of statutes, retrospective amendments, and conflicting provisions.\nFindings:\n1.\nRetrospective Amendments: Explicit provisions for retrospective application affect pending cases.\n2.\nConflict Resolution: Courts must reconcile conflicting provisions, giving precedence to the lawmaker's purpose.\n3.\nExplanation Use: Explanations clarify ambiguities in statutory provisions.\nCase Law References:\n•\nManj Khan v. The Controlling Authority (PLD 1968 Lah. 202).\n•\nMaxwell on Interpretation of Statutes.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 524(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 7-12-1996, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Muhammad Sadiq Butt, D.R.. Respondent in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 315 = 1997 SLD 315 = 1997 PTD 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nDepartmental failure to produce records during appellate proceedings.\nFindings:\n•\nLack of Prosecution: Tribunal rejected the department's appeal due to non-cooperation and absence of supporting evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,135(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1905/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 28-11-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sartaj yousuf, D.R. Zaka-ud-Din Chaudhary", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 316 = 1997 SLD 316 = 1997 PTD 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nRejection of declared sales figures without sufficient evidence.\nFindings:\n•\nBurden of Proof on Tax Authorities: Even after rejecting declared sales, the Assessing Officer must provide material evidence to support estimates.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal limited sales estimation based on lack of concrete evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 70/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 4-10-1995, hearing DATE : 21st September, 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MEHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Ahmed Ch., C. A.. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 317 = 1997 SLD 317 = 1997 PTD 1054", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nImposition of income tax based on turnover and its constitutionality.\nFindings:\n•\nTurnover Tax Constitutionality: Supreme Court to determine if taxing turnover without opportunity for adjustment against actual income aligns with legislative powers under the Constitution.\n•\nInterim Order: Case prioritized for early hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,80CC&80D Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXVII,R.1 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=47,185(3),FourthSched ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.349 to 363-L, 367 to 372-L, 378-L, 385 to 393-L, 400 to 411-L, 436-L, 438-L, 461, 461-L, 444 to 456, 439 to 442-L and 425-L of 1995, decision dated: 24-04-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR, FAZAL ELAHI KHAN AND FAZAL KARIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Saqib Nisar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all above Petitions).\nNemos.\nIftikhar Ali Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Petitions Nos.448 to 454, 461 and 462-L of 1995).\nMian Muhammad Najamuz Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petitions Nos.444 to 447-L of 1995).\nM. A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petitions Nos.439 to 442-L of 1995).\nS. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 425 of 1995).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs THE LAHORE TEXTILE & GENERAL MILLS LTD., LAHORE and others\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 318 = 1997 SLD 318 = 1997 PTD 1187 = (1996) 222 ITR 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nTaxability of unclaimed customer balances transferred to the profit and loss account.\nFindings:\n•\nUnclaimed Balances as Income: When claims become time-barred, such amounts, if treated as income by the assessee, are taxable.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nJay's-The Jewellers Ltd. v. IRC (1947).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.11864 to 11867 of 1996, decision dated: 11-09-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMADI C, J., B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. C. SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol and R. Sathish, Advocates with him). A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMIVUSSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nT.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 368 = 1993 SLD 368 = (1993) 67 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nImpact of withdrawal of sales tax exemptions on vested rights.\nFindings:\n•\nVested Rights Protected: Withdrawal of exemptions after import licenses were issued did not affect vested rights.\n•\nOutcome: Department's action deemed illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=31A Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(5) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-5 of 1989, decision dated: 11-02-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nasim and Muhammad Farogh Nasim, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ikram Ahmad Ansari, D.A.G. and S. M. Sayedain, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 369 = 1993 SLD 369 = (1993) 67 TAX 170 = (1993) 67 TAX 300 = 1993 PTCL 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nApplicability of exemptions to regulatory duties under the Customs Act.\nFindings:\n•\nExemption Not Extended: Notifications under S.19 do not apply to duties imposed later under S.18(2).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=18(2),19,19(1) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-173 of 1990---- decided on 23-12-1992, hearing DATE : 25-5-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IMAM ALI G. KAZI AND SYED KHURSHID HAIDER RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Saeed, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ali Murtaza Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SALFI TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 319 = 1997 SLD 319 = 1997 PTD 1241 = (1996) 76 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\nDeductions for expenses such as royalties and training costs.\nFindings:\n1.\nAllowable Deductions: Training expenses and royalties, if in line with accounting and statutory provisions, are deductible.\n2.\nBurden on Revenue: Authorities must precisely identify non-business use of borrowed capital to disallow interest claims.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nCIT, Lahore v. Mst. Wazir-un-Nisa Begum (1972 SCMR 116).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xv),23(l)(xviii),24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5931/LB of 1991-92, 6785/LB and 730/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 11-04-1997, hearing DATE : 16-09-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.. Nasim Zafar, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 320 = 1997 SLD 320 = 1997 PTCL 8 = 1997 PTD 2379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nValidity of estimating higher sales, gross profit (G.P.) rate, and add-backs by the Assessing Officer.\nFindings:\n•\nSales & G.P. Rate Adjustment: The First Appellate Authority reduced sales estimates and G.P. rate but confirmed add-backs.\n•\nTribunal Decision: The assessee accepted the First Appellate Authority's decision. However, the Tribunal reduced the G.P. rate further from 20% to 15% based on historical performance.\n•\nOutcome: First Appellate order upheld with minor adjustment in G.P. rate.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 10302/LB/DB of 1991-92 and 438/LB/DB of 1992-93, decision dated: 10-10-1996, hearing DATE : 7-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Raja (in I.T.A. No. 10302/LB/DB of 1991-92). Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 10302/LB/DB of 1991-92). Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 438/LB/DB of 1992-93). Tariq Raja (in I.T.A. No. 438/LB/DB of 1992-93)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 112 = 1995 SLD 112 = 1995 PTD 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nRecovery of taxes paid under ultra vires regulations and entitlement to interest from the payment date.\nFindings:\n•\nRestitution Principle: Taxes paid in response to an unlawful demand must be repaid immediately with interest from the payment date unless special circumstances apply.\n•\nCourt Decision: The House of Lords upheld that repayment of unlawfully collected taxes, along with interest, is a matter of justice.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal by the Revenue dismissed, affirming restitutionary rights.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Decided on 20-07-1992. dates of hearing: 17th to 19th, 23rd to 26th", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY, LORD, JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE, LORD BROWNE- WILKINSON AND LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY", + "Lawyer Name": "Ian Glick QC, Alan Moses QC and David Pannick (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown. John Gardiner QC, Nicholas Underhill QC and Jonathan Peacock (instructed by Clifford Chance) for Woolwich. Rengan Krishnan, Barrister", + "Party Name:": "WOOLWICH BUILDING SOCIETY\nvs\nINLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS (No. 2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 113 = 1995 SLD 113 = 1995 PTD 1199 = (1995) 71 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nEligibility for weighted deductions under S.35-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFindings:\n•\nDenied Deductions:\no\nExpenditures for obtaining permission to sell in new markets outside the agreement.\no\nExport inspection and loading/unloading charges.\n•\nReasoning: These expenses do not meet the criteria of sales promotion under S.35-B(1)(b).\n•\nOutcome: Weighted deduction denied for the specified expenditures.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=35 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 313 of 1981, decision dated: 20-09-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.R. DHAUNKA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Arun Sathe for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with J.P. Devadhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax Reference No. 313 of 1981, decided on 20th September, 1993\nDR. BECK & CO. (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 185 = 1994 SLD 185 = 1994 PTD 1 = (1993) 201 ITR 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nComputation of long-term capital gains under S.80-T when business loss is present.\nFindings:\n•\nNo Set-Off Against Business Loss: Business losses cannot reduce capital gains for computing deductions under S.80-T.\n•\nPhrase Interpretation: Such income in S.80-T refers exclusively to capital gains.\n•\nOutcome: Relief under S.80-T granted on full capital gains without deducting business loss", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No-3044 of 1983, decision dated: 13-04-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him). Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nV. VENKATACHALAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 186 = 1993 SLD 186 = 1994 PTD 77 = (1993) 68 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nTribunal's use of unpresented evidence in deciding appeals under the Estate Duty Act.\nFindings:\n•\nConfrontation Requirement: Evidence not confronted with the appellant cannot be used in deciding a case.\n•\nHigh Court Decision: Directed the Tribunal to rehear the matter afresh.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for re-evaluation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=59A ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.64 of 1985, decision dated: 25-01-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MAHBOOB AHMADC.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Altaf Hussain Jamal for Applicant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Mst. ZUBAIDA KHATOON and others\nvs\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 321 = 1997 SLD 321 = 1997 PTD 219 = (1996) 218 ITR 337 = (1996) 75 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nNature of payments under a collaboration agreement—capital or revenue expenditure.\nFindings:\n•\nRevenue Expenditure: Payments for technical know-how, without enduring advantages, were treated as revenue expenditure.\n•\nOutcome: High Court ruling affirmed; expenses allowed as revenue expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2740 to 2742 of 1977, decision dated: 29-03-1995. (Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 6, 1976, of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No.78 of 1970)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND G. T. NANAVATI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him). Amit Dhupar, Rahul Dave and D. N. Guptas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nINDIAN OXYGEN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 121 = 1997 SLD 121 = 1997 PTD 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nApplicability and validity of Rule 115 (exchange rate provisions) under the Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962.\nFindings:\n1.\nRule 115 Validity: The rule was upheld, clarifying its application only to foreign currency available on the last day of the accounting year.\n2.\nExport Receipts: Amounts already converted to rupees do not require application of Rule 115.\n•\nOutcome: High Court decision partially reversed; Rule 115 upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=115 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 1996, decision dated: 11-01-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. A. S. ANAND AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (S. N. Terdol, R. Chandra and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him)s. S. Ganesh, Mrs. A.K. Verma, P. D. Tyagi, Advocates, for Messrs, J.B.D. & Co.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nvs\nCHOWGULE & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 322 = 1997 SLD 322 = 1997 PTD 1897 = (1998) 77 TAX 101 = (1997) 224 ITR 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 6717\nIssue:\nDeduction of sales tax paid in a later year under the mercantile system of accounting.\nFindings:\n•\nNo Deduction in Later Year: Sales tax pertains to the accounting year of sales, regardless of when it was paid.\n•\nOutcome: Deduction disallowed for the assessment year 1968-69.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3922 of 1983, decision dated: 19-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rajiv Datta, Vipin Nair and D. R. Nigam, Advocates. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K. N. Nagpal, C. Radhakrishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "Haji LAL MUHAMMAD BIRI WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 515 = 1998 SLD 515 = 1998 PTD 336 = (1996) 221 ITR 145 = (1996) 75 TAX 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nAssessment of income from flats constructed and handed over under agreements.\nFindings:\n•\nBusiness Income: Tribunal held that income arises only upon registration of sale deeds.\n•\nAnnual Value Exclusion: The annual value of unsold flats cannot be taxed under S.22.\n•\nOutcome: High Court directed referral of the question to resolve the interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=22,28,256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.51 of 1990, decision dated: 28-08-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. PARVATHA RAO AND V. RAJA GOPALA REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Ashok for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nUNITED HOUSING CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 516 = 1998 SLD 516 = 1998 PTD 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nProtection of Foreign Currency Accounts under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992.\nFindings:\n1.\nImmunity from Inquiry: Foreign currency in declared accounts is protected, even if initially acquired through illegitimate means.\n2.\nFreezing of Accounts: Actions to freeze accounts were held void and mala fide.\n•\nOutcome: Constitutional petition allowed; petitioner permitted to operate the account.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=3,4,5 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ PetitionaNo.54 of 1994, heard on 4-02-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mujeeb-ur-Rehman for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Siddique Khan", + "Party Name:": "Writ a No. 54 of 1994, heard on 4th February, 1996\nARSHAD MAHMOOD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 517 = 1998 SLD 517 = 1998 PTD 449 = (1996) 221 ITR 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nTaxability of excess collections for souvenirs published by an employee association.\nFindings:\n•\nNon-Business Activity: Publication of a souvenir by a registered society is not an adventure in the nature of trade.\n•\nOutcome: Excess collections not taxable as income.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2,28 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.86 of 1987, decision dated: 28-07-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND G. BIKSHAPATHY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. M. Suryanarayana Murthy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS. R. M. T. STAFF ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 323 = 1997 SLD 323 = 1998 PTD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nExemption of U.N. pensions from taxation under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947.\nFindings:\n•\nWidow’s Pension Exempt: Pensions received by widows of U.N. officials are exempt as they derive from the official’s employment.\n•\nOutcome: Exemption granted.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.55 of 1987, decision dated: 17-07-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND G. BIKSHAPATHY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ramakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. MAJJIDUNNISA BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 518 = 1998 SLD 518 = 1998 PTD 490 = (1996) 221 ITR 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nRectification of investment allowance erroneously granted.\nFindings:\n•\nDisallowance Justified: The unit exceeded the small-scale investment limit and produced items listed in Schedule XI.\n•\nOutcome: Rectification upheld as a correction of apparent errors.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=32 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.501 of 1989, decision dated: 8-02-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PERFECT POTTERY CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 519 = 1998 SLD 519 = 1998 PTD 590 = (1996) 221 ITR 619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue (a): Penalty under S.271(1)(c) for concealment of income when returned income is less than 80% of assessed income.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPresumption of concealment arises under the Explanation to S.271(1)(c) but is rebuttable.\no\nAssessment findings are relevant but not conclusive in penalty proceedings.\no\nAssessee demonstrated savings in construction costs through certificates and departmental valuer reports, refuting allegations of unaccounted income.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty under S.271(1)(c) could not be sustained as the assessee discharged the burden of proof.\nIssue (b): Applicability of law for determining the quantum of penalty.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPenalty must be determined based on the law in effect at the time of filing the original return.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty to be levied according to the law applicable on the original return date.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 187 to 190 of 1989, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Joseph Markos and Joseph Kodianthara for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HOTEL AND ALLIED TRADES (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 520 = 1998 SLD 520 = 1998 PTD 1298 = (1997) 224 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Classification of sales tax subsidy as capital or revenue receipt.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSales tax subsidy was intended as a capital incentive.\no\nSubsidy was not linked to operational revenue but to encourage investment.\n•\nOutcome: Sales tax subsidy classified as a capital receipt, exempt from income tax.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 199 of 1992, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvd\nLAXMI METAL POWDER (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 521 = 1998 SLD 521 = 1998 PTD 1310 = (1997) 224 ITR 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Treatment of capital subsidy and pre-production expenses in calculating depreciation and investment allowance.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCapital subsidy cannot be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes.\no\nPre-production expenses are part of the actual cost of plant and machinery, including gas cylinders.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal correctly included pre-production expenses and disallowed the deduction of capital subsidy from asset cost. No legal question arose for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.229 of 1992, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 522 = 1998 SLD 522 = 1998 PTD 1804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue (a): Definition and scope of income under the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe term income includes deemed income, extending beyond periodic returns to gains derived from various sources.\no\nLegislative power allows deeming clauses for fiscal purposes, provided such income aligns with rational definitions.\n•\nOutcome: Provisions under Ss.80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D upheld as valid and non-confiscatory.\nIssue (b): Constitutional validity of taxing provisions in the Ordinance.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nFiscal laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality unless shown to conflict with the Constitution.\no\nProvisions designed for simplicity and efficiency are not discriminatory or arbitrary, even if they impose higher liabilities.\n•\nOutcome: Provisions under Ss.80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D were validly enacted, and their classification did not violate constitutional rights.\nIssue (c): Interpretation of income in legislative contexts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe term income in legislative entries must be interpreted broadly, encompassing ancillary and subsidiary matters.\no\nDeemed income provisions are permissible if they rationally align with the ordinary meaning of income.\n•\nOutcome: Legislative definitions of income under Ss.80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D were upheld as consistent with constitutional frameworks.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(24),80C,80CC,80D Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,73 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.557 of 1992, 999, 1004, 1111, 1133, 1134, 1157, 1158, 1163, 1171 to 1176, 1201, 1692 and 1693 of 1993 decided on 13-06-1997, hearing DATE : 19-05-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, MAMOON KAZI AND HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Per Wajih-ud-Din Ahmed JUSTICE, agreeing with Mamoon Kazi, J.\nSirajul Haque Menion, Khalid Anwar, Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Muhammad Naseem Khan, M. Farogh Nasim, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Liaquat Merchant, Fazle Ghani Khan, Mansoorul Arfin, Mohsin Tayyeb Ali, Muhammad Ali Sayeed, Tariq Jawaid, Umer A. Bandial, Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Mrs. Majida Razvi, Iqbal Kazi, Khalilur Rehman, M. Athar Saeed, Muqtada Karim, Shaikh Abdul Aziz, Nasim Ahmed Khan, Hyder Raza Naqvi, Shams-ud-Din Khalid, M. Azam Khan, Muhammad Mazharul Hassan, Akbar Saad, Saleem-ud-Din, Irfan Saadiq Khan, Muhammad Farid, Naimtoolah Khan, Sultan M. Tanoli, Salim-ud-Din Ahmed, M. Muzaffarul Haq, Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Abdul Karim Mangrani, Mazhar Jafari, M. Ashraf Malik, Iqbal Salman Pasha, M. Mazharul Hassan, Fasih-ud-Din Ahmed, Shahanshah Hussain, S. Nasir H. Zaidi, Sabih-ud-Din Ahmed, Said-ud-Din Ahmed, A. Aziz, Munirur Rehman, Ali Akbar, Jawaid Ahmed Siddiqui, S. Rehamtoola Qadri, S. Musawat Ali, Ismail Padhiar, M. Aziz Malik, Riaz Hussain Baloch, Ali Murtaza Hussain, M. Akmal Wasim, H.A. Jafri, Irfan Saadat Khan, Bashir A. Shaikh, M.A. Essani, Sadiq Khan and S. Ishtiaq Ali for Petitioners\nNaimur Rehman, Standing Counsel, Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Dy. Attorney-General, Shaik Haider, M.G. Hassan, Nasrullah Awan and Abrar Hasans", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LIMITED and another\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 523 = 1998 SLD 523 = 1998 PTCL 52 = 1998 PTD 1924 = (1998) 77 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nEstimate of Income:\no\nAssessing Officer cannot estimate receipts without confronting the assessee.\no\nOutcome: Declared receipts by the assessee were accepted.\n2.\nMiscellaneous Income:\no\nWithout evidence, addition under miscellaneous income was maintained.\n3.\nLoan as Deemed Income:\no\nIf deemed collusive, S.13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, could apply.\n4.\nDeposit-at-Call:\no\nLoan received through deposit-at-call was not deemed income under S.12(18).\n5.\nUnexplained Investment:\no\nWithout doubt on the source, no addition could be made under S.13(1)(aa).\n6.\nAdditions without Confrontation:\no\nAdditions made without confronting the assessee are not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,32(3),12(18),13,13(1)(aa) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=5,6,85A,124 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 4647/LB of 1997, decision dated: 18-02-1998, hearing DATE : 11-12-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwarul Haq. Abdul Rauf, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 524 = 1998 SLD 524 = 1998 PTD 2335 = (1996) 221 ITR 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDisallowance of Salary and Perquisites:\no\nPayments to Managing Director governed by S.40(c), not S.40-A(5).\n2.\nDistribution of Drug Samples:\no\nExpenses for testing efficacy were business expenses, not disallowed as sales promotion under S.37(3-A).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.70 of 1987, decision dated: 27-07-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SHAH MUHAMMAD QUADRI AND G. BIKSHAPATHY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJ & J DECHANE LABORATORIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 525 = 1998 SLD 525 = 1998 PTD 2340 = (1996) 222 ITR 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCapital Gains:\no\nOriginal transaction of land was a mortgage; sale profits were short-term capital gains.\n2.\nCapital vs. Revenue Expenditure:\no\nExpenses for acquiring tea estate (e.g., stamp duty, registration) were capital expenditures.\n3.\nInterest on Advance Tax:\no\nNo prior hearing required before levying interest under Ss.139(8) & 217(1-A).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=45 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.20 of 1987, decision dated: 19-06-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.N BARUAH AND S.L. SARAF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee. G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BANSIDHAR SEWBHAGOWAN & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 526 = 1998 SLD 526 = 1998 PTD 2353 = (1996) 222 ITR 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nSales Promotion Expenditure:\no\nCommission on sales is not sales promotion and cannot be disallowed under S.37(3-A).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,37 ", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 15735 of 1994-S, decision dated: 26-02-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. P. Balachandran and R. Sivaramakrishnan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nVENEERS AND LAMINATIONS (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 527 = 1998 SLD 527 = 1998 PTD 2356 = (1996) 222 ITR 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nIllegal Transactions:\no\nNo deduction allowed for expenses related to illegal activities, even if profits from such activities are taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "M. C. C. Nos.72 of 1989 and 344 of 1992, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. K. MATHUR C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. G.N. Purohit for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSAUSER LIQUOR TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 528 = 1998 SLD 528 = 1998 PTD 2359 = (1996) 222 ITR 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nIndustrial Company Classification:\no\nAssessee leasing its manufacturing unit was not engaged in manufacturing; hence, not entitled to concessional tax rates under Finance Act provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,2(7)(c) ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1056 of 1981, 1156 of 1982 and References Nos.548 of 1981 and 711 of 1982, decision dated: 19-01-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Raj an for the Commissioner. R. Kumar for T.N. Seetharaman and K. Sampath for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nLAKSHMI INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 529 = 1998 SLD 529 = 1998 PTD 2366 = (1996) 222 ITR 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nLevy of Interest:\no\nInterest cannot be levied through a demand notice unless specified in the assessment order.\n2.\nAppeals Against Interest:\no\nWrit petitions maintainable if statute provides no appeal against interest levy.\n3.\nBasis for Interest Computation:\no\nMatter of computing interest on returned vs. assessed income referred to a larger bench.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=156,234A,234B,234C ", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos.3287, 2732, 2780, 3494, 3527, 3609, 3562 and 3782 of 1995 (R), decision dated: 2-07-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.P. WADHWA, C, J. AND S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajit Moitra for Petitioners. Debi Prasad, Senior Advocate and K.K. Jhunjhunwalas", + "Party Name:": "UDAY MISTANNA BHANDAR AND COMPLEX and 2 others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 530 = 1998 SLD 530 = 1998 PTD 2435 = (1996) 222 ITR 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nInterest Deduction:\no\nInterest on credit balances in cooperative society's funds (used for business) is not deductible under S.36(1)(iii) as they do not qualify as borrowed capital.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=36 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.258 of 1981, decision dated: 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Commissioner. U.S Awasthi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBAZPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 676 = 1999 SLD 676 = (1999) 79 TAX 530 = (1998) 233 ITR 434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nProperty in Wakf Trust:\no\nProperty settled as wakf under Islamic law was valid and did not form part of the deceased's estate for estate duty purposes. High Court’s order treating it as part of the estate was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=2,13,14 ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2959 TO 2962 OF 1984, AUGUST 3, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Shukla, P. Murli Krishnan, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Rajeev Sharma, B.K. Prasad, A.D.N. Rao, A. Subba Rao and B. Parthasarathy for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "Trustees of Sahebzadi Oalia Kulsum Trust\nvs\nController of Estate Duty" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 677 = 1999 SLD 677 = (1999) 79 TAX 544 = (1998) 234 ITR 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trust Property & Estate Duty:\n•\nFacts:\no\nA donor created a trust, transferring shares unconditionally for his grandson's benefit.\no\nThe trust deed allowed trustees to receive up to ₹3,000 annually by unanimous resolution for their services. No such resolution was ever passed.\no\nThe revenue sought to include the trust corpus in the donor’s dutiable estate under S.10 of the Estate Duty Act.\no\nLower authorities upheld the inclusion; the Tribunal ruled otherwise. The High Court reinstated inclusion under S.10.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe trust deed conveyed absolute ownership to the trustees for the beneficiary.\no\nThe donor reserved no interest in the gifted property.\no\nThe hypothetical clause on trustee remuneration did not condition or affect the trust's validity.\no\nSince the donor exercised no control and retained no interest, S.10 did not apply. The trust corpus was excluded from the donor's estate.\n•\nKey Cases:\no\nSarojini Ammal v. CED affirmed.\no\nNorman Clyde Oakes v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1953=10,64(1) ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1540 OF 1985, APRIL 23, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Murali Krishna and A.K. Verma for the Appellant. Ranbir Chandra, S.N. Sikka, K.N. Nagpal and B. K. Prasad for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Trustees of Prince Shahmat Ali Khan Trust\nvs\nController of Estate Duty" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 532 = 1998 SLD 532 = 1998 PTD 3427 = (1997) 223 ITR 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Motor Vehicle Repairs and Deductions:\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee, owning tea gardens, claimed deductions for motor vehicle repair costs (₹1,67,876) and motor vehicle tax (₹1,12,646).\no\nThe revenue disallowed these expenses.\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nRepairs:\n\nRepairs relate to restoring a damaged asset to functionality.\n\nThe ₹1,67,876 spent on motor vehicle repairs qualifies for deduction under S.31.\n2.\nMaintenance & Tax:\n\nMaintenance ensures an asset's continued operation without repair.\n\nMotor vehicle tax arises due to vehicle use in business, making it deductible under S.37(3-A).\n•\nKey Insights:\no\nThe distinction between repairs and maintenance in S.31 and S.37 clarifies tax treatment.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=31 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.9 of 1994, decision dated: 21st August, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Gogoi and H. Roy for the Assessee. G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 533 = 1998 SLD 533 = 1998 PTD 3816 = (1997) 223 ITR 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Bank Income & Special Deductions:\n•\nFacts:\no\nA cooperative bank earned interest from investments in government securities.\no\nIt claimed this income as part of banking business eligible for special deduction under S.80-P.\n•\nHeld:\no\nInterest from reserve fund investments is not part of the cooperative bank's core banking business. \no\nSuch funds are neither circulating capital nor stock-in-trade and are restricted for withdrawal.\no\nIncome from government securities does not qualify for S.80-P deductions.\n•\nKey Cases:\no\nMadhya Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT followed.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80 ", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax References Nos.80 of 1986 and 49 of 1987, decision dated: 22-04-1996", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner. S.M. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Miss Sonal Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAJASTHAN STATE COOPERATIVE BANK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 534 = 1998 SLD 534 = 1998 PTD 3866 = (1998) 78 TAX 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption & Rectification of Errors:\n•\nFacts:\no\nExempted assessee was charged minimum tax under S.80-D, declared illegal later.\no\nAssessee sought rectification under S.156 for refund, but authorities rejected it, citing finality and lack of retrospective effect.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLevy of minimum tax was unlawful, and revenue had no right to retain it.\no\nJudicial interpretation applies retrospectively unless cases are past and closed.\no\nRectification application was allowed, and orders rejecting it were vacated.\n•\nPrinciples:\no\nMistakes apparent on record warrant correction, even retrospectively.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,156,SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1950/KB and 1951/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 31st August, 1998, hearing DATE : 29-08-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ul-Haque Memon. Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 114 = 1995 SLD 114 = 1995 PTD 1359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Benami Transactions & Deemed Income:\n•\nFacts:\no\nAssessee purchased property jointly with his brothers, who lived abroad.\no\nRevenue alleged a Benami transaction and understated consideration.\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nBenami Transactions:\n\nOwnership presumes title rests with the name on the deed.\n\nHeavy onus lies on the revenue to prove otherwise.\n\nAbsence of notice to joint owners invalidated the revenue's claim.\n2.\nUnderstatement Allegation:\n\nNo unimpeachable evidence supported the revenue's claim of understated consideration.\n\nRegistered deed value was upheld.\n•\nPrinciples:\no\nDeemed income requires strong, independent evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),113 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 573 and 574/LB of 1995, decision dated: 21st May, 1995, hearing DATE : 11-04-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas War. Ajmal Malik, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 371 = 1993 SLD 371 = (1993) 68 TAX 199 = (1991) 190 ITR 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income:\n•\nFacts:\no\nAssessee initially omitted income but disclosed it after receiving notice under S.148.\no\nRevenue imposed a penalty under S.271(1)(c), alleging concealment.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessee failed to rebut the presumption of concealment under the Explanation to S.271(1)(c).\no\nThe penalty was upheld as the assessee did not prove that the omission was not due to fraud, gross negligence, or willful neglect.\n•\nKey Cases:\no\nCIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose followed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2),271(1)(c),148 ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NO. 107 OF 1979, NOVEMBER 22, 1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RATNAM AND SOMASUNDARAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nK. Govindarajulu Naidu" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 188 = 1994 SLD 188 = 1994 PTD 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Timeliness in Penalty Proceedings:\n•\nFacts:\no\nPenalty for failure to comply with notices under Ss.22(2) & (4) was initiated after 14 years.\n•\nHeld:\no\nPenalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.\no\nThe department failed to meet its burden of proving default after such a long delay.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(2),(4),28(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.289 of 1959, decision dated: 3rd October, 1961", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BRIJLAL GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R.S. Pathak for Petitioner. Gopal Behari", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATIQ\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, DISTRICT II(V), KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 189 = 1994 SLD 189 = 1994 PTD 188 = (1994) 69 TAX 139 = (1993) 202 ITR 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt & Business Loss:\n•\nFacts:\no\nAssessee loaned money to a major buyer in financial distress and later wrote off ₹1,38,148 as a bad debt.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe loan was not incidental to the assessee's business and failed the prudent businessman test.\no\nThe write-off was not deductible under S.28 or S.36.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=28 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 434 of 1977, decision dated: 16-11-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim for the Assessee Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with Mrs. Manjula Singh for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INDEQUIP LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 190 = 1994 SLD 190 = 1994 PTD 360 = (1993) 202 ITR 244 = (1994) 69 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Power to Rectify Orders:\n•\nFacts:\no\nTribunal’s original order rejected the assessee's claim of agricultural income.\no\nTribunal later rectified its order and remanded the case for fresh inquiry.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTribunal contradicted its earlier findings without new evidence.\no\nThe subsequent rectification order was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 322 of 1979, decision dated: 7-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS.C. LAUL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 191 = 1994 SLD 191 = 1994 PTD 368 = (1993) 202 ITR 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Dependent on Tax Assessment:\n•\nFacts:\no\nPenalty under S.273(b) was imposed, but the related assessment was time-barred.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSince no tax liability remained, penalty linked to the assessment was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=273 ", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.48 of 1979, decision dated: 4-12-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GOPICHAND BHARUKA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.I.T. v. S.P. Viz Construction Co. (No. 3) (1989) 176 ITR 47 (Pat.) ref K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS.P. VIZ CONSTRUCTION CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 375 = 1994 SLD 375 = (1994) 69 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Penalty Beyond Prescribed Limits:\n•\nFacts:\no\nDeputy Collector imposed a ₹2,00,000 penalty without duty quantification.\n•\nHeld:\no\nWithout determining duty evaded, penalty beyond ₹2,000 under Rule 226 was unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=226,9,52,52A,241,246,210,244 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5162 of 1993, heard on 20-11-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "lmtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NISHAT MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.B.R. through MEMBER (JUDICIAL), C.B.R. CUSTOMS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 376 = 1994 SLD 376 = (1994) 69 TAX 133 = (1993) 202 ITR 414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Interest under Section 216:\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee initially estimated a tax liability of ₹12,10,000 but later revised it to ₹18,41,070. The final assessment determined a liability of ₹21,64,701.\no\nThe IAC charged interest for underestimating advance tax without providing reasons or passing a speaking order.\no\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the interest.\n•\nHeld:\no\nS.216 allows discretion to the assessing authority in charging interest for underestimation, unlike the mandatory provision under S.215.\no\nThe IAC erred in treating the levy as automatic, failing to assess whether the underestimation was bona fide.\no\nThe Tribunal rightly deleted the interest, as the IAC did not exercise discretion or provide justification.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),216,209A,212,213,215 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 21 OF 1987, MARCH 26, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): U.L. BHAT, C.J. AND R.K. MANISANA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "D.K. Talukdar and B.J. Talukdar for the Applicant. A.K. Saraf and K. Gupta for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nNamdang Tea Co. India Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 193 = 1994 SLD 193 = 1994 PTD 374 = (1993) 202 ITR 708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notional Interest, Expenditure, and Revenue Classification:\n•\nKey Rulings:\n1.\nNotional Interest:\n\nTribunal’s deletion of notional interest added to loans was a question of law.\n2.\nMachinery Repair Costs:\n\nExpenses on repairing worn-out machinery were held as revenue expenditure—a question of law.\n3.\nPresentation Expenses:\n\nRule 6-B applies to advertising-related presentations only. Articles given for non-advertising purposes qualify as deductible.\n4.\nGarden Maintenance:\n\nAllowing part of the expenditure as revenue cost is a finding of fact, not law.\n5.\nDirector's Expenses:\n\nTribunal justified pro-rata allocation of water and electricity charges for official use, with no question of law arising.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.144 of 1990, decision dated: 17-12-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.N. KIRPAL AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.K. Aggarwal for the Commissioner. B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 194 = 1994 SLD 194 = 1994 PTD 376 = (1993) 202 ITR 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Limitation Period:\n•\nFacts:\no\nAssessments from 1956-57 to 1958-59 were delayed due to prolonged litigation and stay orders.\no\nFinal assessments were completed on October 15, 1980.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessment is complete upon determination of tax liability and issuance of demand notice, not its service.\no\nPeriods covered by stay orders and procedural delays were excluded, rendering the assessments timely.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=153 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.274 of 1987, decision dated: 22-04-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "INDIA PERRO ALLOY INDUSTRY PVT. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 195 = 1994 SLD 195 = 1994 PTD 409 = (1993) 202 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax and Revenue Receipts:\n•\nFacts:\no\nAssessee collected sales tax but withheld payment due to disputes with the Sales Tax Department.\n•\nHeld:\no\nUnder the mercantile accounting system, sales tax collected becomes a revenue receipt in the year of collection, regardless of payment disputes.\no\nCIT (Addl.) v. T. Nagireddy & Co. was reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1193 of 1977, decision dated: 17-03-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankal, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, C. Ramesh and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him). A Subba Rao, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)\nvs\nT. NAGGIREDDY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 196 = 1994 SLD 196 = 1994 PTD 421 = (1993) 202 ITR 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Duty to Provide Complete Records:\n•\nFacts:\no\nTribunal referred to four critical documents in its statement but did not annex them.\n•\nHeld:\no\nIt is the Tribunal's duty to draw a complete statement of the case, including referenced documents.\no\nThe Tribunal was directed to submit a supplementary statement of the case with the missing documents.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,258 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.139 to 141 of 1989, decision dated: 19-01-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.P. BALANARYANA MARAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TRINITY PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 197 = 1994 SLD 197 = 1994 PTD 1156 = (1993) 203 ITR 972", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Power to Remand Cases:\n•\nFacts:\no\nTribunal remanded a case under S.80-J regarding capital employed, citing pending litigation in the Supreme Court over its amended provisions.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal must apply the law as it stands unless specifically stayed.\no\nRemanding the case due to pending litigation without applying the amended law was unauthorized.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 156 and 157 of 1989, decision dated: 25-02-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. K.P. Dandapani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM.C. JACOB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 198 = 1994 SLD 198 = 1994 PTD 1188 = (1993) 203 ITR 994", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bonus Payment and Deduction Year:\n•\nFacts:\no\nBonus exceeding statutory limits was sanctioned by directors after the accounting year ended.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSince liability was neither statutory nor crystallized within the relevant year, excess bonus was not deductible for that year.\no\nPayment authorization after the year-end precludes deduction.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=36,36(1)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 71 of 1980, decision dated: 16-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. T. NANAVATI AND S.D. DAVE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "DA. Mehta and R.K. Patel for K.C. Patel for the Assessee. BJ. Shelat and R.P. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BHAVNAGAR BONE AND FERTILIZER CO. PVT. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 180 = 1991 SLD 180 = (1991) 187 ITR 158 = 1994 PTD 1236 = (1993) 68 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Salary Accrual upon Death of Assessee:\n•\nFacts:\no\nDeceased employee’s share of profits was computed and credited posthumously.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSalary accrued up to the date of death is taxable as income of the deceased.\no\nComputation delays do not negate accrual during the individual’s lifetime.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=15 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 242 of 1975, decision dated: 7-07-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND T.D. SUGLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. S. Jetley, Ms. Manjula Singh and K. C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. Dilip Dwarkadas instructed by Manilal Kher Ambalal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. MENABEN VADILAL PAREKH (Legal Heir of late V.M. Parekh)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 181 = 1991 SLD 181 = (1991) 187 ITR 127 = (1993) 68 TAX 216 = 1994 PTD 1245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advertisement Expenses and Capital Investments:\n•\nFacts:\no\nAn established company claimed advertisement expenses for promoting a new product as an exception under S.37(3D).\n•\nHeld:\no\nS.37(3D) applies only to new undertakings, not to established companies launching new products.\no\nTribunal’s factual finding that the company was not a new undertaking barred further legal questions.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,37(3A),(3D),256(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 245 of 1990, decision dated: 20-08-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS AND K.B. NAVADGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ramabadran for the Petitioner. G. Chander Kumar for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BANGALORE SOFT DRINKS (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 199 = 1994 SLD 199 = 1994 PTD 1324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Authority for Imposing Charges:\n•\nKey Principles:\n1.\nNo entity, including local governments or statutory corporations, can levy charges without explicit statutory authority.\n2.\nAgreements cannot legalize charges imposed without statutory backing.\n3.\nFunctions must align with statutory duties and permissions.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "(On appeal from Regina v. Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Development) Ltd.)Decided on 14-11-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN, L.C. LORD BRIDGE OF HARWHICH, LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK LORD ACKNER AND LORD LOWRY", + "Lawyer Name": "Anthony Scrivener Q.C. and Richard Rundell for the Developers. David Mole Q.C. and Jane Oldhman for the Council", + "Party Name:": "McCARTHY & STONE (DEVELOPMENTS) LTD\nvs\nLONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 200 = 1994 SLD 200 = 1994 PTD 1440 = (1993) 204 ITR 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Acquisition and Understated Consideration:\n•\nFacts:\no\nSale deed valued a property at ₹49,000, but the real consideration was ₹90,000, admitted by both parties.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAcquisition under S.269-C(2) was valid as the understated consideration and intention to evade taxes were evident.\no\nConstitutional validity of Chapter XX-A was upheld in this specific context.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=269,Ch.XXA.S.269C(2). ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2041 of 1982 with Writ Petition (Civil) No.3947 of 1982, decision dated: 26-08-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.L. Aneja, Advocates and Petitioners. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Ayyaam Perumaal and D.S. Mehra, Advocate with him),s (in both the matters)", + "Party Name:": "ANADI PRAKASHAN and another\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 371 = 1993 SLD 371 = 1993 CLC 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Urban Rent Restriction and Bona Fide Need:\n•\nKey Rulings:\n1.\nLandlord's Right to Decide:\n\nLandlords may choose which portion of premises they need for bona fide personal use.\n2.\nTenant's Protections:\n\nTenants retain rights to regain possession if landlords fail to occupy premises for stated reasons.\n3.\nSecond Appeals:\n\nFirst appellate findings not vitiated by errors are upheld in second appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=13,15 ", + "Case #": "SA.O. No.116 of 1992, decision dated: 12-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Mubeen", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. NAHEED GHAFOOR\nvs \nMUHAMMAD RAFIQUE CHAUDHARY and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 372 = 1993 SLD 372 = 1993 CLC 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---\n----Art. 30---Admission---Evidentiary value of---Admission sought to be used against plaintiff was a receipt purported to have been executed by brother of plaintiff before Police Authorities, wherein he had acknowledged satisfaction of plaintiff's claim by the defendant---Such receipt having not been signed by the plaintiff, any admissions made therein, would not be binding against plaintiff and could not be used as a piece of evidence against her---Admissions made and documents executed before Police Authorities during pendency of criminal proceedings, however, were usually tainted with an element of coercion and such documents could not be treated as admission having been made with free mind---Plaintiff being a lady and there being no admission on her part, with regard to relinquishment of her claim, admission on part of her brother was of no avail to defendant.\n(b) Lady---\n---- Transactions with ladies have to be proved with very cogent evidence particularly when those were transactions of receipt or relinquishment.\nGhulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n----S. 115---Concurrent findings of Courts below---No misreading or non ¬reading of evidence was pointed out---Courts below could not be deemed to have rendered s and decrees without lawful authority---No interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=30,115 ", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 1385-D of 1992, decision dated: 19-09-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "MA. Khadim for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF\nvs \nMst. PARVEEN AKHTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 373 = 1993 SLD 373 = 1993 CLC 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 6760\n(a) Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971---\n----R. 6---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21---Power of canceling Permanent Residence Certificate---District Magistrate could cancel Permanent Residence Certificate if same was issued on practising fraud---Provision of S.21, General Clauses Act, 1897 also authorises cancellation of a certificate by the Authority which had issued the same.\nMillat Sultan v. The District Magistrate, Sanghar and others 1984 CLC 1862; Muhammad Ashfaq v. Selection Committee for Engineering Seats etc. 1982 CLC 2383 (2); Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Limited. v. Central Board of Revenue and others 1987 MLD 505; Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and others PLD 1978 Kar.214; Miss Meherun Nissa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and others PLD 1978 Kar.214; Miss Meherun Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee and others 1978 SCMR 439; Miss Samina Nighat v. PRC Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1983 Kar.324; Miss Rahila Mumtaz v. Commissioner and another 1985 SCMR 1286; Taj Muhammad v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and others 1979 CLC 237; Khalid Sher v. Principal and Chairman, Academic Council Selection Board and others PLD 1987 Kar.255; Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 and Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236 ref.\nChief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 ref.\n(b) Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971---\n----R. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Permanent Residence Certificate issued earlier was proved to have been issued fraudulently and thus, cancelled after enquiry--¬Petitioner having obtained such certificate by practising fraud, had no case either on facts or in law or in equity---High Court declined to invoke its Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter.\nPLD 1978 Kar. 214; 1978 SCMR 439; 1987 MLD 505; 1982 CLC 2383 (2) and 1984 CLC 1862 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971=8,4,5,6 General Clauses Act, 1897=21 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952=23,25 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No D-60 of 1990, decision dated: 7-09-1992. dates of hearing: 3rd and 4-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.H. Hashmi for Petitioners. Abdul Latif Ansari, AA.G. No. 1. Jhamat Jathanands Nos. 2 to 4", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR SIDDIOUI and another\nvs \nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE BADIN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 374 = 1993 SLD 374 = 1993 CLC 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--¬\n----Art. 199---West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(6)---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction would be loath to interfere in disputed questions of fact---Where Rent Controller had fixed only tentative rent and tenant was not without any remedy as he could have deposited tentative rent in Court, for there was direction that same should not be paid to either party before final determination of the case---Rent Controller would have passed the final order in the light of evidence adduced before him---Findings of fact arrived at by Courts below could neither be termed as coram non judice nor they could be deemed so be without jurisdiction---Orders of Courts below were unassailable before High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction for being neither without jurisdiction nor suffering from any legal defect.\nShah Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Rafiq and 3 others PLD 1990 Lah. 76; PLD 1983 Lah, 574; PLD 1961 Lah. 410: 1974 SCMR 504; 1981 SCMR 713; PLD 1982 SC 413 and PLD 192 SC 691 ref.\n(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI) of 1959)---\n----S.13(6)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Tentative fixation of rent by Rent Controller by placing reliance upon two rent agreements placed before him, could not be termed either fanciful or based on no evidence---High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Constitution would not disturb finding of fact recorded by Tribunal of special jurisdiction in respect of matters exclusively within its competence.\nMahmooda Begum v. Taj Din 1992 SCMR 809; PLD 1982 SCMR 413 and PLD 1991 SC 691 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=13(6),13A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12228 of 1991, decision dated: 17-10-1992, hearing DATE : 3-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C.M. Latif Rawn for Petitioners. Ch. Khurshid Ahmads No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ILYAS and anothers\nvs \nBEOAR HUSSAIN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 375 = 1993 SLD 375 = 1993 CLC 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908)---\n----S. 100---Second Appeal---High Court was not competent to interfere with concurrent findings of fact merely on the ground that evidence had not been, properly appreciated by two Courts below---Evidence on perusal, however, showed that it had not been miss appreciated---Two Courts below were not shown to have drawn wrong inference from the proved facts of record of the case---High Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below unless and until misreading/non-reading of evidence was pointed out---Case was, thus, not fit one for interference in second appeal.\nAllah Ditta v. Barkat Ali and 3 others 1992 SCMR 1974 ref.\nAbdul Majid and others v. Khalid Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38 rel.\n(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)----\n----S. 73---Breach of contract---Forfeiture of earnest money---Terms of agreement for sale clearly visualized that in case of breach of contract not only contract in question, would come to an end but the earnest money would also be forfeited---Plaintiffs having taken over possession of land in. question, for the last so many years and getting produce of same since long, forfeiture of earnest money was the proper finding after plaintiffs were found responsible for breach of contract.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=100 Contract Act, 1872=73 ", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No.192 of 1987, heard on 22-09-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjars. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL LATIF and 9 others\nvs \nRIAZUL HAQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 376 = 1993 SLD 376 = 1993 CLC 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)---\n----Ss. 10 & 11---Residual Property Scheme, Para. 33---Mukhbari application--¬Nature of land in question---Record showed that site in question, had been recorded as chair Mumkin Karkhana in the special Jamabandi in the year 1947---Even at site in question, existence of Karkhana was admitted by both parties---Property in question, was also admitted to be available evacuee property at the time of application of petitioner and its disposal thereof--¬Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 25-4-1974 had held property in question to be evacuee property of non-agricultural in character---Mukhbari application challenging allotment mainly on the ground that site in question was of agricultural nature was not competent ---Mukhbari application filed by respondent even if filed before repeal of evacuee laws gave rise to no proceedings nor petitioner had any notice regarding such application ---Re¬opening of proceedings and remanding case after repeal of evacuee laws under provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was not warranted by law.\nLal Din and others v. Ali Ahmad and others 1991 SCMR 1553; Asghari Begum v. Baji Dubash 1991 CLC Note 203 at p.159 and Mst. Masuda Anwar v. Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Lands) 1986 MLD 441 rel.\n(b) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)---\n----Ss. 10 & 11---Successive Mukhbari applications could not be filed.\n(c) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)---\n------2 (2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Remand order---No bar to the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction against remand order which was patently and otherwise without any lawful basis and justification---Litigation relating to Settlement matters had to come to an end and proceedings which tended to prolong agony of people had to be discouraged---Proceedings of Mukhbari application initiated by respondents after repeal of evacuee laws, on basis whereof, transfer order in favour of petitioners had been set aside in the impugned order, were on the. face of it incompetent, frivolous and in the nature ,f luxury litigation---Impugned order whereby, case of petitioner's allotment ...teas re-opened, even if it was to be regarded as remand order, High Court would interfere in view of the nature of such order.\nd) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n---Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Extent of---High Court has ample jurisdiction to examine all the relevant record for purpose of administration of justice and finalization of litigation which had a chequered history, particularly any document forming part of such record and had not been denied by the respondent---All the legal questions which go to the root of the case could be allowed to be raised while deciding Constitutional petition.\n(e) Remand--\n---- Remand order could not be passed just for sake of passing an order and could not be allowed to stand merely because according to one party same would not cause any harm---Where all the necessary questions of fact were either admitted, proved or finally determined, remand order in question, was an exercise in futility which could adversely affect petitioner and was thus, not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958=10,11 Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975=2(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 109-R of 1980, heard on 18-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Munir Hussain for Petitioners. A.R. Shaukat No. 1. Hamid Ali Mirza No. 2", + "Party Name:": "MAHMOODA BEGUM and 2 others\nvs \nMst. SAKINA BEGUM and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 214 = 1993 SLD 214 = 1993 PTD 667 = (1993) 68 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Estate Duty Act (X of 1950)---S.61(1)---Re-opening of assessment---Notice issued by Controller of Estate Duty---Validity---Term evidence used in the notice---Connotation---No objection as to validity of notice raised before Controller---Effect---While issuing notice for re-opening of assessment, requirements of S.61(1) Estate Duty Act 1950 were fully met---Mere absence of specific direction to accountable person to submit account of all the property had not rendered the notice in question as void or invalid---Accountable person was provided an opportunity through the impugned notice to put in any representation/evidence against the proposed re-valuation in terms of S.61(1), Estate Duty Act, 1950---Term evidence used in impugned notice is of wide connotation and includes direction for submitting account of all property within the meaning of S.61(1) Estate Duty Act, 1950---Notice issued to accountable person for re-valuation of property in question, being in terms of S.61(1) Estate Duty Act, 1950, was thus valid.\n(b) Estate Duty Act (X of 1950)---\n----S.61---Estate Duty Rules 1971, R.25-A(l)---Object, purpose and scope of S.61, Estate Duty Act---Proceedings conducted by Controller of Estate Duty to re-determine valuation of property in question---Validity---Valuation of property in question could not be made with retrospective effect---Revaluation of property in question, by the Controller of Estate Duty did not suffer from any infirmity in law.\nSection 61 of the Estate Duty Act is a self-contained provision which empowers the Controller to re-determine the valuation if for any reason it is discovered by him that too low a valuation was placed on the property subject to estate duty. The proceedings were validly initiated and completed pursuant to a valid notice served upon the applicant. The applicant fully participated in the proceedings before the Controller and declined to lead any evidence to contradict the reports of the Deputy Commissioner concerned on which revaluation of the disputed land was made. Revaluation did not suffer from any infirmity in law.\nRevaluation done by the Controller after notice under section 61(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1950 has the effect of setting right a manifest wrong in that the earlier valuation on the basis of Produce Index Unit-value had no warrant or authority in law. Rule 25-A(1) of the Estate Duty Rules, having been incorporated on 29-10-1971 could not be made the basis for the valuation of the disputed land with retrospective effect.\nThe revaluation of the disputed land by the Controller of Estate Duty which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal had not been shown to be suffering from any infirmity in law. (p. 6701 B ,\nController of Estate Duty v. Syeda Kishwar Sultana and another PLD 1976 Lah. 229 = 1976 PTD 125 and Controller of Estate Duty v. The Estate of Syed Wander Ali Shah (1976) 34 Tax 49 (Lah.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=61,61(1) Estate Duty Rules, 1950=25 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 26 of 1982, decision dated: 16-02-1993, hearing DATE : 14-02-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Javed for Applicant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "A.K. NASIR\nvs\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 377 = 1993 SLD 377 = 1993 CLC 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959, (M.L.R. 64)---\n----Para. 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Non-compliance of High Court's order of remand---Effect---High Court, in an earlier constitutional petition, had found that Authority who had confirmed the sale was the Land Commissioner and not the Chief Land Commissioner--¬ Confirmation of sale in question in post remand proceedings was therefore, to be made by the Land Commissioner and not by the Chief Land Commissioner--.-Chief Land Commissioner had erroneously assumed jurisdiction which he did not possess in terms of previous order passed by High Court in the earlier constitutional petition---Order passed by the Chief Land Commissioner in post remand proceedings being in non-compliance of High was declared to have been passed without lawful legal effect---Order passed by Land Commissioner Court's direction was, restored in circumstances.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)\n----Art 199--- Constitutional jurisdiction ---Scope---Single Bench of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction could not sit in over the decision given by the division Bench of the High court, relating to same subject-matter.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959=25 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 2749 of 1975, decision dated: 16-05-1992, hearing DATE : 12-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha for petitioners. Raja Dilshad A. khans Nos. 3-5", + "Party Name:": "ALI MUHAMMAD and another\nvs \nADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 378 = 1993 SLD 378 = 1993 CLC 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Natural justice, Principle of---\n----Violation---Market Committee in its resolution duly passed, gave employee benefit of higher grade in recognition of his meritorious service---Benefit so conferred. subsequently was withdrawn by respondent Authority m an arbitrary manner without affording employee any opportunity of hearing---Order passed by Authority withdrawing benefit duly given to employee being in clear violation of principle of natural justice, could not sustain.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2803.of 1990, decision dated: 27-01-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian SarfrazulHassan for Petitioner. Muhammad Farooq Bedar Add1.A.G. No. 1. Nemo No. 2", + "Party Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD CHATTA\nvs \nDIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 236 = 1992 SLD 236 = (1993) 199 ITR 188 = 1993 PTD 817 = 1991 AIR 1502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Words and phrases---Adequate consideration ---No definition---Common parlance meaning to be accepted---Excludes love and affection.\nWhen the law insists that there should be adequate consideration and not good consideration, it excludes love and affection.\nTulsidas Kilachand v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 1(SC) fol.\nCWT v. Khan Saheb Dost Muhammad Alladin (1973) 91 ITR 179 (AP) approved.\nAppeals by special leave from the and order, dated January 25,1980, of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P- No. 4292 of 1977.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1913 to 1916 of 1980, decision dated: 20-03-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANGANATH MISRA, C.J.I. AND KULDIP SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "RK Jain, Senior Advocate (Urmila Sirur Advocate with him)s. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "MAJOR V. P. SINGH and others\nvs\nSTATE OF U.P. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 216 = 1993 SLD 216 = 1993 PTD 1041 = (1993) 200 ITR 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of statutes---\n----- Words in fiscal statute---To be given their plain and ordinary meaning--¬ICIT v. International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 580 (Born.) and Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 184 ITR 599 (Born.) dissented from]:\nIt is a well-recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that, primarily, it is the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the enactment that has to be taken and further that all the words used by the Legislature have to be given their due meaning and effect and no surplus ages in the language employed is to be imputed to it. Seen in this light, the words in Explanation (c) of section 263, filed on or before or after June 1, 1988 cannot possibly be read to limit the retrospectivity of it .to June 1, 1988, and not earlier.\nCIT v. International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd.. (1991) 187 1TR 580 (Born.) and Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 184 ITR 599 (Born.) dissented from.\n(b) Income-tax---Revision---Appeal to AAC----Doctrine of merger---Effect of amendment of .263---Rctrospectivity of amendment not limited to June 1, 1988---Matters considered by AAC---ITO's order with respect to such matters merges with fiat of the AAC---CIT can revise order of ITCH with respect to matters not considered by AAC---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263.\nOnce an appeal against an order of the Income Tax officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been heard and decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no jurisdiction with regard to issues considered and decided in appeal. In other words, his jurisdiction is restricted only to that part of the order of assessment which is not dealt with in appeal. What merges with the appellate order is only that part of the order of the Income Tax Officer under section 143 of the Act as was the subject-matter of the appeal and no more. Immunity from proceedings under section 263 of the Act is restricted to this extent.\nAddl. CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service (1986) 157 ITR 327 (Kar.); CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC); CIT v. Banwarilal (R.S.) (1983) 140 ITR 3 (MP); CIT v. City Palayacot Co. (1980) 122 ITR 430 (Mad.); CIT v. Mandsaur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 677 (MP); CIT v. Muncherji (P.) & Co. (1987) 167 ITR 671 (Bom.); CIT v. Narendrakumari Basaheba (A.S.) (Sint.) (1989) 176 ITR 515 (Bom.); CIT v. Rajput (K.L.) (1987) 164 ITR 197 (MP); CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala (1953) 25 ITR 412 (Bom.); General Beopar Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 86 (Cal.); J. K. Synthetics Ltd.,v: Addl. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All.); Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1977) 108 TTR 407 (Cal.); Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G.V.Shah, ITO (1975) 98. ITR 255 (Guj.); Premchand Sitanath Roy v. Addl. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 751 (Cal.); Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1980) 125 ITR 41 (Mad.); Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 231 (Cal.); State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd: AIR 1967 SC 681 and (1967) 19 STC 144 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=263 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 52 of 1982, decision dated: 11th, November, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.S. SODHI, ACTG. C.J., N.C, JAIN AND G.C GARG, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee. R.P. Sawhney for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 217 = 1993 SLD 217 = 1993 PTD 1108 = (1993) 68 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Ss. 59(1) & 65--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Self ¬Assessment Scheme (1984-85), para. 9---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that High Court had failed to appreciate that the assessment having been made under the Self-Assessment Scheme 1984-85 read with S.59(1) of the Ordinance the rule laid down in Edulji Dinshaw's case 1990 PTD 155 was not attracted.\nEdulji Dinshaw's case 1990 PTD 155 ref.\n(b) Self-Assessment Scheme---\n--- Purpose.\nThe purpose of self-assessment scheme introduced in the Income Tax Law of Pakistan is to encourage the taxpayers to make contribution towards the State efforts in running the Government and other related State machinery more willingly than it used to be under the normal assessment scheme. One purpose was to save an honest taxpayer from unnecessary suspicion, accusation and torture of being accused and/or found guilty of deceit and falsehood. This being the main purpose, care was taken to safeguard the interest of the State also against deceit and cheating even in the self¬ assessment scheme. For the latter purpose the scheme as well as the provisions in the Income Tax Ordinance provided for a very limited re-opening of the self-assessment.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----Ss. 65 & 59---Self-Assessment Scheme (1984-85), para. 9---Re-opening of assessment in case of self-assessment on basis of definite information that purchase price declared by the assessee for a plot of land was on the low side--¬Duty of department detailed--- Definite information ---Connotation\nThe assessees were assessed for the assessment year 1984-85, after scrutiny of the account book the relevant information asked for. However, after the expiry of nearly three years the notices were issued for re-opening the assessment on the ground that the purchase price declared by the assessees for a plot of land was on the low side.\nThe Department's case was that the plot of land was purchased at a much higher price. It had been intentionally priced below the market rate so as to save income-tax. The material relied upon was the prices of certain other plots in the same locality.\nIt was the duty of the department before re-opening a case of self ¬assessment to be in possession of definite information regarding the department's assertion against the assessee. The expression definite information and similar other expressions used in section 65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and para. 9 of the Self-Assessment Scheme (1984-85) or other related provisions certainly meant much more than mere material so as to cause a reasonable belief or even such evidence, which might lead to a definite belief. Unless there is definite direct information and there is no further need to put the said definite information to trial by putting in further supporting material the process of self-assessment could not be re-opened. In order to establish through definite information , the department had to rely upon further reasoning in order to clothe their information with credibility what to talk of definiteness, They had to make inquiry in regular trial in which all the persons who purchased the other plots (or majority of those, who sold or purchased the other plots) might have been examined in order to know under what conditions they paid price which were higher than the price mentioned by the assessees in the case. And in any case the seller of the plots in this case had to be examined in order to ascertain whether the price mentioned by the assessee, was not a genuinely paid price. It partakes of some procedural aspects of the disputes in pre-emption and other land cases where the price of land is in dispute. Definite information in the context of the law under discussion could not mean mere difference of opinion or further reasoning or other exercise of logic or even drawing of conclusions.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----S. 65---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Re-opening of assessment--- Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of ---Assessee approached the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction without seeking and exhausting the statutory remedy---Supreme Court disapproved, in such situation, the interference by the High Court in tax matters when the normal course being adopted by all the High Courts in matters other than tax, rule of alternate remedy was being followed.\n(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n---Arts. 199 & 185---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.65--¬Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Tax matter---Where after considerable arguments Supreme Court had already reached the conclusion and had also announced the same and the consequential dismissal of departmental appeal was yet to be announced, the appellant department brought to the notice of the Court that assessee had approached the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction without seeking and exhausting the statutory remedy, Supreme Court withdrew the leave grant order and disposed of the appeal accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 871-K and 872-K of 1990, decision dated: 31st January, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaik Hyder Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records. Rehman Hasan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and another\nvs\nM/s. CHAPPAL BUILDERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 238 = 1992 SLD 238 = 1992 PTD 792 = (1992) 193 ITR 775", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax----Income or capital---Project started by engineer for manufacture of article---Subsequent setting up of company---Purchase of project report and technical know-how by company---Tribunal justified in holding that part of amount received was a capital receipt and part was professional fees out of which deduction of expenditure was allowable.\n(b) Income-tax---\n----Reference---Question of fact---Reasonable decision by Tribunal---High Court will not interfere.\nIf the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonably possible on the evidence adduced, it is not admissible to the High Court in its advisory jurisdiction to upset the same merely because the High Court might have, on the materials available on record, come to a different conclusion.\nThe assessee, an engineer, conceived of a project to start an industry to manufacture ferro-alloys including ferro-silicon. For this purpose, he got in touch with some firms in Sweden and also with the Governments of India and Orissa. This was for the purpose of getting technical aid and for obtaining licence, land, power, finance, etc. The assessee got good response from all quarters. As the preparation for setting up of the project progressed; the assessee realised that it would be better to set up the plant under a company and applied for registering a company in the name of Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. The company was incorporated. The board of directors passed a resolution agreeing to pay the assessee a sum of Rs.8,07,448 to reimburse him for the expenses incurred by him and for transferring to the company the agreements, arrangements and benefits of the negotiations entered into by him. The Tribunal relied on this resolution and the entries made by the company in its cash book. It also referred to the assessment and appellate orders passed in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., wherein the assets acquired as a result of the aforesaid expenditure of Rs.8,07,448 had been treated as capital assets and depreciation and development rebate thereon had been granted to the company. The Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 out of the amount received by the assessee had to be treated as a capital receipt. On a reference:\nHeld, that the view taken by the Tribunal was based on a contemporary resolution taken by the board of directors and other materials which were relevant to decide the controversy. It was reasonable and the High Court would not interfere with it. The Tribunal was justified in treating the income of Rs. 3,50,000 as a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal was also justified in treating the other part, namely, Rs. 4,57,448 as professional fees and allowing deduction.. of Rs. 1,75,000 from it being expenditure for earning that amount.\nCIT v. Ganapathi Mudaliar (M.) (1X4) 53 ITR 623 (SC); CHIT v. Ram Parshad (1978) 113 ITR 462 (Delhi); Rameshwar Prasad Bagla v. C:IT (1973) 87 ITR 421 (SC:); Sovachand Baid v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 6511 (SC:); Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC) and Ukhara Estate Zamindaries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 549 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 67 and 68 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd July, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.L. HANSARIA, C.J. AND D.M. PATNAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K. Ray for the Commissioner. B.K. Mohnty for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "B.D. PANDA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (and vice versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 142 = 1990 SLD 142 = (1991) 187 ITR 121 = 1992 PTD 892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Gratuity and Business Expenditure\n•\nFacts:\nEmployees of private transport companies taken over by a corporation retained their continuity of service, preserving gratuity rights.\n•\nHeld:\no\nUnder the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators (Stage Carriage Acquisition) Act, the corporation assumed the gratuity liabilities of the predecessor companies.\no\nSince the liability was statutorily imposed and part of the acquisition terms, the Tribunal correctly allowed the gratuity payments as a deductible expense.\no\nNo question of law arose.\n(b) Depreciation and Route Permits\n•\nHeld:\nWhether the cost of route permits can be capitalized and added to vehicle costs for depreciation purposes is a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "T.C.P. Nos. 561 to.563 of 1986 and 14 of 1988, decision dated: 27-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RATNAM AND BAKTHAVATSALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for Petitioner. P.P.S. Janardhanaraja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 143 = 1990 SLD 143 = (1991) 187 ITR 657 = 1992 PTD 899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Year of Deductibility of Business Expenses\n•\nFacts:\nTea garden owners, turned lessees after compulsory acquisition, disputed retrospective rent hikes. The issue was settled in 1975, and arrears were paid during the previous year.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLiability became enforceable in 1975 under the executed agreement.\no\nDeductibility arises when liability becomes real and enforceable, making the arrears deductible in the assessment year 1976-77.\n•\nPrecedents Cited:\nCIT v. Jatia Mfg. Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=250 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.131 of 1983, decision dated: 8-08-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND BHAGABADI PRASAD BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.C. Maitra for the Commissioner. N.K. Poddar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTEESTA VALLEY CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 239 = 1992 SLD 239 = 1992 PTD 932 = (1992) 66 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Revisional Jurisdiction under S. 66-A\n•\nFacts:\nDispute on whether appellate orders annul the original assessment order, thus barring revisional jurisdiction.\n•\nHeld:\no\nOnce an appellate order is made, the original order merges with it.\no\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) cannot revise an order merged with appellate authority decisions.\n(b) Scope of S. 66-A\n•\nErroneous ITO orders must also prejudice revenue interests to invoke S. 66-A.\n(c) Doctrine of Merger\n•\nWhen an appeal addresses specific issues, only those merge with the appellate order; unaddressed issues remain revisable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A(1),(1A),129 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.236-K of 1991, decision dated: 26-04-1992, hearing DATE : 31st March, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fateh Vellani, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Rizvi, Advocate-on-Record. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES LIMITED\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 517 = 1997 SLD 517 = (1998) 77 TAX 82 = (1997) 223 ITR 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appealable Orders under Section 246\n•\nFacts:\nAssessee contested orders passed under S. 143(1), alleging invalid returns and time-barred assessments.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDenial of liability to assessment constitutes grounds for appeal under S. 246(1)(c).\no\nFiling returns does not imply admission of liability.\no\nAppeals were maintainable, requiring adjudication on merits.\n•\nOutcome:\nDecided in favor of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143(1),139(8),217,246(1)(c),153,144 Income Tax Act, 1922=30(1) ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 17 TO 19 OF 1982, SEPTEMBER 20, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.K. Sud and S.C. Nagpal for the Applicant. R. P. Sawhney and Sanjay Goyal for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Smt. Bhagwant Kaur\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 377 = 1994 SLD 377 = (1994) 69 TAX 191 = 1996 PTD 65 = (1993) 202 ITR 474", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure Under Control Orders\n•\nFacts:\nTextile producers could either meet packing requirements or pay specified amounts. Assessee opted for payments and claimed deductions.\n•\nHeld:\no\nPayments were compliance costs, not penalties.\no\nExpenditure was incidental to business and allowable as a deduction.\n•\nOutcome:\nDecided in favor of the assessee.\n•\nPrecedents Cited:\nAddl. CIT v. Rustam Jehabgir Vakil Mills Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),37,263 ", + "Case #": "I. T. Reference No. 26 of 1978. February 2, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley for Commissioner. P.C. Tripathi with D.C. Vyas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 241 = 1992 SLD 241 = 1992 PTD 1648 = (1992) 66 TAX 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Welfare Fund Deductions\n•\nHeld:\no\nPayments to the Workers' Welfare Fund cannot be deducted from total income but are deductible for computing income tax.\n•\nReference:\nPalkhiwala & Kanga, Law and Practice of Income Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,49 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 142-K of 1992, decision dated: 29-07-1992, hearing DATE : 20-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "M/s. PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 182 = 1991 SLD 182 = 1991 PTD 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Sahib-e-Nisab\n•\nHeld:\no\nPost-amendment, conditions under S. 2(xxiii)(a) and (b) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance must be read conjunctively.\no\nCompliance with both conditions is mandatory to exempt trusts or institutions from Zakat liability.\n(b) Donations and Charitable Purposes\n•\nHeld:\no\nS. 47 of the Income Tax Ordinance ensures donations are directed to approved and genuine charitable institutions.\n(c) Approval of Charitable Institutions\n•\nHeld:\no\nRule 41 ensures proper scrutiny before approval, requiring continuous monitoring to prevent misuse.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=47,47(5) Income Tax Rules, 1982=41 Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980=2(xxiii)(a),(b) ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.176-D of 1986, heard on 20-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.H. Fani for Petitioner A.R. Akhtar and Rashid Akhtar Qureshis", + "Party Name:": "HASSAN ALI ESAJI BHAIJI TRUST through Managing Trustee\nvs\nADMINISTRATOR, CENTRAL ZAKAT ADMINISTRATION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 183 = 1991 SLD 183 = 1991 PTD 583 = (1991) 63 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rule 12 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981\n•\nHeld:\no\nRule 12 is directory, not mandatory. Non-compliance is curable and does not necessarily lead to dismissal.\no\nTribunal has discretion to condone violations if the non-compliance was inadvertent or unintentional.\no\nIntentional and deliberate violations can result in dismissal.\n(b) Power to Regulate Procedure (S. 133(8), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\n•\nHeld:\no\n Regulate its own procedure includes all aspects of filing and hearing appeals.\no\nTribunal has the authority to ensure compliance with procedural rules for orderly proceedings.\n(c) Procedural Nature of Rule 12\n•\nHeld:\no\nRule 12 outlines the procedural requirements for filing appeals but does not conflict with the substantive provisions of the Ordinance.\n(d) Discretionary Acceptance of Appeals\n•\nHeld:\no\nTribunal may accept appeals with defects in compliance under discretionary powers provided in Rule 11(3) and Rule 15.\n(h) Factors to Determine Whether a Rule is Mandatory or Directory\n•\nHeld:\no\nKey considerations include legislative intent, consequences of non-compliance, and whether substantial injury is caused.\n(i) Administration of Justice\n•\nHeld:\no\nProcedural errors should not defeat substantive justice unless they cause prejudice to the opposing party.\n(r) Rule 12’s Purpose and Reference Applications\n•\nHeld:\no\nRule 12 aims to inform respondents promptly about appeals.\no\nIts non-compliance in reference applications is a mere technicality and not fatal to the process.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=12 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1981=12,11,15,32,35,36 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLIII,R.3,121, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133(8),134, ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 1158(IB) and 1159(IB) of 1986-87, 11(IB), 12(IB),639(IB), 506-A(IB) to 506-F(I$), 798(IB), 799(IB) of 1987-88, 157(IB), 158(IB), 285(IB), 286(IB), 291(IB) to 293(IB) of 1988-89, Nos. 4(IB) and 5(IB) of 1990-91, decision dated: 14-03-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, SYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS, MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Z. A. Sheikh. Sultan Mansoor, Legal Advisor. I.N. Pasha, Rehan Naqvi, Sikandar Hayat Khan, Nazar Hashmi, Zia H. Rizvi, M. Ashraf Hashmi, Akhtar Hussain, Zahid Yasim Mufti, Aslam Anwar and Muhammad Amin Butt. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 184 = 1991 SLD 184 = 1991 PTD 637 = 1992 PTCL 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme (1987-88)\n•\nFacts:\nAssessee's return under the Self-Assessment Scheme was set aside due to a discrepancy in signatures.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe return complied fully with the scheme's requirements, and no substantive issue was found.\no\nRejecting the return on such a pretext was illegal.\no\nThe returned income merited acceptance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.307/LB of 1989-90 and 280/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 3rd January, 1991, hearing DATE : 17-12-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. S. Roomi Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 185 = 1991 SLD 185 = 1991 PTD 639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Re-opening of Assessments (S. 65)\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessment of capital gains based on the sale price of property constitutes definite information, justifying the re-opening of assessments.\n(b) Sanctity of Registered Deeds\n•\nHeld:\no\nRegistered property deeds are public documents. Their declared price is presumed correct unless countered by evidence.\n(c) Unsustainable Assessments (Ss. 61 & 62)\n•\nHeld:\no\nIf the ITO’s records fail to specify requested documents, an assessment based on the taxpayer’s failure to provide them is unsustainable.\n(d) Legal Deficiencies in Assessments\n•\nHeld:\no\nOmissions such as failure to mention the charging section or provide a hearing do not render assessments ab initio illegal but may justify setting them aside.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.110(IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-04-1986, hearing DATE : 24-04-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED AMJAD ALI BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Waheed. Ihsan Elahi Tarique, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 186 = 1991 SLD 186 = 1991 PTD 643 = 1993 PTCL 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal and Legal Flaws (S. 132)\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhat happens when an assessment contains legal flaws?\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe appellate authority must set aside the entire assessment if a legal flaw renders it invalid. Partial corrections are not acceptable, as the entire assessment process is tainted.\n(b) Gross Profit Rate History (S. 32)\n•\nIssue:\no\nShould historical gross profit (G.P.) rates be used in assessments when applicable?\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe assessee’s historical G.P. rates must be followed unless the Assessing Officer (AO) brings fresh material to justify deviation.\no\nComparison with other businesses in the same trade is insufficient unless the assessee lacks a historical record.\n________________________________________\n(c) Powers of First Appellate Authority (S. 132)\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan the Commissioner (Appeals) direct the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to invoke S. 66-A?\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) cannot direct the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to exercise revisional powers under S. 66-A.\no\nThe powers under S. 132 are limited to confirming, reducing, annulling, or setting aside the assessment.\n________________________________________\n(f) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner’s Powers (S. 66-A)\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner act under external directives?\n•\nHeld:\no\nPowers under S. 66-A are suo motu and require the officer's independent consideration.\no\nActions based on directions from the Commissioner (Appeals) are invalid.\n________________________________________\n(h) Arbitrary Disallowances\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan expenses in profit-and-loss accounts be disallowed arbitrarily?\n•\nHeld:\no\nDisallowances must be based on a detailed examination of the claim. Arbitrary disallowances are improper and undermine the credibility of assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,23,32,132,132(1),132(1)(a),132(1)(b),132(1)(c),66A ", + "Case #": "I.TA. Nos. 145, 157 and 158/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 19-12-1990, hearing DATE : 25-10-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar. Shaukat Ali Babar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 144 = 1990 SLD 144 = 1990 PTD 338 = (1990) 61 TAX 46 = 1990 SCMR 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessment (S. 65)\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan a successor ITO reopen an assessment without fresh information?\n•\nHeld:\no\nA successor ITO cannot reopen assessments based solely on material available to the predecessor.\no\nThe reopening is invalid unless new facts or evidence emerge.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Income Tax Act, 1922=34,147,148 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5-K of 1986, decision dated: 16-05-1988, hearing DATE : 28-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Wadood, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Shaikh Hyder, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS ARAFAT WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE C1, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 145 = 1990 SLD 145 = 1990 PTD 413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Withdrawal\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan an applicant withdraw a reference made to the High Court?\n•\nHeld:\no\nOnce a reference is made, it cannot be withdrawn unilaterally.\no\nThe High Court may choose to proceed or decline to answer the reference.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 25 of 1982, decision dated: 23rd November, 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs KARACHI GAS CO. LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 146 = 1990 SLD 146 = 1990 PTD 414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision for Taxation Reserve (S. 10)\n•\nIssue:\no\nAre provisions for taxation reserves admissible deductions for insurance companies?\n•\nHeld:\no\nProvisions for taxation, as specified in the First Schedule, are admissible deductions.\no\nThe ITO cannot interfere with these entries as submitted to the Controller of Insurance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 11 of 1982, decision dated: 31st August, 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Nemo (absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, A KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 147 = 1990 SLD 147 = 1990 PTD 638 = (1990) 61 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Role in Reference Questions\n•\nIssue:\no\nIs the High Court bound to answer all referred questions?\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe High Court is not obligated to answer questions not raised, argued, or considered by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=68 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 378 of 1985, decision dated: 20-07-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jose Joseph for Applicant. P.K.R. Menno", + "Party Name:": "T. GOVINDANKUTTY MENON\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 148 = 1990 SLD 148 = 1990 PTD 899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Books of Accounts and G.P. Rate (S. 32)\n•\nIssue:\no\nHow should income be computed if books are unreliable?\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe AO must apply a reasonable G.P. rate based on industry norms and specific circumstances of the business.\no\nAd hoc additions or net profit estimates are improper unless unavoidable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1981=20 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 551/PB of 1987-88, decision dated: 17th January,1990, hearing DATE : 16-01-1990", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ali Khan, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 149 = 1990 SLD 149 = 1990 PTD 992 = (1990) 62 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax Interest Allowance\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan interest allowances be claimed for late advance tax payments within the financial year?\n•\nHeld:\no\nLate installments paid before the financial year’s end qualify for interest allowances.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.825 of 1979, heard on 18-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H.M. Dhar for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nAJOY PAPER MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 150 = 1990 SLD 150 = 1990 PTD 995 = (1990) 62 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consistency in Accounting (Interest Accrual)\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan different accounting bases be applied for receivables and payables?\n•\nHeld:\no\nMercantile accounting requires consistency; interest payable and receivable must follow the same basis.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 645 to 647 of 1979, heard on 17-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RATNAM AND BAKTHAVATSALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janardhana Raja. C.V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "G. PADMANABHA CHETTIAR AND SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 151 = 1990 SLD 151 = 1990 PTD 998", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Transfer of Assets\n•\nIssue:\no\nIs transferring assets to a company owned by the same individuals a taxable sale?\n•\nHeld:\no\nSuch transfers are not taxable if no commercial profits are realized.\no\nThe arrangement is treated as a continuity of the same entity.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vii), ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Referred Case No.2 of 1962, heard on 18-02-1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. S. MEMON, C.J. AND P. GOVINDAN NAIR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Rama Iyer. S. Nilakanat Iyer", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA\nvs\nMORNING STAR BUS SERVICE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 187 = 1989 SLD 187 = 1989 PTD 508 = (1989) 60 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defective Books and Revaluation\n•\nIssue:\no\nHow should discrepancies between declared and reported inventories be handled?\n•\nHeld:\no\nITOs can adjust profits based on discrepancies in inventory quantities reported to banks and in books.\no\nValuation differences must reflect business activity rather than isolated revaluations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62 ", + "Case #": "J.TA. No.581/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 12-02-1989, hearing DATE : 25-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousuf Sharih. Iqbal Yousuf", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 188 = 1989 SLD 188 = 1989 PTD 907 = (1989) 60 TAX 160 = 1993 PTCL 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unsigned Returns and Agreed Assessments\n•\nIssue:\no\nAre unsigned returns invalid? Can agreed assessments be reopened?\n•\nHeld:\no\nUnsigned returns are valid if mutually accepted by the assessee and department.\no\nAgreed assessments are binding and cannot be reopened arbitrarily.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,66A,59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4110/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 11-04-1989, hearing DATE : 15-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid Ahmad Sheikh. Fazal-o-Mujeeb, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 459 = 1992 SLD 459 = (1992) 65 TAX 45 = (1991) 192 ITR 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Technical Defects in Registration Applications\n•\nIssue:\no\nShould technical defects in Form 12 invalidate registration?\n•\nHeld:\no\nNon-signing by some partners is a curable defect.\no\nThe ITO must provide an opportunity to rectify the defect before rejecting the application.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=185(3),184(7),139 Income Tax Rules, 1962=22(5),24 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.85 of 1989, decision dated: 2-4-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND K. P. BALANARAYANA MANOR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Applicant. S. Vijayan Nair for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nINDIA SEA FOODS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 190 = 1989 SLD 190 = 1989 PTD 1022", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Company Deductions\n•\nIssue:\no\nAre provisions for taxation, gratuity, and bad debts deductible for insurance companies?\n•\nHeld:\no\nThese provisions are allowable under specific schedules and rules.\no\nThe ITO must assess profits based on annual accounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,FirstSched.,6 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 162.of 1981, decision dated: 5-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL OZONE A KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs PREMIER INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 191 = 1989 SLD 191 = 1989 PTD 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Tax Authorities\n•\nIssue:\no\nDoes declaring construction as a business in company documents subject it to taxation as such?\n•\nHeld:\no\nMere inclusion of construction in company objects does not automatically classify it as a construction business for tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=2 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.727 of 1984, decision dated: 8-06-1989, hearing DATE : 6-06-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TANZIL-UR-REHMAN AND ALLALHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim-ud-Din Khan. Waheed Farooqis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HOMES LIMITED\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (APPEALS), ZONE5, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 192 = 1989 SLD 192 = 1989 PTD 1047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Filing Requirements\n•\nIssue:\no\nAre certified copies mandatory for reference filings?\n•\nHeld:\no\nFiling certified copies is mandatory. Failure to comply renders the application invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1)(2)(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.1 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. 157, 158 and 159 of 1973, decision dated: 10-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. A.H. Najfi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs KOHINOOR TRADING COMPANY, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 193 = 1989 SLD 193 = 1989 PTD 1082", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Temporary Promotions and Transfers\n•\nIssue:\no\nDo temporary promotions create permanent rights?\n•\nHeld:\no\nTemporary promotions do not confer permanent rights or benefits.\no\nTransfers made in the interest of service are valid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974=3,6,9 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.513 of 1989, decision dated: 16-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FALAK SHER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL GHAFOOR\nvs\nPUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 194 = 1989 SLD 194 = 1989 PTD 1249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers in Property Valuation\n•\nIssue:\no\nCan revisional authority alter property valuation without justification?\n•\nHeld:\no\nRevisional orders must be based on concrete evidence and reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964=R-16 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1223 of 1986, decision dated: 21st June, 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Afsar Abidi for Petitioner. M.A. Mohammad Ali", + "Party Name:": "EDDIE M. DINSHAW\nvs\nTHE DIRECTOR-GENERAL/COMMISSIONER, EXCISE AND TAXATION, SINDH and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 136 = 1988 SLD 136 = 1988 PTD 425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Valuation Principles\n•\nIssue:\no\nHow should estate valuations (cash, assets, buildings) be conducted?\n•\nHeld:\no\nValuations must rely on evidence, market comparisons, or consistent valuation methods.\no\nArbitrary inclusions or exclusions without a factual basis are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=59,59A(1),38 ", + "Case #": "Estate Duty Reference No. 685 of 1972, decision dated: 7-12-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant in person. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF HIGH COURT OF SIND\nvs\nTHE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 137 = 1988 SLD 137 = 1988 PTD 447 = (1988) 58 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Levy of Surcharge (S. 79)\n•\nPrinciple:\no\nThe provision of Section 79 focuses on the arrangement of business transactions between residents and non-residents, especially where such arrangements aim to suppress profits in Pakistan.\no\n1988 PTD (Trib.) 155 is a key precedent, detailing that surcharge imposition must align with the conditions specified in S. 79.\no\nThe Tribunal reaffirmed these principles, emphasizing that every such case requires a factual examination to determine if transactions are intentionally structured to reduce taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.826/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 15-03-1988, hearing DATE : 20-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, MANZUR-UL-HAQUE AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Fareed. Ali Athar and Alam, C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 3 = 1987 SLD 3 = 1987 PTD 1 = (1986) 54 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nHeading vs. Provisions:\no\nThe heading or title of a section does not control or limit the meaning of its provisions.\no\nExample: Zabair Siddiqui v. M.N. Sufi PLD 1964 Lah. 453 held that headings are akin to preambles and cannot override clear statutory language.\n________________________________________\n(b) Words Any Income and Total Income \n•\nConceptual Distinction:\no\nIncome: Broad concept, encompassing all earnings, including losses, under any head of income.\no\nTotal Income: A subset of income, specifically computed according to the law for tax purposes.\no\nInterpretation Case: (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) clarified this distinction.\n________________________________________\n(c) Retrospective Application of Section 56\n•\nPower of ITO:\no\nThe ITO can issue notices under S. 56 for assessments after the Income-tax Ordinance's commencement on 1st July 1979.\no\nPrecedent: 1984 PTD 137 clarified that retrospective application requires explicit legislative intent.\n________________________________________\n(d) Notices and Jurisdiction\n•\nValidity of Notice:\no\nThe jurisdiction of the ITO depends on compliance with procedural requirements under S. 56 and S. 65.\no\nProcedural defects can render assessments void, as held in PLD 1962 Lah. 326.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1)(a)(b)&2(21)(44),55,166,1(3),154 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2863(LB) and 2864(LB) of 1983-84, heard on 12-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, ZAFAR HUSSAIN AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ilyas Zafar. M. Arshad Pervaiz, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 4 = 1987 SLD 4 = 1987 PTD 28 = (1986) 54 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Addbacks and Adjustments in Assessments\n1.\nCircular Compliance\no\nSection: S. 59(1)\no\nRuling: Addbacks or disallowed expenses must follow procedural requirements. The ITO must:\n\nCorrespond with the assessee before resorting to adjustments.\n\nEnsure proper reasoning and adherence to Central Board of Revenue (CBR) Circular No. 18, dated 27-7-1980 and 30-9-1980.\no\nObservation: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted disallowed expenses without adequate justification. Proper opportunities for response are crucial.\n2.\nAdjustments in Accounting\no\nInterpretation of Adjustment : Refers to any reconciliation or alignment of accounts to reflect true income. Adjustments must follow transparent principles and communicate the rationale.\n3.\nWorking Capital Exclusions\no\nProvision: S. 10 & First Schedule, Part III.\no\nDecision: Provision for liability (e.g., taxes) does not qualify as retained working capital under these provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),10,FirstSched., ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 980/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 29-01-1986, hearing DATE : 19-01-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. I.M. Zuberi, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 1 = 1985 SLD 1 = (1986) 53 TAX 35 = 1987 PTD 31 = 1986 PTCL 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts\n1.\nAssessment of Wastage:\no\nKey Issue: Assessee showed inconsistent wastage over three years. Explanations (e.g., transit losses, rejected goods, and resale) were not thoroughly evaluated.\no\nTribunal Ruling: Rejected the accounts citing insufficient stage-wise records.\no\nCourt Directive: Proper evaluation of explanations and records is mandatory. Case remanded for fresh adjudication with specific findings on wastage.\n2.\nRelevant Precedents:\no\n1986 SCMR 443, 1984 PTD 218, 1984 PTD 150. These cases emphasized fairness in evaluating explanations before rejecting books.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 176, 177, 178 of 1973 and Income-tax Appeal No. 3134 of 1971-72, heard on 22-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Applicant\nSheikh Hyder", + "Party Name:": "M/S PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1368 = 2015 SLD 1368 = 2015 PTD 545 = (2015) 111 TAX 45 = 2015 PTCL 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Immovable Assets\n1.\nFinal Tax Liability under Wealth Tax Act:\no\nSection: S. 14C.\no\nInterpretation: Tax under S. 14C acts as an advance tax, adjustable against final liability. However:\n\nIf advance exceeds final liability, no refund is allowable.\n\nDouble taxation of immovable property is impermissible.\n2.\nIllegality in Taxation:\no\nImposing additional tax on immovable property without show-cause notice violates legal provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.194 of 2000, decision dated: 30-09-2014, hearing DATE : 30-09-2014.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI AND SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Hussain. Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVs.\nMrs. NAHEED MUJTABA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 5 = 1987 SLD 5 = 1987 PTD 36 = 1987 PTCL 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nIssue: Confiscated silver bullion from an assessee’s partner was deemed undisclosed income.\no\nRuling: Mere inclusion of the bullion in the balance sheet did not substantiate its classification as income.\no\nKey Finding: Ownership and source were satisfactorily explained. Addition deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,4(2A),23(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2113/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 30-06-1985, hearing date: 13-05-1885", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. \nM. Arahad Pervaiz", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 6 = 1987 SLD 6 = 1987 PTD 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex-parte Assessments\n1.\nDefault in Responding to Notices:\no\nKey Issue: ITO completed the best assessment without adequately confronting the assessee with material evidence.\no\nRuling: Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) rightly converted the assessment to a regular one. The ITO must offer reasonable opportunities before concluding assessments.\n2.\nLegal Observation:\no\nIssuing a single notice under S. 61 does not mandate a best assessment without further efforts to obtain necessary details.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I. T: A. Nos. 1622 and 1660 of 1982-83, decision dated: 2-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi and M. Daud Khan, I.A.C. D.R.. Daud Khan, I.A.C. D.R. and Zia H. Rizvis", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 7 = 1987 SLD 7 = 1987 PTD 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income\n1.\nFair Assessment:\no\nCase Facts: ITO finalized assessment without allowing the assessee time to address entries in their accounts.\no\nRuling: Violation of natural justice. Assessment remanded for fresh proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(2A),(2B) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3490 of 1979-80, decision dated: 29th June,1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. Abrar Ahmad D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 8 = 1987 SLD 8 = 1987 PTD 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance\n1.\nAllowance on Ships:\no\nKey Issue: Whether depreciation could be claimed on ships not installed in Pakistan.\no\nDecision: Depreciation is allowable only if installed in Pakistan. Clarifications added by amendments resolved prior ambiguities.\no\nPrinciple: Rules must align with statutory provisions and not negate legislative intent.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=10,10(2)(vi) Income Tax Rules, 1922=33,8,9 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 278 of 1974, decision dated: 31st October, 1985, hearing DATE : 7-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Darashani. Nasim Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs YOGOSLAVE LINE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 9 = 1987 SLD 9 = 1987 PTD 48 = 1986 PTCL 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability to Sales Tax on Sodium Silicate and Immunity under Undisclosed Income Declaration\nDetails:\nThe assessee challenged sales tax assessments for the years 1973–74 to 1977–78 concerning the levy of sales tax on Sodium Silicate. For 1976–77 and 1977–78, the appeals were not pressed and hence dismissed.\nFor the earlier years (1973–74 to 1975–76), the assessee claimed that Sodium Silicate was exempt from sales tax on various grounds:\nIt was a product of steam, qualifying under Item No. 15 of Notification No. 9, dated 27-6-1951 before its amendment.\nA declaration of undisclosed income under Section 3-C of the Income Tax Act covered the relevant periods and granted immunity from sales tax liability as per Rule 6(2) of the Fifth Schedule and CBR Circular dated 14 July 1976.\nAdditionally, Sodium Silicate was used in products like soap and steel re-rolling goods, which themselves were exempt from sales tax.\nThe Tribunal accepted the immunity claim for the years 1973–74 and 1974–75, noting that the declaration under section 3-C had been accepted, thus shielding the assessee from liability under the Sales Tax Act for those years.\nHowever, for 1975–76, it was held that:\nThe exemption under Item No. 15 was not applicable due to its amendment.\nThe declaration under section 3-C and related immunity also did not cover this year.\nSodium Silicate, despite being used in exempt products, was not independently exempt unless expressly provided.\nThe STO's estimate of Rs. 6,20,000 as total sales (with 25% exempted as packing material) was upheld, and the balance of Rs. 4,65,000 was rightly taxed.\nHeld:\nAppeals for 1976–77 and 1977–78 dismissed as not pressed.\n1973–74 and 1974–75: Sodium Silicate exempt from sales tax due to immunity under undisclosed income declaration (Section 3-C, Rule 6(2), Fifth Schedule).\n1975–76: No exemption available; sales tax rightly levied.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,3C,FifthSched., ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. Nos. 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 of 1979-80, decided on 30-04-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid\nAmjad Ali Ranjha, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 10 = 1987 SLD 10 = 1987 PTD 57 = (1987) 55 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Termination Benefits\n1.\nInterpretation of Dismissal, Termination, and Retirement:\no\nEach term carries distinct legal implications under master-servant relationships.\no\nKey Ruling: Retirement benefits provided for rehabilitation (e.g., medical retirement) do not fall within taxable salary. ", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2)(c)(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1514/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 28-08-1986, hearing DATE : 25-08-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND MANZURUL HAQUE, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid D.R.. M. Karim", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 2 = 1985 SLD 2 = (1986) 54 TAX 130 = 1987 PTD 66 = 1987 PTCL 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Interest Income\n1.\nLoan Use Verification:\no\nCase Facts: ITO added deemed interest income based on S. 12(7) without verifying loan use.\no\nRuling: Application for rectification rejected. Assessee’s consent during proceedings negated claims of procedural errors.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(7),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 926/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 22nd December,1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ayub I. Lambat. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 11 = 1987 SLD 11 = 1987 PTD 71 = (1987) 55 TAX 110 = 1986 PTCL 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consolidated Legal Principles & Outcomes\nSmuggling Attempt vs. Preparation\nZaffar Hussian Mirza, J.: Boarding a domestic flight with undeclared currency constitutes preparation, not attempt to smuggle. Only proximate acts (e.g., boarding an international flight) qualify as attempt.\nOutcome: Confiscation quashed; currency returned.\nTax Exemption for Charitable Institutions\nMuhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.: Professional associations (e.g., Management Association) advancing public knowledge/education qualify as charitable under S. 4(3)(i), Income Tax Act 1922, even if membership-based.\nOutcome: Income exempt from tax.\nTax Treaties & Capital Gains\nNaimuddin, J.: Capital gains from share sales fall under commercial profits in the UK-Pakistan Tax Treaty (1962). Absent a permanent establishment, gains are exempt in Pakistan.\nOutcome: ₹83.75 lakh exempted from tax.\nReversal of Acquittal in Smuggling Case\nSaad Saood Jan, J.: Appellate courts may overturn acquittals if trial findings ignore material evidence (e.g., accused's conduct, financial improbabilities). Burden shifts to accused under S. 156(2), Customs Act for seized currency.\nOutcome: Conviction (6 years + fine) for smuggling Pakistani currency.\nFinality in Tax Assessments\nSaeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.: Tax authorities cannot revisit accepted assessments (e.g., business transfer) without new evidence. Estoppel applies to ensure administrative consistency.\nOutcome: Bifurcation of business upheld; reassessments annulled.\nProcedural Compliance in Tax Assessments\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal: Mandatory joint assessment (ITO + IAC) for high-value cases under CBR Circular No. 3/1979 cannot be bypassed. Non-compliance invalidates proceedings.\nOutcome: Assessment annulled; remitted for fresh proceedings.\nCustoms Detention vs. Seizure\nAbdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.: Detention for duty reassessment (S. 32, Customs Act) ≠ seizure (S. 168). Authorities may re-assess duty within 3 years but cannot indefinitely hold goods post-clearance.\nOutcome: Goods ordered released; re-assessment permitted.\nStrict Interpretation of Tax Exemptions\nAslam Riaz Hussain, J.: Exclusive use in tax exemptions (e.g., infant food) requires unambiguous compliance. General-use products (e.g., NIDO milk) marketed for whole family do not qualify.\nOutcome: 20% sales tax on powdered milk upheld.\nTechnical Lapses in Appeals\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal: Non-compliance with procedural rules (e.g., serving appeal copies) is excusable if no prejudice occurs and substantive justice is served.\nOutcome: Appeal heard; surcharge on gold sales upheld under S. III, First Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance 1979.\nKey Cross-Cutting Principles\nBurden of Proof: Shifts to accused in customs seizures (S. 156(2)).\nFinality: Tax assessments are binding without new evidence.\nProcedural Sanctity: Mandatory rules (e.g., joint assessments) invalidate non-compliant proceedings.\nLiteral Interpretation: Tax exemptions and charging provisions enforced as worded, disregarding hardship.\nSubstance Over Form: Courts excuse technical lapses if justice is uncompromised.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),FirstSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 2650/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 28-09-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, D.R.. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 12 = 1987 SLD 12 = 1987 PTD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Trust Income\n1.\nKey Issue:\no\nExemption denied as income was not wholly applied to charitable purposes, and clarity on allocation was absent.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nWithout clear stipulations, trust income is taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(1),23 Trust Act, 1882=6 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 377/ KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 28-09-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANZUR-UL-HAQ AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 13 = 1987 SLD 13 = 1987 PTD 89 = (1986) 54 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Returns\n1.\nObligation to Pay Tax:\no\nAssessee showing a loss in returns is not liable for advance tax under S. 22-A. S. 45-A does not cover such cases.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,45A ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 573/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 10-11-1986, hearing DATE : 22-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 14 = 1987 SLD 14 = 1987 PTD 92 = (1987) 55 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Permits\n1.\nDisputed Claim:\no\nAssessee failed to substantiate claims of selling export permits.\no\nRuling: The ITO rightly dismissed inconsistent and unsupported claims.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 26/KB of 1985-86 and I.T.A. No. 251/KB of 1984-1985, decision dated: 20-10-1986, hearing DATE : 22-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 15 = 1987 SLD 15 = 1987 PTD 105 = (1987) 55 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Registration\n1.\nMinor Becoming a Partner:\no\nAttaining majority and becoming a full partner does not change the partnership constitution. Fresh registration is unnecessary.\no\nRuling: ITO directed to register the firm.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26(A) Partnership Act, 1932=30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 563/KB of 1979-80 and I.T.A. No. 603/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 4-09-1986, hearing DATE : 31st August, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND MANZUR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "I.N. Pasha. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 16 = 1987 SLD 16 = 1987 PTD 116 = (1987) 56 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Surcharge and Tax Credit\n1.\nSurcharge Exemption\no\nProvision: S. 59.\no\nRuling: Surcharge is not leviable on taxes payable. (1979) 40 Taxation 47 (Trib.) ref.\n2.\nInstallation Costs and Concessions\no\nProvision: S. 107.\no\nRuling: Installation charges for plant and machinery are excluded from the cost unless explicitly allowed by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) through concessions.\n3.\nTax Credit in Depreciation Calculations\no\nProvision: S. 107; Rules 8(8)(b), Third Schedule.\no\nRuling: Tax credit is distinct from allowances or deductions. It must not be excluded when calculating the cost of assets for depreciation purposes.\n4.\nInterpretation of Terms\no\nObservation: Legislative use of distinct terms like tax credit, allowance, and deduction signifies different meanings and purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,59,18,20,23,39,40,107 Income Tax Rules, 1982=8(8)(b),5 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1329/KB of 1982-83 and I.T.A. No. 359/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 17-09-1980, hearing DATE : 3rd September, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI, KHAN AND MANZURUL HAQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Akber G. Merchant, F.C.A.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 17 = 1987 SLD 17 = 1987 PTD 125 = (1987) 55 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Market Valuation and Surcharge\n1.\nFair Market Value of Assets\no\nProvision: S. 10, 29(2).\no\nRuling: ITO must substantiate fair market value with evidence. Arbitrary estimations are not permissible.\n2.\nSurcharge on Income Discrepancies\no\nProvision: S. 59.\no\nRuling: Surcharge is not applicable on the difference between returned and assessed income. (1979) 40 Tax 47 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,29(2),ThirdSched.,59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 227/KB and 290/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 30th, August, 1986, hearing DATE : 23rd August, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SADIQ MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasir Khan, D.R.. M. D. Gangat, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 18 = 1987 SLD 18 = 1987 PTD 129 = (1987) 55 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Assessment Validity\n1.\nWritten Assessment Requirement\no\nProvision: S. 59, 62, 65, 85.\no\nRuling: Assessments must be documented in writing. Notices or IT-30 forms cannot substitute for a formal assessment order.\n2.\nProceedings Based on Nonexistent Assessments\no\nRuling: Additional assessments under S. 65 are invalid if based on legally nonexistent original assessments.\n3.\nAssessment of Salary Income\no\nObservation: Where a case is transferred and pending, proceedings for concealment or escapement under S. 65 are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62,65&85,59(1),166(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 258(1 B) to 261(1 B) and 264(1 B) of 1985 86, decision dated: 31st August, 1986. dates of hearing: 29th and 30-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant in person. Ihsan Elahi Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 19 = 1987 SLD 19 = 1987 PTD 138 = (1987) 55 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Capital Gains and Interpretation Principles\n1.\nShares as Capital Assets\no\nProvision: S. 2(12)(i), 15, 27, 43.\no\nRuling: Gains from stocks and shares held as stock-in-trade by investment companies are treated as capital gains.\n2.\nPrinciples of Interpretation\no\nAmbiguity in tax statutes requires interpretation aligned with legislative intent. Clear statutes admit no equity.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(12)(i),15,27,43 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 342/KB of 1981-82, decision dated: 27-04-1985, hearing DATE : 18-03-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SIDDIQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-e-Ajam, D.R.. Mahmood A Hashmey", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 20 = 1987 SLD 20 = 1987 PTD 144 = (1987) 55 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Waiver\n1.\nPenalty on Tax Default\no\nProvision: S. 46(1).\no\nRuling: Tribunal waived penalties since the stay granted by the Commissioner was complied with by the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 556 of 1972, decision dated: 10-11-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SULTAN SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 21 = 1987 SLD 21 = 1987 PTD 146 = (1987) 55 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Appeals and Procedural Amendments\n1.\nNew Arguments on Appeal\no\nRuling: Appellants may raise questions of law even if not addressed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\n2.\nAmendment in S. 64\no\nObservation: The 1982 amendment to S. 64 aimed to address delays in voluntary filings, allowing assessments within two years.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=64 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 471/IB/80-81, decision dated: 12-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND AMJAD ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 22 = 1987 SLD 22 = 1987 PTD 149 = (1987) 55 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital\n1.\nAllowability of Interest\no\nProvision: S. 10(2)(iii).\no\nRuling: Interest deduction is allowable if borrowed funds are used for business, irrespective of available surplus funds.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 54, 55 and 56 of 1976, decision dated: 25-11-1986. dates of hearing: 11th, 14th, 18th and 20-11-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. A. GHANI IBADAT YAR KHAN AND SAEED SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner. Ghulam Hyder", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AGENCIES Ltd., KARACHI\nvs\nThe COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 23 = 1987 SLD 23 = 1987 PTD 178 = (1987) 55 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Total Income Definition\n1.\nInterpretation of Total Income \no\nProvision: S. 15-H, 2(15), 16(1).\no\nRuling: Total income must be computed as per statutory definitions, excluding exempted income under S. 15-H before the Finance Act, 1976.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15-H,2(15),16(1),Sched., ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.19 of 1978 decided on 5th November 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider and K. Salah-ud-Din. Shaikh Abdul Azizs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMUSHTAQ MUHAMMAD ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 24 = 1987 SLD 24 = 1987 PTD 184 = (1987) 56 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Findings\n1.\nReopening Cases under S. 34\no\nProvision: S. 34, 66(1)(2).\no\nRuling: Tribunal's finding that proceedings under S. 34 were invalid remains unchallenged and thus binding.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,66(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No 47 of 1978, decision dated: 29th October1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B KARACHI\nvs\nSOOMER SALEH FOUNDATION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 25 = 1987 SLD 25 = 1987 PTD 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Receipts\n1.\nVocational Income Taxability\no\nProvision: S. 4(3)(vii).\no\nRuling: Donations linked to a vocation (e.g., preaching) are taxable as they arise from the vocation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vii),66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 295 and 296 (N.T.) of 1974 (with C.M.P. No. 10046 of 1976) dated 23rd September, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.D. TULZAPPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Poti, Senior Advocate, S. Sukumaran and D.N. Mishra with him. G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with K.C Dua and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "Dr. K. GEORGE THOMAS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ERNAKULAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 26 = 1987 SLD 26 = 1987 PTD 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Technical Knowhow\n1.\nDocuments as Plant\no\nRuling: Technical documents, being essential tools for trade, qualify as plant and are depreciable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=32 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 262 (NT) of 1974, 1093 and 1094 of 1978, decision dated: 1st November, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SCIENTIFIC ENGINEERING HOUSE (P) Ltd.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax ANDHRA PRADESH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 27 = 1987 SLD 27 = 1987 PTD 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Penalty and Precedents\n1.\nPenalty for Late Filing\no\nProvision: S. 28, S. 271(1)(a) of 1961 Act.\no\nRuling: Failure to file returns is a continuing offence, justifying penalties based on ongoing default.\no\nPrecedent Observations: Erroneous past rulings or practices cannot justify continued reliance if contrary to statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 Income Tax Act, 1961=271(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No 1943 of 1974 decided on the December 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Smt. MAYA RANI PUNJ\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 28 = 1987 SLD 28 = 1987 PTD 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Partnership Firm, Registration, and Genuineness\n1.\nGenuineness of Partnership Firm\no\nProvision: S. 26-A, 66.\no\nRuling: Registration of a firm was denied due to its lack of factual genuineness. The High Court reframed the issue and upheld the decision. Even if a partnership appears legally valid, its factual authenticity is critical for registration.\no\nKey Observations: Four new partners lacked control, indicating they were dummies. Their statements revealed they signed without understanding the implications.\no\nPrecedents: Legal and factual validity must coexist for registration.\n2.\nBenami Partnership\no\nRuling: A partner acting as a benamidar for another does not bar registration if the partnership is genuine.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1974, decision dated: 29-01-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate, J.B. Dadachanji, Harish Salve, P.K. Ram and Mrs. A.K. Verma. V.S. Desai and Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocates and Miss. A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1974, decided on 29th January, 1986\nMessrs S.P. GRAMOPHONE COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PATIALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 29 = 1987 SLD 29 = 1987 PTD 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Penal Interest and Formal Orders\n1.\nRequirement for Formal Order\no\nProvision: S. 18-A(6) & (8).\no\nRuling: Penal interest for non-payment of advance tax requires a formal order. Incorporating penal interest into Form IT-30 is not a substitute for such an order.\n2.\nDemand Notice Validity\no\nProvision: S. 29.\no\nRuling: A demand notice under S. 29 is valid only if preceded by a formal order. Absence of such an order invalidates the notice.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A(6),(8) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 78 of 1969, decision dated: 10th March 1976, hearing DATE : 26-02-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND Z. A. CHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Nusrat for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI WEST, KARACHI\nvs\nMalik WALAYAT HUSSAIN & SONS LTD, QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 30 = 1987 SLD 30 = 1987 PTD 256 = (1987) 56 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\n1.\nLiteral Interpretation\no\nRuling: Courts must adhere to the plain language of fiscal statutes, regardless of harsh consequences.\n2.\nReconciling Provisions\no\nRuling: Interpret statutes to harmonize provisions, avoiding redundancy or repugnance.\n3.\nDefinition of Personal Use \no\nProvision: S. 14(3), Explanation.\no\nRuling: Goods sold by a cooperative society to members for resale are taxable. Personal use implies direct consumption, not resale.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=14,14(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1942 to 1944/LB of 1982-83, decision dated: 4th October,1986, hearing DATE : 20-09-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Manzoor Ahmad. Muhammad Munir Qureshi, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 31 = 1987 SLD 31 = 1987 PTD 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stock Valuation and Accounting Method\n•\nProvision: S. 13.\n•\nRuling: The method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee, even if different from that used for bank loans, is reliable unless proven otherwise. Occasional deviations do not invalidate the method.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 147 of 1962, decision dated: 12-02-1965", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDRA REDDY, C.J. AND KAILSAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Swaminathan and K. Ramgopal for Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan", + "Party Name:": "INDIA MOTOR PARTS AND ACCESSORIES (P) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 32 = 1987 SLD 32 = 1987 PTD 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Natural Justice in Stock Valuation\n•\nProvision: S. 32.\n•\nRuling: Adding differences between declared and replacement values to income without confronting the assessee violates principles of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 438/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 25-11-1986, hearing DATE : 12-11-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ehsan E. Tariq, D.R.. Muhammad Arif", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 33 = 1987 SLD 33 = 1987 PTD 273 = (1987) 55 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Service of Notice and Limitation\n1.\nService by Affixation\no\nProvision: S. 61, 63.\no\nRuling: Affixation is valid only if the address is proven to be the assessee's place of residence or business, and deliberate avoidance is established.\n2.\nLimitation for Appeals\no\nRuling: Limitation begins when the assessee receives notice, not when it is affixed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,56,63,131,13 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1168 to 1176/ KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 8-11-1984, hearing DATE : 4-11-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. Muhammad Naseem", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 34 = 1987 SLD 34 = 1987 PTD 289 = (1987) 55 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy vs. Differential Margin\n•\nProvision: S. 18, 65.\n•\nRuling: Payments from the government labeled as price differential are not subsidies but compensations, thus deductible from taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=18,65 Chemical Fertilizers (Development Surcharge) Act, 1973=2(c)&(d) Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=87C(3) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 20 of 1986, decision dated: 1st February, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANZOOR HUSAAIN SIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt with A.H. Najfi and Abdul Qayum Bhatti for Petitioner. Muhammad Ishaques", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICAL LTD\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VI, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 35 = 1987 SLD 35 = 1987 PTD 300 = (1987) 55 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Personal Use of Company Assets and Deemed Income\n1.\nUse of Company Car\no\nProvision: Rule 39(4)(b).\no\nRuling: Before adding value to income for personal use of a company car, the assessee must be given a chance to explain.\n2.\nDeemed Income Procedures\no\nProvision: S. 13, 4.\no\nRuling: Assessments require prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who must scrutinize proposed additions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,7,4 Income Tax Rules, 1982=39(4)(b)(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2133/ KB and 2398/ KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 14-02-1987, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Muhammad Farid, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 36 = 1987 SLD 36 = 1987 PTD 311 = (1987) 56 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Surcharge and Assessment Adjustments\n1.\nSurcharge Applicability\no\nProvision: S. 10, First Schedule.\no\nRuling: Surcharge rules vary by assessment year. Amendments in 1980 altered its applicability.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme Adjustments\no\nProvision: S. 59.\no\nRuling: Additions to self-assessment must comply with disclosure requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,First Schedule,59(1)(3) Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3) Finance Ordinance 1979=6(51(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 458 and 459/KB of 1981-83 decided on 30-10-1985, hearing DATE : 16-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-e-Ajam, D.R.. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 37 = 1987 SLD 37 = 1987 PTD 314 = (1987) 56 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Notices and Assessments\n•\nProvision: S. 56, 65.\n•\nRuling: Combined notices for multiple years under S. 56 are invalid. Such assessments must be annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,55,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 26(IB) to 30(IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 6-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.. Ejaz Hussain Jaffery", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 38 = 1987 SLD 38 = 1987 PTD 319 = (1987) 56 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay\n•\nProvision: S. 134.\n•\nRuling: Delay in filing appeals requires satisfactory justification. Mere negligence is insufficient for condonation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3),134(4),59(1),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 281(IB) and 334(IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 27-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R. for Applicant. Ishfaq Ahmad Razi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 39 = 1987 SLD 39 = 1987 PTD 322 = (1987) 56 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Reopening Assessments and Additional Grounds\n1.\nReopening under Self-Assessment Scheme\no\nProvision: S. 65.\no\nRuling: CBR guidelines allow reassessments even for accepted returns.\n2.\nNew Grounds on Appeal\no\nRuling: Pure questions of law can be introduced on appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,59(1),65(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 343(IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 16-12-1986, hearing DATE : 15-12-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND AMJAD ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Zahoor-ud-Din and Muhammad Hayat. Maqbool Hussain Shah D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 40 = 1987 SLD 40 = 1987 PTD 325 = (1987) 56 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Escaped Assessments and Procedural Errors\n•\nProvision: S. 65, 56.\n•\nRuling: Notices for escaped assessments must follow procedural norms. Simultaneous or consolidated notices are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,65,56 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 136 to 143/IB of 1985-86, decision dated: 17-11-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Ahmed Qureshi. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 41 = 1987 SLD 41 = 1987 PTD 329 = (1987) 56 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Errors\n•\nProvision: S. 156.\n•\nRuling: Omission to levy additional tax is a rectifiable mistake. Rectification can occur within the statutory limitation period.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,253,59(1),104,87 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 250 to 252 (I. B.) of 1985-86, decision dated: 29-10-1986, hearing DATE : 18-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "U.D. Qureshi, I.T.P.. Maqbool Hussain Shah D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 42 = 1987 SLD 42 = 1987 PTD 335 = (1987) 56 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defective Notice Service\n•\nProvision: S. 22, 23.\n•\nRuling: Defective service of procedural notices does not annul assessments but may require reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(a),(4A),23(2),34 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,R.17 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 341 and 342 (IB)/1985-86, decision dated: 19-01-1987, hearing DATE : 14-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND AMJAD ALI MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zahid Yasin Mufti. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 43 = 1987 SLD 43 = 1987 PTD 341 = (1987) 55 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing Wealth Statements\n•\nProvision: S. 58, 108.\n•\nRuling: Non-filing of wealth statements under S. 58 is penalized under S. 108. Provisions apply equally to wealth statements as to income returns.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(a),58(2),55,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 3919/LB of 1984-85 heard on 1st October, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nawaz. Muhammad Munir Qureshi, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 44 = 1987 SLD 44 = 1987 PTD 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Working Capital :\n•\nWorking capital is defined as the excess of current assets over current liabilities, used to stabilize solvency and ensure smooth business operations.\n•\nRequires liquid or near-liquid assets to meet contingencies and operational needs.\n•\nKey components include sundry debtors, stock, cash, and liabilities such as creditors and taxes.\n(b) Surcharge on Retained Income:\n•\nFor resident companies, retained income for capitalization or working capital is excluded for surcharge calculation.\n•\nNon-resident entities with no balance sheets or retained earnings do not qualify for this exemption.\n(c)-(d) Surcharge and Tax Deduction at Source:\n•\nTax deducted at source cannot count as a current asset or working capital.\n•\nNon-residents must justify retained income for working capital purposes to claim exemption from surcharge.\n(e)-(f) Legislative and Circular Background:\n•\nLegislative provisions under Finance Acts outline the applicability of surcharges, emphasizing their enforcement on non-residents lacking capitalization justification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,Sched,54 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1516-A to 1518/KB of 1982-1983, decision dated: 11-01-1986, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, Departmental Representative. F. Alam, F. C. A. and Abdul Matin, C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 45 = 1987 SLD 45 = 1987 PTD 362 = (1987) 55 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Manufacturing Exemption:\n•\nAssembling components into finished products qualifies as manufacturing for income-tax exemptions under specific schedules.\n(b)-(c) Exemption Parameters:\n•\nExemptions cannot be denied based on ancillary factors like power consumption or documentation if the core manufacturing process is validated.\n•\nPenalties tied to such exemptions are deemed illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,Sched.,11,91,119 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 445 to 447 (IB) of 1986-87, decision dated: 18-02-1987, hearing DATE : 17-02-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Arshad Qayyum, FCA. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 46 = 1987 SLD 46 = 1987 PTD 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appellate Authority's Duty:\n•\nAppellate authorities must issue reasoned decisions, even ex parte.\n(b) Procedural Validity of Additions:\n•\nAppeals must address the merits based on available records; procedural gaps (e.g., missing approvals) can result in remittal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132 ", + "Case #": "I . T . A . No. 1528/LB/ 1985-86, decision dated: 4-09-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid. Muhammad Munir Qureshi, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 47 = 1987 SLD 47 = 1987 PTD 369 = (1987) 56 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(e) Claim of Expenditures:\n•\nBusiness expenditures like advertising, office, and repair expenses require verifiable records for allowances.\n•\nExcessive entertainment or personal elements in claims lead to justified disallowance.\n(f)-(j) Capital and Operating Expenditure:\n•\nDistinctions between capital investments (e.g., marble installation) and routine expenditures guide depreciation and deductions.\n(k)-(o) Successor and Predecessor Assessments:\n•\nUnpaid trading liabilities transition to successors with implications under S.25(c).\n•\nClear delineation of successor-predecessor roles ensures accurate tax assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xviii),25(c),73,22 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f) Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 366 to 368/KB of 1983-84 and M.A.Nos. 15 to 17/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 20-10-1986. dates of hearing: 1st and 13-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND MANZUR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Faruq Ali, F.C.A.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 48 = 1987 SLD 48 = 1987 PTD 384 = (1987) 56 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(c) Constitutional Review:\n•\nCourts avoid interfering with factual findings unless shown to be grossly erroneous.\n•\nRepresentation adequacy and record disputes fall outside supervisory jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,157 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. Nos. D-762 and D-763 of 1986, decision dated: 10-12-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Nasim\nRespondent(s) by: Shaikh Hyder", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BRILLIANT FABRICS & SILK FACTORY, KARACHI\nVS\nIncome Tax OFFICER, WEST ZONE, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 49 = 1987 SLD 49 = 1987 PTD 386 = (1987) 56 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Penalty Merger with Appeals:\n•\nPenalty orders imposed during pending appeals merge with subsequent appellate outcomes, nullifying conflicting orders.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(i),66(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.11 of 1978, decision dated: 27-10-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Department. G.M. Paryani", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nvs\nUNITED ORIENTAL STEAMSHIPS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 50 = 1987 SLD 50 = 1987 PTD 388 = (1987) 55 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Clubbing Validity:\n•\nClubbing of spousal incomes in partnerships is upheld despite independent earnings.\n(b) Proper Order Documentation:\n•\nAssessment orders must transparently detail tax calculations and partner shares for legal validity.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=69,69(3)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 365 (PH) of 1986-87, decision dated: 4-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Irshad Shaheen, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 51 = 1987 SLD 51 = 1987 PTD 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(d) Treatment of Expenditures:\n•\nAdvertising and promotional costs linked to business growth are permissible.\n•\nExpenditures violating legal limits (e.g., advertising caps) are disallowed.\n(e)-(g) Officer Powers:\n•\nIncome-tax officers have discretion to disallow expenses contravening laws, regardless of criminal penalties.\n(f)-(g) Bad Debt and Asset Valuation:\n•\nOfficers determine the irrecoverability of bad debts and market value, independent of external adjudications.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(xviii),29(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1297 to 1300/KB of 1982-83, I.T.A. No. 1335/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 26-06-1986 and M.A. No. 30/KB of 1986-1987, decision dated: 14-03-1987, hearing DATE : 24-06-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-e-Ajam, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 1297/KB to 1.T.A. No. 1300/KB of 1982-83)\nMr. Alam (in I.T.A. No. 1297/KB to I.T.A. No. 1 0/ K B of 1982-83)\nMr. Alam (in Case No. 1335/KB of 1982-83)\nAmin-e-Ajam, D.R. (in Case No. 1335/KB of 1982-83)\nAmin-e-Ajam, D.R (in Case No. 1335/KB of 1982-83)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 52 = 1987 SLD 52 = 1987 PTD 402 = (1987) 55 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(e) Rejection of Trading Account:\n•\nAssessee, a manufacturer of M.S. bars, maintained complete books of accounts, stock registers, and vouchers for purchases and sales.\n•\nNon-maintenance of stage-wise production or day-to-day wastage records was deemed insufficient grounds to reject trading accounts, especially since such records were not disputed in previous years.\n•\nSeparate files for labor details (including Social Security Card numbers) substantiated wage verifications.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 390 to 392(PB) of 1980-81, decision dated: 7-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND AMJAD ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 53 = 1987 SLD 53 = 1987 PTD 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(j) Allowance and Disallowance of Expenses:\n•\nFreight, machinery repairs, and damaged goods expenses allowed, given prior acceptance in assessments and complete supporting details.\n•\nDisallowances upheld for unverifiable travel expenses and excise/sales tax short realizations.\n•\nExport rebates granted regardless of currency received.\n•\nBad debts and tuition fee expenses evaluated for business purposes; tuition fees required proof of direct business benefit.\n(k) Building Repairs:\n•\nExpenses deemed capital in nature (e.g., additions to buildings) were disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,132,13(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2749(LB), 2750(LB), 2751(LB) of 1984-85, decision dated: 22-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Athar DR. Miss Surriya Azim", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 54 = 1987 SLD 54 = 1987 PTD 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(j) Allowance and Disallowance of Expenses:\n•\nFreight, machinery repairs, and damaged goods expenses allowed, given prior acceptance in assessments and complete supporting details.\n•\nDisallowances upheld for unverifiable travel expenses and excise/sales tax short realizations.\n•\nExport rebates granted regardless of currency received.\n•\nBad debts and tuition fee expenses evaluated for business purposes; tuition fees required proof of direct business benefit.\n(k) Building Repairs:\n•\nExpenses deemed capital in nature (e.g., additions to buildings) were disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv),4(1),10(2)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3635-A, 3634, 3635-B of 1979-80 and I.T.A. No.2212 of 1981-82, decision dated: 4-03-1987. dates of hearing: 16-11-1985 and 21st March, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Siddique Akhtar Ch. I.T.P.. Amjad Ali Ranjhah AC. D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 55 = 1987 SLD 55 = 1987 PTD 437 = (1987) 56 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sumptuary Allowances:\n•\nAllowances unrelated to duty performance (e.g., for costly living) do not qualify for exemptions under S.4(3)(vi).\n(b) Tax Penalty:\n•\nWhere taxes were already deducted at source, penalties for non-payment of advance tax were deemed unjustified and deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vi),18A,18 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 47(PB) of 1981-82, decision dated: 18-03-1987, hearing DATE : 8-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Amir Alam Khan, F.C.A.. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 56 = 1987 SLD 56 = 1987 PTD 441 = (1988) 57 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(g) Reassessment Validity:\n•\nReassessments based on energy consumption discrepancies were challenged; Excise records provided by the assessee were authenticated and deemed reliable.\n•\nAssessments relying on rough estimates or lacking evidence (e.g., production from energy consumption) were annulled.\n•\nLimitation laws under both the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, applied to re-open cases.\n(h)-(n) Concealment and Positive Evidence:\n•\nEvidence of suppressed energy bills and undeclared property values required concrete proof.\n•\nCases involving Excise-certified production records were decided in favor of the assessee.\n•\nSelf-Assessment Scheme exclusions applied only where concealment was substantiated.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,56 Income Tax Act, 1922=34(2),34,23,28(1A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos. 2939 to 2945/LB and 3697 to 3703/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 31st March, 1987. dates of hearing: 21st July, 1985 and 24-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Arshad Pervaiz, A.C./D.R.. Siddique Ch. I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 57 = 1987 SLD 57 = 1987 PTD 474 = (1987) 56 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Carrying Forward Business Losses (Sections 34 & 35):\n•\nWhen an assessee incurs a loss in any assessment year under the head income from business or profession, such losses can be carried forward up to six years.\n•\nLosses not fully set off against profits from the same business can be carried forward to subsequent years if the business continues.\n•\nThis provision ensures continuity in tax benefits if the business remains operational.\n•\nKey Point: The carried-forward loss is applicable to profits and gains of such business/profession assessable in future years.\n•\nReference Case: Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore Zone v. Muhammad Allah Bux, 1977 PTD 13.\n(b) Nature of Business Activities for Loss Set-Off:\n•\nBusiness activities extend beyond trade or commerce and can include rendering services or managing properties for financial gains.\n•\nProperties used as circulating capital (e.g., acquiring, selling, leasing) fall under business activities if aimed at generating profits rather than mere rental income.\n•\nKey Concept: The scope of business activities includes dynamic property dealings for profit-making purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 25 of 1986, decision dated: 24-02-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND AHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din far Applicant. Ali Akhtar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nVALI BHAI KAMRUDDIN (SIND) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 58 = 1987 SLD 58 = 1987 PTD 475 = (1987) 56 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Carrying Forward Business Losses (Sections 34 & 35):\n•\nWhen an assessee incurs a loss in any assessment year under the head income from business or profession, such losses can be carried forward up to six years.\n•\nLosses not fully set off against profits from the same business can be carried forward to subsequent years if the business continues.\n•\nThis provision ensures continuity in tax benefits if the business remains operational.\n•\nKey Point: The carried-forward loss is applicable to profits and gains of such business/profession assessable in future years.\n•\nReference Case: Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore Zone v. Muhammad Allah Bux, 1977 PTD 13.\n(b) Nature of Business Activities for Loss Set-Off:\n•\nBusiness activities extend beyond trade or commerce and can include rendering services or managing properties for financial gains.\n•\nProperties used as circulating capital (e.g., acquiring, selling, leasing) fall under business activities if aimed at generating profits rather than mere rental income.\n•\nKey Concept: The scope of business activities includes dynamic property dealings for profit-making purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=35,34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 786-A/KB, 787/KB, 788/KB and 789/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 7-01-1987, hearing DATE : 11-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND GHULAM SADIQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. K. Nomani, I.T.P.. Abdul Ghaffar Bhurgari, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 59 = 1987 SLD 59 = 1987 PTD 482 = (1987) 56 TAX 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Payments by Foreign Companies:\n•\nA foreign company owning 75% of the assessee company made voluntary payments without legal obligations, solely to maintain its international reputation.\n•\nThese payments were deemed non-business receipts since:\no\nThere was no binding obligation to make the payments.\no\nPayments were justified by the foreign company’s intention to protect its reputation.\n•\nRuling: Repeated voluntary payments do not automatically qualify as income from business.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\nPLD 1975 Kar. 924.\no\n11 ITR 513.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=1,1(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1977, decision dated: 3rd April, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider and A.A. Dureshani for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONED OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SANDOZ (PAK) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 60 = 1987 SLD 60 = 1987 PTD 485 = (1987) 56 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdictional Authority of the ITO:\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) must possess jurisdiction when passing assessment orders. If the jurisdiction changes after filing returns, the ITO must obtain specific authorization to proceed.\n•\nEffect: Any assessment order passed without jurisdiction is invalid.\n(b) Raising Jurisdictional Challenges:\n•\nEven if jurisdictional challenges were not raised earlier, they remain valid as they involve questions of law.\n•\nKey Finding: The Tribunal must address jurisdiction-related objections even if raised for the first time.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=5,5(5),64 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 757 and 758 of 1972, decision dated: 28-03-1985, hearing DATE : 25-03-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Waheed Farooqis", + "Party Name:": "KISHANDAS SAKUIO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 61 = 1987 SLD 61 = 1987 PTD 489 = (1987) 56 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Avoiding Double Addition of Income:\n•\nThe assessee declared total wealth, including remuneration from a company, which was accepted by the ITO and Tribunal.\n•\nAdding the same remuneration again as personal expenditure leads to double taxation, which is impermissible.\n•\nKey Principle: The same amount cannot be taxed twice under different heads.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,23A,34 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.13 to 16 of 1974, decision dated: 12-10-1985, hearing DATE : 6-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasir-ud-Din Awan", + "Party Name:": "A.M. QURESHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 62 = 1987 SLD 62 = 1987 PTD 492 = (1987) 56 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) References and Raised Issues:\n•\nQuestions not raised before the Tribunal or arising directly from its order cannot form part of a reference.\n•\nKey Ruling: Only matters explicitly discussed in Tribunal orders qualify for higher-level references.\n(b) Penal Interest Under S.18-A:\n•\nPenal interest for non-payment of advance tax must be explicitly mentioned in the assessment order.\n•\nITOs cannot retrospectively impose such penalties without initial assessment findings.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Karachi West v. Malik Wilayat Hussain & Sons Ltd., 1987 PTD 249.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,66(1),18A(6),(8),29 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No. 10 of 1972, decision dated: 3rd May 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Faruqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL) KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs HAJI MOULABUX & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 63 = 1987 SLD 63 = 1987 PTD 496 = (1987) 56 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculative Transactions and Loss Set-Off:\n•\nSpeculative transactions incidental to an assessee’s regular business do not constitute a separate business.\n•\nLosses from incidental speculative dealings (e.g., bonus voucher transactions) can be set off against income from other heads.\n•\nKey Distinction: Speculative transactions integral to regular business differ from independent speculative businesses.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 114 and 115 of 1972, decision dated: 12-12-1982, hearing DATE : 24-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs. SADIQ TRADERS LIMITED\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 64 = 1987 SLD 64 = 1987 PTD 500 = (1987) 56 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Premature Reference Challenges:\n•\nCases remanded by the Tribunal remain under its jurisdiction until a final decision.\n•\nKey Principle: References should not be filed prematurely, as unresolved matters would render them futile.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.72 of 1985, decision dated: 11-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW QAISER ENGINEERING COMPANY\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE A LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 65 = 1987 SLD 65 = 1987 PTD 503 = (1987) 56 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Income Valuation:\n•\nAnnual letting value determined by the Excise Department had been consistently used for assessing property income.\n•\nThe ITO’s unexplained shift to actual income methods lacked justification and was rejected by the Tribunal.\n•\nKey Ruling: Deviations from past practices require substantial evidence or reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,9(2),66(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T. Reference No.12 of 1975, decision dated: 1st April, 1984. DATE , of hearing: 1st April, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SIND CLUB, VICTORIA ROAD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 66 = 1987 SLD 66 = 1987 PTD 506 = (1987) 56 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Rectification Orders:\n•\nAdditional tax (under S.18-A) must be added at the time of regular assessment or within a reasonable period.\n•\nITOs correcting omissions later act under S.35 (rectification provisions), making such orders appealable.\n•\nKey Principle: Taxpayers must not lose appeal rights due to delayed administrative actions.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Wilayat Hussain & Sons, 1987 PTD 249.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A,35,29,30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1696/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 17-07-1986, and 6-05-1987, hearing DATE : 7-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rustamji, C.A.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 67 = 1987 SLD 67 = 1987 PTD 521 = (1987) 56 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Concurrent Appeals and Revisions:\n•\nRevision petitions to the Commissioner cannot proceed while appeals are pending or appeal deadlines remain.\n•\nHowever, revisions do not render appeals infructuous if decisions overlap.\n•\nKey Interpretation: S.138 and S.129 prevent conflicts in appellate and revisionary jurisdictions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2818/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 7-05-1987, hearing DATE : 13-01-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Ahmed Butt. Nazir Ahmed Saleemi AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 68 = 1987 SLD 68 = 1987 PTD 523 = (1987) 56 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off of Losses – “Same Business” vs. “Such Business”:\n•\nLosses can be set off against profits of a continued business, even with temporary inactivity.\n•\nDistinction between same business and such business emphasizes broader eligibility for loss adjustments.\n•\nReference Case: General Corporation Limited v. C.I.T. Madras, 1935, 3 ITR 350.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4274/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 7-05-1987, hearing DATE : 22-12-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Asif Islam, C.A.. Nazir Ahmed Saleem, A.C. / D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 69 = 1987 SLD 69 = 1987 PTD 526 = (1987) 56 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessments Before the 1979 Ordinance:\n•\nFor cases assessed under the 1922 Act, reassessment had no statutory time limitation.\n•\nThe 1979 Ordinance does not retroactively apply limitations to reassessments initiated earlier.\n•\nKey Finding: Reassessments remain valid if initiated under pre-existing legal frameworks.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166,166(2)(G,6662(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 408 and 409 (IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 29-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 70 = 1987 SLD 70 = 1987 PTD 528 = (1987) 56 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Section 34-A):\n•\nScope: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) holds extensive powers to revise the orders of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) on matters of law and fact, ensuring that errors prejudicial to revenue are corrected.\n•\nLimitations:\no\nRevision is barred after four years from the date of the original order.\no\nThe IAC cannot act without giving the assessee a chance to be heard.\no\nThe revision must address errors that are detrimental to the interests of revenue.\n•\nOutcome: The IAC can enhance, modify, or annul assessments and direct fresh assessments.\n•\nReference Case: Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore Zone v. M. Iqbal Saigol, PLD 1976 Lah. 547.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1978 decided on 11-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, C.D. AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Nemo (absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL, ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ARTEX INDUSTRIES LTD KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 71 = 1987 SLD 71 = 1987 PTD 532 = (1987) 56 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court's Power of Reference (Section 66(4) vs. Section 136(3)):\n•\nComparison of Provisions:\no\nBoth the Income-tax Act, 1922, and Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, empower the High Court to return cases to the Tribunal for clarification or modification if insufficient information is provided.\no\nKey Difference: The terminology under Section 136(3) (1979 Ordinance) uses modifications, while Section 66(4) (1922 Act) uses additions or alterations. \n•\nPurpose: Enables courts to ensure completeness of facts for proper adjudication.\n•\nReference Case:\no\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Publix Industries, 1969 PTD 622.\no\nDistinguished: Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Karachi v. Jan Muhammad & Brothers, PLD 1982 Kar. 911.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(3) Income Tax Act, 1922=66(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 797 of 1972, decision dated: 11-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, C.J. AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSULTAN TEXTILE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 72 = 1987 SLD 72 = 1987 PTD 534 = (1987) 56 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Verification of Memo of Appeal by Counsel:\n•\nLegality: Advocates representing an assessee can verify appeals based on information and belief, even if the assessee resides outside Pakistan.\n•\nConformance: This practice aligns with Rule 34 of the Income-tax Rules and Order VI, Rule 15 of the CPC.\n•\nKey Principle: The principle of agency allows an authorized representative to act on behalf of the assessee.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal upheld the validity of such verification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=34 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,R.15 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 173/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 13-05-1987, hearing DATE : 12-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. M. Sarwar Kh. AC/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 73 = 1987 SLD 73 = 1987 PTD 539 = (1987) 56 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Scope of Rule 40 in Income-tax Rules, 1962:\n•\nApplication: Rule 40 facilitates assessment for non-residents by determining income arising in Pakistan through various methods, including turnover or proportional calculation.\n•\nIntegration with the Act: Sections 4(1) and 24(2) of the Income-tax Act and Sections 35 and 11 of the Ordinance support this computation method.\n(b) Depreciation and Loss Carry Forward:\n•\nDepreciation: No time limit applies to carrying forward depreciation.\n•\nLosses: Losses can be carried forward for six years under Section 24(2).\n•\nPurpose: Both provisions aim to ensure fair taxation by offsetting income against prior deductions.\n(c) Protective Assessments:\n•\nConcept: When tax liability is uncertain, assessments can be made against multiple parties to safeguard revenue interests.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\nJaggan Nath Hanuman Bux v. ITO, 1957, 31 ITR 603.\no\nLaljee Haridass v. ITO, 1965 PTD 317.\n(d) Restrictions on Reopening Assessments:\n•\nKey Finding: An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 65 solely because the ITO failed to apply their mind earlier.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\nSecond Additional Income-tax Officer v. Atmala Naga Raj, 1962, 46 ITR 609.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1),24(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 121, 122, 124 to 127, 157, 158, 102 to 105, 144 and 145/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 28-04-1987, hearing DATE : 18-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MANZURUL HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 74 = 1987 SLD 74 = 1987 PTD 555 = (1987) 56 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Effect of Appeals and References on Recovery Proceedings:\n•\nKey Rulings:\no\nFiling appeals or references does not automatically stay tax recovery.\no\nTax remains payable unless a stay order is granted by the appellate body or High Court.\n•\nTribunal’s Powers: The Tribunal can stay recovery proceedings or amend orders to align with the High Court’s decision.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\nMst. Inayat Begum v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1985 PTD 375.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,135(9)&136(5)&(7) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.5 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application (Stay) No.63/LP of 1986-87, decision dated: 13-05-1987, hearing DATE : 9-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Applicant. Saqib Bashir, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 75 = 1987 SLD 75 = 1987 PTD 561 = (1987) 55 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Comparison of Individual and Partnership Income under Self-Assessment Scheme:\n•\nKey Principle: An individual’s income post-dissolution of a partnership firm cannot be directly compared to the firm’s income for immunity claims under the scheme.\n•\nOutcome: The Tribunal upheld this differentiation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4271/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 15-12-1986, hearing DATE : 26-11-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Raza Naqvi. Muhammad Munir Qureshi, AC, DR,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 76 = 1987 SLD 76 = 1987 PTD 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Meaning of Erroneous for Revising Assessments (Section 66-A):\n•\nDefinition: Errors include deviations from law or factual inaccuracies that prejudice revenue.\n•\nApplication: The IAC must establish both error and prejudice to justify reopening assessments.\n•\nKey Debate: A simple deviation from past practices does not necessarily constitute an error.\n•\nReference Cases:\no\n1984 PTD 137.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.818/PB of 1981-82, heard on 4th February. 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, AMJAD ALI AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashiq Hussain I.T.P.. Istataat Ali D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 77 = 1987 SLD 77 = 1987 PTD 580 = (1987) 56 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund Liability:\n•\nTiming: The ITO must finalize and notify liability at the time of assessment or shortly thereafter.\n•\nDelays: Imposing liability after an unreasonable delay (e.g., six years) is unjustified and liable to be set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1232/KB and 1233/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 30-06-1987, hearing DATE : 10-06-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, AND MANZUR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ebrahim Dahoodwala, C.A.. Muhammad Farid. D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 78 = 1987 SLD 78 = 1987 PTD 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appreciation of Facts vs. Questions of Law:\n•\nPrinciple: Orders based solely on factual analysis by the Tribunal do not raise legal questions for references to higher courts.\n•\nReference Case:\no\nCommissioner of Income-tax Central Zone v. Karachi Oil and Seed Industries, 1985 PTD 70.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.26 of 1976, decision dated: 4-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Dareshani for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi\nvs\nMessrs DAWOOD CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 79 = 1987 SLD 79 = 1987 PTD 586 = (1987) 56 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Recovery Stay through Constitutional Petition:\n•\nHigh Court’s Role: Granted stay subject to furnishing a bank guarantee, recognizing ongoing legal challenges to tax liability.\n•\nReference Case:\no\nConstitutional Petition No. D-69/85.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=93 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.301 of 1987, decision dated: 13-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. S. Waswani for Petitioner. Shaikh Hyders", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (Waqf)\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 80 = 1987 SLD 80 = 1987 PTD 587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax--\n \n--Burden of proof--Categories--Question as to whether certain receipt was taxable--Burden of proof on the department--Burden for proving an expenditure on assessee--Discharge of such burden by department or assessee illustrated.\n \nThe burden of proof could be put 'under two broad categories. The first is known as legal burden and it rests always on the shoulders of a party according to the legislative wish manifested by any legislation. For example, whether a person has committed an offence is a question regarding involvement of legal burden of proof. The prosecution would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused person committed the offence he is charged with. Similarly, whether a particular receipt is taxable is a question the burden of which would squarely rest on the shoulders of the Income-tax authorities.\n \nSimilarly, the other category of burden of proof is known as shifting burden of proof. It is the off-shoot of the general principle that one who alleges must prove- Both the legal burden of proof and shifting burden of proof play decisive role in disposal of various disputes when the evidence- PRO and CON is so evenly balanced that a Court or Tribunal faces difficulty in arriving at some finding of fact.\n \nThe burden of proving an expenditure by relevant evidence is always on the shoulders of an assessee:\n \nInitial burden to prove the expenditure rested squarely on the shoulders of the assessee but they discharged it the moment they gave the detailed addresses of the transporters to whom they paid the amount in dispute. The burden of, proof, therefore, shifted on the shoulders of the Department and instead of discharging it in a reasonable manner the officers side-tracked the main issue by taking refuge in using stock phrases of not being traceable on the given addresses\n \nThus, if the names of all the parties were not traceable in the Telephone Directory, the inference that they were not in existence or 'not traceable cannot be relied upon. Similarly, if they have been avoiding payment of tax and are not existing on the National Tax Register, it also does not disprove their existence. When the assessee had given the full addresses, it was the duty of the Inspector to go to the place or otherwise contact them and then report to his Income-tax Officer that such parties were not found on the given addresses. Had he done so one might attach some weight to his report. If in any case, they were not traceable the Income-tax Officer should have called upon the assessee to produce them. The Income-tax Officer has failed to discharge burden of, proof, which rested squarely on his shoulders.\n \nUdhay Das Kevalram v. CIT (1967) 66-ITR-462: Robins v. National Trust (1927) A C 515 and CIT v. Calcutta Agency (1951) 19 I T R 191 ref.\n \n(b) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--\n \n---Ss. 61, 148, 145, 146, 149 & 150--Examination of witnesses--Powers of Income-tax Officer--Procedure.\n \nThe Income-tax Officer may serve a notice, under section 61 of Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 upon any person who has furnished a return , to attend his office, or to cause to be produced any evidence on which he wishes to rely. Section 148 deals with the power of the Income-tax Officer and other officers of the tax hierarchy alongwith Tribunal about enforcing the attendance of any person and his examination on oath, compelling the production of any account books, or documents, receiving evidence on affidavit and issuing commission for examination of witnesses.\n \nSection 148 of Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, vests the Income-tax Officer with the power of examining any third party. Here, he acts as a Court having all the powers of a civil Court given to it under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). Apart from this the Income-tax Officer has also been given power of calling for any information under section 144(b) from any dealer, broker 'or agent, etc.\n \nIn addition to this, sections 145, 146, 149 and 150 of Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 further vest some more powers of making survey, entering and searching business premises, impounding and retaining of books of account and calling upon public servants to disclose certain information. Thus, it is clear that the legislature has spelt out in very clear and unambiguous terms the powers it wanted an Income-tax Officer to be empowered with. One cannot concede any other or so-called general power, which has not been given by the Ordinance.\n \nSection 148 does not cast any obligation on the shoulders of an Income-tax Officer to administer oath necessarily. On the other hand, any statement' even recorded without administering any oath is admissible.\n \nIt was the duty of the Income-tax Officer to cross-check the veracity of the statement made by these witnesses.\n \nWhere the witnesses have motive to tell lie, their evidence cannot be accepted without further corroboration from some other sources.\n \nIf the assessee has not cross-examined witnesses any adverse inference could not be drawn in favour of the Department.\n \nDinshaw Darashaw Shroff v. CIT (1943) I T R 172 and Chowk Chand Bala Baksh v. C.I.T. (1961) 41 ITR 465 ref.\n \nJai Dayal v. Bibi Hajra A I R 1974 SC 171 and Gangs Dhar Ayyar v. Subraminium A I R 1949 FC 88 distinguished.\n \n(c) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--S. 32--Department had been accepting certain method--Department, held, had to give some convincing reason for departing from its earlier practice.\n \n(d) Income-tax--\n \n--Rejection of accounts--Presumption of good faith is attached in favour of assessee regarding his accounts--Accounts of assessee cannot be discarded merely on conjectures and surmises--Entries made in books of account regularly maintained in course of business on day-to-day basis carry sanctity in law and could not be rejected or whimsical grounds--Duty of Income-tax Officer highlighted.\n \nJumbo Das v. Assessee 1927 Nag. 336 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,148,145,146,149,100 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1818/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 24-03-1987, hearing DATE : 21st to 25-02-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed A. Shaikh and A.K. Nomani I.T.P.. Muhammad Farid, D.R. with Wasi Haider Rizvi, I.T.O.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 81 = 1987 SLD 81 = 1987 PTD 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Suit for Recovery of Money:\n•\nKey Issue: The appellant failed to prove the delivery of goods and the debt claimed.\n•\nEvidence and Testimony:\no\nWitnesses lacked personal knowledge and their testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.\no\nReceipt provided was deemed untrustworthy due to irregularities.\no\nOriginal vouchers were signed by unauthorized persons, undermining the credibility of the claim.\n•\nIncome-Tax Assessment: Rejected as improperly exhibited and excluded from evidence.\n•\nOutcome: Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit upheld.\n(b) Assessment Record as Evidence:\n•\nRule: Documents from the income-tax assessment record cannot be used as evidence by third parties unless covered under exceptions in Section 54(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nPrecedents Cited: Several cases affirming the restricted evidentiary value of assessment records (AIR 1940 Cal 147, AIR 1955 Rang 85).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=54 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,R.2 ", + "Case #": "First Rent Appeal No. 64 of 1957, decision dated: 9-01-1985, hearing DATE : 2-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL SALAM\nvs\nMessrs SHAMSUDDIN & SONS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 82 = 1987 SLD 82 = 1987 PTD 602 = (1988) 57 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Book Results:\n•\nAssessee's Claim: Maintained books of accounts consistently over years, without any material discrepancies or changes.\n•\nErrors in Assessment:\no\nNo defects were identified in purchases, expenses, or sales records.\no\nExplanations for sales decrease and combined expenses (fuel, labor) were ignored by the authorities.\no\nPast acceptance of similar books of accounts was overlooked.\no\nTribunal relied on vague grounds, such as failure to work out wastage percentage, without proper justification.\n•\nOutcome: Rejection of book results by the Tribunal was unjustified. Precedents (Star Re-rolling Mills v. CIT, 1974) emphasized the need for consistency in accepting trading results.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.18 of 1978, decision dated: 16-07-1987, hearing DATE : 2-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. M. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KRUDDSONS LIMITED, S.I.T.E., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax A ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 83 = 1987 SLD 83 = 1987 PTD 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Addition in Property Income:\n•\nKey Legal Principle: Orders of exclusive jurisdiction tribunals (e.g., Appellate Tribunal) must reflect due application of mind and proper consideration of the material on record.\n•\nOutcome: Non-consideration of evidence renders such orders invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2845 of 1986, decision dated: 21st February 1986, hearing DATE : 21st February, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAHBOOB AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "PERVEZ BADARUDDIN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 84 = 1987 SLD 84 = 1987 PTD 613", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Income from Various Sources:\n•\nAssessee: Public limited company earning from multiple sources (e.g., managing agency commission, dividends, interest).\n•\nKey Rulings:\no\nComputation Stage: Determine total income by categorizing sources for allowable deductions.\no\nTaxability Stage: Apply tax rates according to slabs and schedules, excluding dividend income for certain categories.\no\nOutcome: Dividend income excluded from total income under relevant schedules, with no additional tax imposed.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nCIT v. American Life Insurance Company, 1967.\no\nPhoenix Assurance Company, 1937.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30,FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3290/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 12-05-1987, hearing DATE : 8-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND MANZURUL HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sohail Hassan Advocate, Rustamjee, C.A. and M. Iqbal Chughtai. I.T.P.. Ilyas Khan and Ch. M. Ishaque, Legal Advisors, Nazeer Ahmed Saleemi, D.R.P. and Fakharul Islam I.A.C.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 85 = 1987 SLD 85 = 1987 PTD 623 = (1987) 56 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital:\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInterest is deductible under Section 23(1)(vii) only if borrowed capital is used for business purposes.\no\nAssessee derived income from salary and property but not from business or other sources.\no\nEvidence showed part of the borrowed money was transferred to the assessee's son, invalidating the claim.\n•\nOutcome: Interest on borrowed capital was disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,20,31,16(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2128/LB of 1955-86, decision dated: 4-07-1987, hearing DATE : 14-06-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nazir Ahmad Saleemi, AC/DR. Zia H. Rizvi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 86 = 1987 SLD 86 = 1987 PTD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Assessment:\n•\nRequirements:\no\nAssessing Officer must document reasons for ex parte action and establish a basis for income estimation.\no\nAssessee must be confronted with parallel cases used as reference.\n•\nOutcome: Ex parte assessment upheld as the procedure followed was deemed legal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T. A s. Nos. 922 to 925/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 4-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmat Ali Sheikh. Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 87 = 1987 SLD 87 = 1987 PTD 630 = (1987) 56 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowance of Salary and Deletion of Add-Backs:\n•\nKey Ruling: Decisions based on factual appreciation do not raise legal questions.\n•\nOutcome: Reference application rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.54 of 1985, decision dated: 23rd April, 1987, hearing DATE : 15-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din. M.G. Dastgir", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nSHAKIL EXPRESS LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 88 = 1987 SLD 88 = 1987 PTD 632 = (1988) 57 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Significance of Signatures on Income Tax Returns:\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNon-signature by the assessee is a curable irregularity if the return is voluntarily filed and accepted during assessment proceedings.\no\nHowever, unsigned returns may render them invalid in specific circumstances.\n•\nPrecedents: Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal (1950).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,2(41) Income Tax Rules, 1982=190 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6203/ LB of 1985-86 decided on 6-07-1987, hearing DATE : 13-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khurshid Ahmed. Nazir Ahmed Saleemi, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 89 = 1987 SLD 89 = 1987 PTD 636 = (1988) 57 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unsigned Returns and Self-Assessment Scheme:\n•\nKey Rulings:\no\nOmission to sign returns invalidates them, barring eligibility under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\no\nLate rectifications do not recover the right to be assessed under simplified schemes.\n•\nOutcome: Assessment finalized under standard procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(41),55,59,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 507/IB of 1985-86, decision dated: 3rd August, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Ahmed Qureshi. Maqbool Hussain Shah D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 90 = 1987 SLD 90 = 1987 PTD 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment by the Assessing Officer:\n•\nRequirements:\no\nMust establish a clear basis for estimating sales or income.\no\nConfront the assessee with parallel cases used for reference.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal accepted the declared version due to procedural lapses by the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1617/ KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 4-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmat Ali Sheikh. Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 91 = 1987 SLD 91 = 1987 PTD 640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Miscarriage of Justice in Ex Parte Assessment:\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFailure to issue a fresh notice or confront the assessee with the Inspector’s report violated procedural fairness.\n•\nOutcome: Assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A No.1410/ KB of 1982-83, heard on 5-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmat Ali Shaikh. Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 92 = 1987 SLD 92 = 1987 PTD 641 = (1988) 57 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Actual Cost of Plant and Machinery:\n•\nKey Principle: Actual cost in Section 15-GG(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, should be interpreted in a business context, inclusive of all direct expenses involved in acquiring and bringing machinery to the installation site.\n•\nCase Cited: Challaepelli Sagar Ltd. v. C.I.T., 1975.\n(b) Tax Credit for Machinery or Plant (Section 107):\n•\nEligibility for Tax Credit:\no\nIncludes costs such as CIF value, customs duty, transport, and installation expenses.\no\nExcludes indirect expenses like directors’ travel expenses.\n•\nRationale: Expenses must have a direct connection with acquiring and installing the machinery.\n(c) Expenses for Public Offering of Shares:\n•\nKey Ruling: Expenses for capital expansion (e.g., public offering of shares) are disallowed under Section 107(1) as they are capital expenses.\n•\nCase Distinguished: 1972 ITR 549.\n(d) Capital Expenditures and Depreciation:\n•\nRuling: Installation of a direct-dealing system is a capital expense, disallowed as a deduction, but depreciation is allowed under the Third Schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15-GG(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 68/PB, 69/PB and 57/PB of 1985-86, decision dated: 28-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Irshad Shaheen, D.R.. Amir Alam Khan F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 93 = 1987 SLD 93 = 1987 PTD 646 = (1987) 56 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Retrospective Application of Penal Provisions:\n•\nKey Principle: Penal provisions cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated by the legislature.\n(b) Retrospective Fiscal Provisions:\n•\nKey Ruling: Fiscal liabilities are applied retrospectively when explicitly stated in the Finance Ordinance.\n(c) Concealed Income and Penalties (Section 111):\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDeemed income under Section 111(2)(c) is classified as concealed income post-Finance Ordinance, 1984.\no\nRetrospective application of penal provisions is disallowed.\n(d) Declaratory Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal:\n•\nKey Principle: The Appellate Tribunal cannot declare laws or rights; it is limited to resolving tax disputes.\n(e) Agreed Assessment:\n•\nKey Responsibility: Authorities must ensure that agreed assessments preserve departmental credibility and avoid misuse of superior knowledge of tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,111(2)(c),13(1),119,62,63,64,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5794/LB and 6196/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 20-08-1987, hearing DATE : 7-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Masud A. Kazi, I.T.P. (in I.T.As. Nos. 5799 and in I.T.A. No. 6196). Nazir Ahmed Saleemi, A.C./D.R. (in I.T.A No. 5794 and in I.T.A. No. 6196)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 94 = 1987 SLD 94 = 1987 PTD 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tractor-Trolley Manufacturing:\n•\nKey Ruling: Tractor-trolleys are not considered components of tractors or manure spreaders, and therefore income from their manufacture is not tax-exempt under the relevant schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.996/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 8-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghani Channa D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 95 = 1987 SLD 95 = 1987 PTD 653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unilateral Agreed Assessments:\n•\nKey Ruling: Agreed assessments must involve mutual agreement and consideration. A unilateral agreement by the assessee without return consideration renders the assessment invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1022/KB and 1023/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 5-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT A1I KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmat Ali Shaikh. Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 96 = 1987 SLD 96 = 1987 PTD 655 = (1987) 56 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessment Post Finalization:\n•\nKey Ruling:\no\nOnce the Appellate Tribunal has issued a final order, reopening assessments is restrained unless explicitly allowed by the court.\no\nAuthorities may inspect account books for verification but cannot reopen finalized assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.372 of 1987, decision dated: 11-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "N.V. PHILIPS GLOBILAMPENFABRIEKEN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 97 = 1987 SLD 97 = 1987 PTD 656 = (1987) 56 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Market Value of Assets:\n•\nKey Principle: Determination of asset values is a question of fact and within the purview of the Appellate Tribunal. High Courts do not interfere unless a legal question arises.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.39 of 1978, decision dated: 8-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ABDUL RAAZAK A. THAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs AMSONS DAIRIES AND FOOD LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 98 = 1987 SLD 98 = 1987 PTD 657 = (1988) 57 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Completion of Assessment:\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAssessment is deemed complete when signed by the Income-tax Officer.\no\nDelays in signing the demand notice do not invalidate the assessment if the signing occurs within the statutory period.\nLimitation Under Section 65(3-A):\n•\nKey Ruling: Procedural laws apply immediately upon enactment, and assessments framed after the introduction of new limitations are bound by the updated rules.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(3A),155 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XX,R.3 ", + "Case #": "I .T. As. Nos. 1637 to 1639 and 6182/LB of 198 h-ad, decision dated: 20-08-1987, hearing DATE : 18-07-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir. Saqib Bashir D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 99 = 1987 SLD 99 = 1987 PTD 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms:\n•\nKey Principle: Natural justice requires providing the firm an opportunity to explain delays or omissions in filing registration applications before outright rejection.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "I . I. A. No. 1289/ KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 23rd February, 1980, hearing DATE : 12-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zaki Ahmad S.A. Khan D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 100 = 1987 SLD 100 = 1987 PTD 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Provisions:\n•\nKey Ruling: Gratuity liabilities remain provisions unless formalized through agreements. Deductions are allowed only for amounts actually paid during the relevant assessment year.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25 ", + "Case #": "I . T . A . No.572/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 15-03-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid D.R.. I.N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 101 = 1987 SLD 101 = 1987 PTD 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rejection of Accounts:\n•\nKey Findings: The absence of proper records, such as supply logs for materials, justifies the rejection of accounts when profits cannot be determined.\n(b) Defects in Accounts:\n•\nKey Principle: Specific defects must be identified for rejecting accounts. Probabilities or assumptions cannot replace factual evidence.\n(c) Tribunal's Orders:\n•\nKey Principle: Tribunal orders are binding and final for the relevant assessment year unless overturned by higher courts.\n(d) Income from Incomplete Projects:\n•\nKey Ruling: Income-tax liability can be assessed annually even for incomplete projects. Tax adjustments may occur once the project concludes.\n(e) Sale Receipts:\n•\nKey Ruling: Installments received under sale agreements are treated as part of the sale price and not as advances.\n(f) Rejection of Accounts:\n•\nKey Responsibility: Once accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable method to compute income.\n(g) Depreciation on Company Vehicles:\n•\nKey Ruling: Personal use of company cars by directors does not disallow depreciation claims.\n(h) Definition of ‘Developer’:\n•\nKey Interpretation: A developer is also classified as a contractor under tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,33(6),3,10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1315/KB to 1318/KB, 100/KB, 404/KB and 101/KB of 1980-81; 382/KB, 1314/KB and 1381/KB of 1981-82, decision dated: 4-07-1985, hearing DATE : 17-09-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar and M.A. Noorani", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 102 = 1987 SLD 102 = 1987 PTD 697 = (1987) 56 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTax Exemption and Taxability of Income from Timber Sale and Bank Deposits\n•\nConclusion:\n(a) The income of a corporate body exclusively owned by the Provincial Government that is attributable to the sale of timber is exempt from tax.\n(b) Income arising from interest on bank deposits, however, is considered taxable unless a specific exemption applies.\nThe expression “attributable to” is broader than “derived from,” indicating that income from activities related to timber sale, including rental charges, registration fees, sale of scrap, and workshop charges, is exempt. However, interest income from bank deposits is taxable.\no\nReference: Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat II (April 11, 1978).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.605/PB of 1986-87, decision dated: 15-06-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rafaqatullah Babar C. A.. Irshad Shaheen, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "N.W.F.P. FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PESHAWAR\nvs\nI.T.O. COMPANIES CIRCLEI, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 103 = 1987 SLD 103 = 1987 PTD 701 = (1987) 56 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nService of Notice under Income-tax Ordinance\n•\nConclusion:\n(a) Simultaneously issuing notices under sections 56 and 61 is improper. A notice under section 61 can follow, but cannot be issued alongside a section 56 notice.\n(b) Refusal to accept service does not count as service; a fresh notice must be issued, directing service at a place where the assessee last resided.\n(c) Allegations of refusal must be supported by clear evidence, such as a proper report of the process server confirming the attempt to serve the notice. A vague or unclear report creates doubts about whether service was attempted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A Nos. 762 to 765(PB)/1986-87, decision dated: 4-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Irshad Shaheen, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE\nvs\nI.T.O., CIRCLEA, ABBOTTABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 104 = 1987 SLD 104 = 1987 PTD 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nValidity of Reference Application under Income-tax Act\n•\nConclusion:\nThe provisions under section 66(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are mandatory, requiring a certified copy of the Tribunal's order to be filed along with the reference application. Failure to comply invalidates the application, and the High Court cannot waive this requirement.\no\nReference: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 1.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.167 of 1978, decision dated: 16-05-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan. Muhammad Amin Butt", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs SETHI BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 105 = 1987 SLD 105 = 1987 PTD 715 = (1987) 56 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPenalty under Income-tax Ordinance and Powers of Appellate Authorities\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Ordinance (1979), sections 91 and 135, provides detailed powers to appellate authorities and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have the power to reduce penalties under section 91(4-A) when there is no show-cause notice or pending application for tax recovery stay. The Tribunal can hear appeals, but it cannot exercise powers granted under subsection (4-A) of section 91. The I.T.O. (Income Tax Officer) is responsible for reducing the penalty if the demand is lowered.\no\nReference: C.I.T. v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal P L D 1976 Lah. 761, Nagina Textile Mills Ltd.'s case 1963 P T D 633.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91,129,132,134,135 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1567/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 15-09-1987, hearing DATE : 9-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURAL HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. A.K. Shamim", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 106 = 1987 SLD 106 = 1987 PTD 720 = (1988) 57 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTaxability of Land Sale and Avoidance of Tax Incidence\n•\nConclusion:\n(a) The avoidance of tax is permissible within the law.\n(b) Each case concerning isolated land transactions, whether considered an adventure in the nature of trade or an investment, should be decided based on its specific facts and the intention behind the purchase. If the intention was to earn a profit, the gains are taxable as income, not capital gains.\no\nReference: Praise & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. West Bengal (1966) 60 ITR 566, S.K. AR.K.AR. Somasundaram Chettiar v. C.I.T. Madras (1963) 47 ITR 336, Regent Estates Ltd. v. C.I.T. West Bengal (1963) 48 ITR 162.\n(c) Sale of Land:\nA sale deed must be executed for the transfer of immovable property. The absence of such a deed means the property remains vested in the original owner, and no profit accrues to him for tax purposes.\n(d) Interpretation of Documents:\nThe nature of a document is determined by its contents, not the title or name it is given by the parties involved.\n(e) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882):\nDistinction between sale and license, and lease definitions under sections 54 and 105, respectively.\n(f) Taxability of License Agreement:\nAn agreement allowing partners to raise construction on land in exchange for premium is a license, not a sale, and is subject to tax.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 905/ KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 13-09-1987, hearing DATE : 8-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI-KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mehmood A. Hashmey. Mohammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 107 = 1987 SLD 107 = 1987 PTD 730 = (1988) 57 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Trading Results\n•\nLegal Reference: Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 13\n•\nIssue: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the trading result of the assessee based on presumption without identifying any actual discrepancies in the accounts.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal's rejection of the trading results based solely on a presumed increase in gross profit was not justified. A finding of fact that showed defects or discrepancies in the books of account was required. The Tribunal could not rely on assumptions but needed evidence of unexplainable issues.\n•\nCitations: New Snow White Dry Cleaner, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (East), Karachi (1984) 51 Tax 11; Messrs Kruddsons Limited, S.I.T.E. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 'A' Zone, Karachi I.T.C. Nos. 18 and 27 of 1978; Commissioner of Income-tax Pona v. Messrs Manna Ramji & Co. A I R 1973 SC 515; Messrs Ibrahim Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karachi (West), Karachi 1979 P T 1.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 46 of 1978, decision dated: 19th,August, 1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Iqbal Memon. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 108 = 1987 SLD 108 = 1987 PTD 734 = (1988) 57 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Assessment by Commissioner\n•\nLegal Reference: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 138\n•\nIssue (a): Whether the Commissioner has the authority to pass orders that do not prejudicially affect the assessee.\n•\nConclusion (a): The Commissioner has the authority to cancel an assessment order without prejudice to the assessee, as long as no harm is caused to the taxpayer. The onus is on the party challenging the order to prove any resulting prejudice.\n•\nIssue (b): Adequacy of the show-cause notice when canceling an assessment.\n•\nConclusion (b): The show-cause notice must clearly specify the reasons for cancellation to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to address the allegations.\n•\nCitations: Sheikh Mohammad Amin, Lyallpur v. Income-tax Officer, Jhang and another 1968 P T D 741; Commissioner of Income-tax, West Punjab, North-West Frontier and Delhi Provinces, Lahore v. Tribune Trust, Lahore A I R (35) 1948 PC 102; Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (I T R Vol. 88 (1973) 323.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-599 of 1987, decision dated: 18-08-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Tariq A. Hussain for Petitioners. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "PARAS COMMERCIAL COMPANY and 4 others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1 = 1986 SLD 1 = 1986 PTD 1 = (1986) 53 TAX 74 = 1986 PTCL 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Head Office Administration Charges – Section 10(2)(xvi), Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe reference was made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi, questioning whether there was any material on record to justify the Tribunal's decision in allowing the deduction of Rs. 73,746 claimed by the assessee (a UK-based company with a branch in Karachi) as Head Office Administration Charges under section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nThe Income Tax Officer disallowed the expense on the grounds that the charges were not reflected in the branch’s books of accounts and had also been disallowed in previous assessments. However, in earlier appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had allowed these expenses, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld those decisions.\nThe Tribunal allowed the deduction in this case as well, finding that the nature and circumstances of the claimed expense were identical to those in previous years, and no contrary material had been presented to show otherwise. The Tribunal also noted that its own prior ruling had become final, as there was no record of it being challenged in the High Court.\nThe High Court observed that section 10(2)(xvi) allows deduction of any expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. Given the consistency in treatment of such claims and the absence of any contrary finding or challenge by the Department against the earlier decision, the Court found that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction.\nHeld:\nThe question was answered in the affirmative. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, holding that there was sufficient material and precedent to justify the allowance of the Head Office Administration Charges under section 10(2)(xvi).\nCitations:\nAppellate Tribunal's unchallenged prior ruling on same issue upheld as binding precedent", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 50 of 1976, decision dated: 23-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Surridge and Beecheno", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE)\nvs\nM/S MONOTYPE CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 2 = 1986 SLD 2 = 1986 PTD 2 = (1986) 54 TAX 38 = 1986 PTCL 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowability of Bad Debts – Section 10(2)(xi), Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax referred a question under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, regarding whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing Rs. 17,07,853 as bad debts under section 10(2)(xi) for the assessment year 1970–71.\nThe assessee company had written off the said amount in August 1967, which was owed by one K.L. Saha, a commission agent. A recovery suit was filed in March 1968, and a decree was obtained on 24 June 1969. However, recovery could not be effected as Saha had left for India without sufficient assets. Supporting documentation from local authorities and internal inquiry confirmed this. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim, alleging connivance and negligence on part of the assessee's staff in pursuing recovery.\nThe Tribunal, however, found that even if there was mismanagement by local staff, the company’s bona fides regarding the debt’s nature and non-recoverability could not be questioned. As the claim had matured into an actual loss only after attempts at execution failed (post-decree), it was held to be admissible as a deduction in 1970–71.\nThe High Court held that the Tribunal’s view was based on a sound assessment of facts and legal principles. Filing a civil suit, securing a decree, and attempting recovery without success due to the debtor’s departure and lack of assets sufficed to establish the debt as irrecoverable in that year.\nHeld:\nReference answered in the affirmative. The Tribunal rightly allowed the deduction of bad debts under section 10(2)(xi) for assessment year 1970–71.\nCitations:\nCriteria for admissibility of bad debts includes bona fide attempts at recovery and actual write-off\nTribunal’s factual findings not disturbed in reference jurisdiction", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xi),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 39 of 1976, decision dated: 21st October, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant\nAll Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE)\nvs\nM/S ESSO EASTERN STANDARD INC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 3 = 1986 SLD 3 = 1986 PTD 4 = (1986) 53 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income Addition\n•\nLegal Reference: Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 4(2)(A), 66(2)\n•\nIssue (a): Whether the Department’s addition to the assessee's income based on an incorrect report was justified.\n•\nConclusion (a): The addition to income based on an erroneous report was not justified. The Appellate Tribunal correctly relied on its earlier order and dismissed the Department’s addition.\n•\nIssue (b): Whether the Tribunal's decision could be challenged in the High Court.\n•\nConclusion (b): The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, confirming that the Department could not show any defects in the reasoning of the Tribunal.\n•\nCitations: No specific references provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2)(A),66(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 42 of 1976, heard on 21st October, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeema Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), \nvs\nSh. ZAMIRUDDIN AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 4 = 1986 SLD 4 = 1986 PTD 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Barrister’s Clothing Expenses\n•\nLegal Reference: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Section 130(a); Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 10(2)(xvi)\n•\nIssue: Whether a practicing barrister can deduct expenses for replacing, cleaning, and laundering clothes required for her profession.\n•\nConclusion: The court ruled that the barrister's expenses were solely for her professional use, and the benefits of warmth and decency were incidental. The expenses were allowed as deductions, even though they served a dual purpose, as they were essential for her to appear in court.\n•\nCitations: Strong and Company of Romsey Ltd v. Woodifield [1904]; Norman v. Colder (1945); Morgan v. Tate and Lyle Ltd. [1954]; Prince v. Mapp (1970); Robinson v. Scott Bader Co. Ltd. (1981); Bentleys Stokes and Loveless v. Beeson (1952).", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Decided on 30-06-27-07-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): LORD DIPLOCK. LORD ELWYN-JONES, LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD ROSKILL AND LORD BRIGHTMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Andrew Park Q C and David C. Milne for the Tax payee. Peter Millett Q C, Robert Carnwath and Michael Hart for the Crown", + "Party Name:": "MALLALIEU\nvs\nDRUMMOND (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 3 = 1985 SLD 3 = 1985 PTCL 26 = (1986) 53 TAX 127 = 1985 PTD 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Evidence & Undisclosed Income\nKey Issues:\n1.\nEvidence of Undisclosed Income: The assessing officer relied on a document that was not shown to the assessee until the preparation of the supplemental statement.\n2.\nOpportunity to Cross-Examine: The assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the issuer of the document.\nConclusion: The court held that the document could not be relied upon because the assessee was not given a chance to explain or challenge it before the income tax authorities. It was emphasized that before relying on such documents, the authorities must present them to the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity to explain the evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2728 of 1972, decision dated: 16-09-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI AND E. S. VENKATARMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. G Advani and Ashok Advani, Bar at Law and Hiranadan, Mrs. Shell and K. Balasubramaniam, Advocates. P. A. Francis, Senior Advocate and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with him", + "Party Name:": "MESSES KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 5 = 1986 SLD 5 = 1986 PTD 26 = (1986) 53 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income Tax - Smuggling & Deduction Under Section 10(1)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nIncome from Smuggling: The case involved an assessee who was engaged in smuggling activities and sought a deduction for currency notes confiscated during his smuggling activities.\nConclusion: The court ruled that the assessee was entitled to a deduction under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act for the confiscated currency notes, following precedents such as Badridas Daga v. C. I. T. (1958) and C. I. T., Gujarat v. S. G. Kothari (1971). The deduction was allowed because the confiscation occurred during the smuggling process.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2752 of 1972, decision dated: 8-05-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. A. Shah and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate. Naunit Lal and Kailash Vasudev, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA\nvs\n(SRI) PIARA SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 6 = 1986 SLD 6 = 1986 PTD 32 = (1986) 53 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Self Assessment Scheme\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme: The assessee filed a return under the self-assessment scheme, which complied with all the requirements.\n2.\nDetailed Scrutiny: The assessing officer, despite the return being compliant, attempted to conduct a detailed scrutiny.\nConclusion: The court ruled that the assessing officer could not subject the assessee to detailed scrutiny, as long as the return complied with the self-assessment requirements. The assessing officer could only call for additional documents if the return did not disclose the correct income. Additionally, the court addressed the meaning of wherever applicable in the Central Board of Revenue Circular No. 10 of 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=57,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 136 of 1985, decision dated: 5-11-1985, hearing DATE : 30-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND ABDUL QADEER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi. Shaikh Raider", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SHAIKH GHULAM SHAH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, WEST ZONE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 7 = 1986 SLD 7 = 1986 PTD 35 = (1986) 54 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Rejection of Accounts & Penalty\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRejection of Accounts: The assessing officer rejected the book results maintained by the assessee.\n2.\nPenalty: Penalty was imposed based on the rejection of accounts.\nConclusion: The court held that if the assessing officer rejects the book results maintained by the assessee, the imposition of a penalty is unjustified. The case referred to precedents such as 1982 T L R 1276 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 28 of 1973, decision dated: 12-02-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND KANIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with S. Y. Naik for Applicant. V. H. Patil with K B. Bhujale", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, POONA\nvs\nMESSRS MUHAMMAD YAKUB MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM & Co. BHUSAWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 8 = 1986 SLD 8 = 1986 PTD 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922) - Benami Transactions\nKey Issues:\n1.\nBenami Property: The assessing officer claimed that properties purchased in the names of the assessee's wife and children were actually benami for the assessee, despite no evidence of payment by him.\nConclusion: The court held that the properties in the names of the wife and children were to be presumed to belong to them unless the tax authorities provided evidence that they were benami properties. The burden of proof rested on the department to show that these properties were actually purchased by the assessee in the names of his family members.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,16(3),34 ", + "Case #": "Application No. 9 of 1983, decision dated: 15-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAZLE HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD HABIBUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD ABDUL, JALIL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. M. Mahmudur Rahman. Messrs Siddique Ahmed Chawdhury and Mustafa Niaz Muhammad for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS E. R. CHOWDHURY, PRO. LATE EKLASUR REHMAN CHOWDHURY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES, CHITTAGONG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 9 = 1986 SLD 9 = 1986 PTD 42 = (1986) 53 TAX 44 = 1986 PTCL 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Apportionment of Super Tax Among Partners – Section 16(1), Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThis reference under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 raised the legal question whether, for purposes of allocating super tax among partners of a firm, the share of super tax should be apportioned according to the partners' profit-sharing ratio or in accordance with section 16(1)(b) of the Act.\nThe Tribunal had held that super tax should be allocated according to the profit-sharing ratio among partners. This position was challenged by the department, contending that section 16(1)(b) should govern such allocation.\nThe High Court noted that a similar question had already been decided in earlier cases, including:\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Self M. Cowasjee (1985 PTD 401), and\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Central), Karachi v. Seth Saifuddin Ghulam Hussain (unreported, decided 22-3-1978),\nwhere it was held that section 16(1)(b) had no relevance to the computation of a partner's share of super tax. The correct method was to apportion based on the profit-sharing ratio in the firm that paid the super tax.\nThe Court also cited a recent affirmation of the same rule in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mr. Bux Ellahi (I.T.R. No. 10 of 1976), where the identical question was raised and answered similarly.\nHeld:\nThe Court answered the reference in the affirmative, affirming that the Tribunal was correct in allocating the super tax to the partners based on their profit-sharing capacity, and not under section 16(1)(b) of the Act. The Court upheld consistency with its earlier rulings and declined to depart from established precedent.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Self M. Cowasjee (1985 PTD 401)\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Central), Karachi v. Seth Saifuddin Ghulam Hussain (Unreported, decided 22-3-1978)\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Mr. Bux Ellahi (I.T.R. No. 10 of 1976)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(1),16(1)(b),66(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 17 of 1976, decision dated: 21st August, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Miss Nuzhat Alvi for Waheed Farooqi for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax EAST ZONE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SADIQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 10 = 1986 SLD 10 = 1986 PTD 43 = (1986) 53 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922) - Meaning of 'Income'\nKey Issues:\n1.\nIncome Definition: The interpretation of 'income' under the Constitution of Pakistan and the Income Tax Act was discussed.\n2.\nNotional Income: Whether notional or artificial income such as the letting value of a self-occupied house could be considered taxable income.\nConclusion: The court ruled that income should be construed broadly, and the notional income (such as the imputed rent on self-occupied property) was taxable under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act. The decision was aligned with the general principle of interpreting income in its broadest sense.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,10,2(6C) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 189 of 1973 and Income tax Reference No. 88 of 1982, decision dated: 14-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TANZIL UR REHMAN AND K. A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI GYMKHANA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 11 = 1986 SLD 11 = 1986 PTD 50 = 1987 PTCL 1 = (1986) 53 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Selection for Detailed Inquiry\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDetailed Inquiry: The case involved the reopening of an assessment for detailed inquiry despite the fact that the last assessed income of the assessee was below one lakh and no concealment was alleged.\nConclusion: The court ruled that the reassessment could not be conducted under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance since the selection for detailed inquiry was not made with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax. This decision followed the Circulars from the Central Board of Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 246(PB) of 1981 82, decision dated: 29-04-1985, hearing DATE : 28-04-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR. Amir Alam Khan, FCA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 12 = 1986 SLD 12 = 1986 PTD 52 = (1985) 52 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922) - Expenditure & Business Purpose\nKey Issues:\n1.\nExpenditure: Whether penalties paid for importing goods without a license could be deducted as business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi).\nConclusion: The court concluded that the penalty could not be treated as an expense wholly and exclusively incurred for the business because it was a consequence of the illegal import activity, not part of the normal business process. Therefore, the penalty was not deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 4 of 1976, decision dated: 17-10-1985, hearing DATE : 2-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND ABDUL QADEER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naseem Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER Co\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 13 = 1986 SLD 13 = 1986 PTD 58 = (1985) 52 TAX 59 = 1988 PTCL 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Exempt Income & Interpretation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nExempt Income: The interpretation of exempt income and its scope under the Income Tax Ordinance and Constitution of Pakistan.\n2.\nCapital Gains & Agricultural Income: The exemption of agricultural income and capital gains from immovable property from taxation.\nConclusion: The court discussed the scope of exempt income and clarified that it includes income exempt under any law, including capital gains and agricultural income. The decision aimed to preserve the exemption granted by the Constitution and avoid the imposition of taxes in violation of specific constitutional entries.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151,2(24),12(11),131 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=47,50 ", + "Case #": "Income tax: Appeals Nos. 1615 and 1616/KB of 1980 1981; 38/KB and 39/KB of 1961 82, decision dated: 7-08-1984, hearing DATE : 16-07-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Dareshani, Legal Adviser and Asghar Abbas, D. R.. Muhammad Naseem", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 14 = 1986 SLD 14 = 1986 PTCL 102 = (1986) 53 TAX 54 = 1986 PTD 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing of Wealth Statement under Section 58(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nAssessment Year: 1982–83\nDetails:\nThe appellant, an individual earning income from salary as a Director and from partnership share, filed a return declaring income exceeding Rs. 50,000 for the tax year ending 30-6-1982. Under Section 58(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the appellant was mandatorily required to file a wealth statement along with the return. The ITO issued a notice on 31-03-1983 for non-compliance, and the appellant submitted the wealth statement belatedly on 18-04-1983. The appellant acknowledged default in response to a Section 116 notice, attributing the lapse to being out of station.\nThe ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000 with prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC). The penalty was upheld on appeal.\nThe appellant's representative argued that Section 108, which governs penalties for non-compliance, did not include penalties for breach of Section 58(2). Therefore, the penalty imposed lacked statutory basis.\nHowever, the appellate authority clarified that Section 110 of the Ordinance specifically empowers the imposition of penalty for default of Section 58, without distinction between sub-sections (1) and (2). Since Section 58(2) explicitly requires self-filing of a wealth statement by those earning over Rs. 50,000, and makes all provisions of the Ordinance applicable to such wealth statements as to income returns, the penalty provisions apply by legal extension.\nHeld:\nThe failure to file the wealth statement along with the return was an established default.\nThe penalty imposed under Section 110 for violation of Section 58(2) was lawful.\nThe appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=58,58(2),108,110,116 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3496/LB 84 85 decided on 12-10-1985, hearing DATE : 21st September, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR: MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M. R. Farooqi\nJaved Tahir Butt,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 15 = 1986 SLD 15 = 1986 PTD 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Natural Justice in Assessment\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - S. 23\n•\nIssue: Whether principles of natural justice are applicable in assessment proceedings, especially regarding the right to know the material being used against the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: The Income Tax Officer violated natural justice by relying on statements without giving the assessee proper access to those materials, such as names of witnesses and the substance of their statements. This resulted in vitiated proceedings.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S. 23", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 174 of 1971, decision dated: 8-08-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATISH CHANDRA AND AMITAV BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan for the Commissioner. Assesses in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 16 = 1986 SLD 16 = 1986 PTD 73 = (1986) 53 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legality of Assessment Proceedings and Reopening\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Ss. 23(4) & 31(6)\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessment can be annulled based on a part of the proceedings being found illegal, and what the legal status is when parts of the proceedings are illegal.\n•\nConclusion: The illegality in some parts of the assessment proceedings does not automatically annul the entire proceedings. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner’s order to set aside the ex parte assessment and restart from where the illegality began was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) Ss. 23(4), 31(6)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(4),31(6),31(6)34(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3363/KB of 1977/78 decided on 14-09-1985, hearing DATE : 22-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Saghir Tirmizey. Javid Tahir Butt, AC/DR and Imtiaz Anjum, AR/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 17 = 1986 SLD 17 = 1986 PTD 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Additional Tax\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 50, 53, 87 & 156\n•\nIssue: Whether the additional tax is applicable if the advance tax paid under Section 50(4) exceeds the demand.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee could not be charged additional tax as the amount paid under Section 50(4) was sufficient to cover the advance tax due. The order of the Income Tax Officer was canceled by the Tribunal.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 50, 53, 87, 156", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,53,87,156 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 447 (1 B) 1983 84, decision dated: 26-02-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Malik. Maqbool Hussain, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 18 = 1986 SLD 18 = 1986 PTD 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Notice Compliance\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 56, 59, 53 & 65\n•\nIssue: Whether a notice issued during the reopening of a completed assessment can be equated to a notice under Section 56, and if non-compliance with such notice allows an assessment under Section 63.\n•\nConclusion: Non-compliance with notices under Section 65 allows the Income Tax Officer to proceed with an assessment under Section 63 of the Ordinance.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 56, 59, 53, 65", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,59,53,65 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (PB) of 1983 84, decision dated: 26th March 1985, hearing DATE : 16th March 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Hafeez Khawaja. Zulfiqar Ali, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 19 = 1986 SLD 19 = 1986 PTCL 296 = 1986 PTD 89 = (1986) 53 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Allowability of Deduction for Risk Purchase by Ministry of Defence\nDetails:\nThe case concerns a departmental appeal against the decision of the CIT (Appeals), who allowed a deduction of Rs. 1,44,087 claimed by the assessee-firm. The assessee, a registered firm, was engaged in the manufacture and supply of defence stores to the Ministry of Defence under Contract No. 1312-3090/64195/DDP/P-14 dated 30.06.1976.\nDue to non-fulfilment of contractual obligations—despite best efforts—the Ministry cancelled the contract and made risk purchases under Clause 15(a) of the contract, deducting Rs. 1,44,087 from the assessee’s gross payments. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated this as a penalty for breach and disallowed it as a P & L expense, relying on the general principle that penalties and fines are inadmissible expenditures.\nThe CIT (Appeals) reversed this view, holding it to be a business loss arising in the normal course of trade and not a fine.\nThe department contested this, claiming it was a penalty and inadmissible. However, the assessee argued that:\nThe deduction was not punitive.\nIt was contractually stipulated under Clause 15(a).\nIt was a commercial liability, not one arising from dishonest or deliberate breach.\nThe Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s view. It found:\nThe risk purchase deduction was due to failure to supply, not misconduct or negligence.\nClause 15(a) clearly made the supplier liable for losses on risk purchase without framing it as a penalty.\nReference was made to Kanga & Palkhiwala’s Commentary and Aruna Mills case, where similar deductions were held allowable when arising from business contracts, not misfeasance or dishonest conduct.\nHeld:\nThe amount of Rs. 1,44,087 did not constitute a fine or penalty.\nIt was incurred in the course of business, arising from contractual liability.\nHence, it is a deductible expense under normal business expenditure principles.\nCitations:\nClause 15(a) of Ministry of Defence Contract\nKanga & Palkhiwala, 7th Edition, pages 466–467\nAdditional CIT Gujarat v. Aruna Mills Ltd.\nPrinciples from Indian income-tax law regarding distinction between business loss and penalty\nHeld:\nAppeal dismissed. The deduction is allowed as a legitimate business expenditure under tax law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 136(LB) of 1983-84, decision dated: 27-04-1985, hearing DATE : 10-04-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND AHMAD ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D. R.\nAmir Alam Khan, F. C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 20 = 1986 SLD 20 = 1986 PTD 92 = (1986) 53 TAX 70 = 1986 PTCL 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Power of Tribunal to Grant Interim Stay in Absence of Express Provision\nDetails:\nThe assessee filed a return under the self-assessment scheme for the tax year 1982–83. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially accepted an agreed assessment at Rs. 25,000. Subsequently, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) issued notice under section 66A, treating the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interest, and cancelled the agreed assessment, directing a de novo assessment.\nThe assessee appealed the IAC’s order before the Tribunal and requested a stay of reassessment proceedings during pendency of the appeal, arguing that although section 134(6) only mentions stay against recovery of tax, the Tribunal should still be empowered to stay the implementation of an assessment order under appeal.\nThe Department opposed the request, stating that there was no express provision in the Ordinance allowing the Tribunal to stay reassessment proceedings, especially since tax already paid under the earlier agreed assessment had been deposited.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal held it has jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including stay of reassessment proceedings, even in the absence of an express provision, as such power is incidental and ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction under section 134(1).\nThe Tribunal relied on the principle that a court or appellate body having final jurisdiction over a matter inherently holds power to grant interim relief unless expressly excluded.\nCited M.A. Khakwani v. Mst. Shaheen (1981 CLC 1545) and an Indian Supreme Court case (1981 SCC Tax 253) to affirm that when an appellate body is seized of a matter, subordinate authorities should not interfere by proceeding independently on the same matter.\nAlso cited Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving (1905 AC 369) and Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes for the doctrine of implied powers.\nFinal Order:\nStay granted restraining implementation of the IAC’s order dated 2-6-1985.\nDirected that the main appeal (challenging reopening of agreed assessment) be fixed for early hearing as only a legal question is involved.\nMiscellaneous application allowed.\nCitations:\n1981 CLC 1545 – M.A. Khakwani v. Mst. Shaheen\n1981 SCC (Tax) 253 (India – SC)\n1905 AC 369 – Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving\nMaxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, “Implied Powers and Obligation” (p. 350, 1962 Ed.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66A,134(1),134(6),134(f) ", + "Case #": "M. A. (Stay) No. 11/LB/85 86 in re: I. T. A. No. 941/LB/85 86 of 1982 83, decision dated: 14-10-1985, hearing DATE : 24-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Khalid for Applicant\nJaved Tahir Butt, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 21 = 1986 SLD 21 = 1986 PTCL 203 = 1986 PTD 95 = (1986) 53 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty under Section 28(1A) – Repealed Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe appellant, a Private Limited Company engaged in bleaching, dyeing, and manufacture of hosiery goods, filed returns showing losses for tax years 1975–76 and 1976–77. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) found significant discrepancies in the books of accounts, including unvouched purchases, unverifiable expenses, and failure to verify water expenses. Consequently, the ITO rejected the accounts, estimated sales, applied a higher Gross Profit (G.P.) rate, and made substantial additions to income.\nBased on these discrepancies, penalty proceedings under Section 28(1A) were initiated and penalties of Rs. 1,94,921 and Rs. 1,55,220 were imposed for the respective years. The appellant contended that rejection of accounts due to unverifiability and estimation could not be equated with deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal accepted the appeals, holding that:\nThe rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income were justified, but did not in themselves amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.\nNo independent material evidence was brought on record by the department to establish deliberate concealment.\nPenalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and findings in assessment proceedings are not conclusive for penalty imposition.\nRelying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that burden of proof lies with the department, and in absence of cogent proof, penalty could not be sustained.\nThe penalties were therefore deleted for both years.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)\nHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)\nCIT v. Patna Timber Works (1976) 102 ITR 119\nCIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28,28(1A),37 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1186/KB and 1187/Kg of 1981 82, derided on 8-07-1985, hearing DATE : 6-07-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi. Muhammad Fareed, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 22 = 1986 SLD 22 = 1986 PTD 100 = (1986) 54 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Assessment Orders\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Ss. 28(1-A), 35 & 66(2)\n•\nIssue: Whether a mistake in the assessment order can be rectified, and if the Tribunal has the power to reframe questions in a reference.\n•\nConclusion: The Income Tax Officer or Tribunal can rectify mistakes apparent from the record, including considering evidence and not just the order of assessment. The Tribunal also has the power to reframe questions referred in the appeal.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) Ss. 28(1-A), 35, 66(2); Arvind N. Mafatlal v. Income Tax Officer, 32 I.T.R. 350", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,233,35(2),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 12 of 1977, decision dated: 2-12-1985, hearing DATE : 27-11-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Waheed Faruqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS QURESHI BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 23 = 1986 SLD 23 = 1986 PTD 105 = (1986) 53 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exchange Loss and Surcharge on Income\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 88 & 107\n•\nIssue: Whether exchange loss and certain expenses like motor vehicle expenses or development surcharge are deductible under the Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Exchange losses related to long-term loans and development surcharges imposed by the government are not considered revenue expenses, but the development surcharge under the Ordinance is an allowable deduction. The disallowance of motor vehicle expenses without verification was also found unjustified.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 88, 107", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=107,88,54 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 242/KB and 245/KB of 1981-82, decision dated: 27-07-1985, hearing DATE : 6-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Farid, D. R.. E. U. Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 24 = 1986 SLD 24 = 1986 PTCL 16 = (1986) 53 TAX 9 = 1986 PTD 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income and its Quantum\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 111 & 116\n•\nIssue: Whether the penalty for concealment can be less than 100% of the tax evaded.\n•\nConclusion: The penalty for concealment cannot be less than 100% of the tax evaded, as prescribed under Section 111, which specifies the minimum penalty. The Commissioner of Income Tax’s reduction of the penalty was found invalid, and the original penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer was restored.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 111, 116", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116 ", + "Case #": "I. T. AS. Nos. 579 (IB), 580(IB) and 581 (1B) of 1984 85, decision dated: 7-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D. R.. Akhtar Hussains", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 25 = 1986 SLD 25 = 1986 PTD 790 = (1986) 54 TAX 1 = 1987 PTCL 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Self-Assessment and Concealment of Income\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 59, 62 & 65\n•\nIssue: Whether a return filed by the assessee that qualifies for self-assessment must be accepted under Section 59(1) before reopening the assessment under Section 65 of the Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: The return filed by the assessee, once qualified for self-assessment, must be accepted under Section 59(1) before proceeding to reopen the assessment under Section 65. This process is crucial to ensure compliance with legal requirements for valid assessment procedures.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 59, 62, 65\n________________________________________\n(b) Agreed Assessment and Concealment of Income\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 53, 62 & 65\n•\nIssue: Whether an agreed assessment with the Income-tax Officer constitutes a binding contract, even when the assessee has concealed income.\n•\nConclusion: The agreed assessment between the assessee and the Income-tax Officer, after discovering concealed income, is valid and binding as it contains all the ingredients of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, and free consent). The assessee cannot escape the consequences of the agreement on technicalities that do not substantially affect their interests. The decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to maintain the agreed assessment was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 53, 62, 65; 1964 9 Taxation 15 (Trib.)\n________________________________________\n(c) Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 91(1), Circular No. 5 of 1953\n•\nIssue: Whether the Income-tax Officer is correct in levying a penalty at 10% of the tax payable, and if a reduction is justified for a first-time penalty.\n•\nConclusion: The penalty for concealment was initially levied at 10% of the tax payable, but since this was the first penalty, the rate was reduced from 10% to 5%, following the guidance in Circular No. 5 of 1953.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 91(1); Circular No. 5 of 1953", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62,65,53 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 776/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 12-03-1986, hearing DATE : 5-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I.S. Pasha. Muhammad Farid, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 26 = 1986 SLD 26 = 1986 PTCL 112 = 1986 PTD 129 = (1986) 53 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Concealment of Income and Reassessment\n•\nIssue: Whether the conduct of the Income-tax Officer in negotiating with the assessee over concealed income and making an agreed assessment creates confusion and whether it undermines the lawful application of penal provisions.\n•\nConclusion: The Income-tax Officer’s conduct in negotiating and compromising the assessment, instead of applying the usual Gross Profit (G.P.) rate and standard procedures, created doubt. The officer was seen as making a compromise assessment, which could mislead the assessee into thinking that no further penal action would follow. The Tribunal found that the officer’s conduct was problematic, as the assessee was led to believe no further penalties would apply. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner’s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 111 was upheld, as no penalty or prosecution was warranted.\n________________________________________\n(b) Penal Proceedings and Discretionary Nature\n•\nIssue: Whether penal proceedings should be taken lightly, given their criminal nature, and the Income-tax Officer’s discretion to initiate them.\n•\nConclusion: Penal proceedings are criminal in nature and should not be taken lightly. The Income-tax Officer, having made a compromise with the assessee, could not later initiate penal actions under Sections 116, 117, and 118, as this would undermine the objective of the law to avoid harassment. The officer’s waiver of penal actions was implied when an agreement was made to settle the matter through a compromise assessment.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 111, 116, 117, 118", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),111,116,117,118 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1943/LB of 1984 85, decision dated: 4-09-1985, hearing DATE : 11-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Tahir Butt\nMujahid Arshi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 27 = 1986 SLD 27 = 1986 PTD 134 = (1986) 54 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Reference and Determination of Facts\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 136\n•\nIssue: Whether questions formulated by the assessee regarding factual matters can be raised in an Income-tax reference to the High Court.\n•\nConclusion: Since the questions raised by the assessee/petitioners related to factual matters and not legal questions, they were deemed inappropriate for determination by the High Court. The Tribunal’s decision, based on an appreciation of the evidence, was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136\n________________________________________\n(b) Assessment Rejection and Auditor’s Reports\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 136\n•\nIssue: Whether the assessee’s declaration could be rejected because the accounts were not audited, and entries were neither vouched nor verified.\n•\nConclusion: The rejection of the assessee’s declared version was justified because the accounts were neither audited nor supported by adequate documentation. The fact that previous versions were accepted did not create a binding precedent, and each assessment year should be evaluated independently.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136\n________________________________________\n(c) Use of Parallel Cases in Tribunal Decisions\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 136\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal erred by using parallel cases without giving the assessee the opportunity to dispute their applicability.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee did not request an opportunity to dispute the applicability of the parallel cases to their own situation, so their contention was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal’s use of parallel cases in its reasoning was justified.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 136", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 61 of 1985, decision dated: 7-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Saleem Chaudhary for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN & Co. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 28 = 1986 SLD 28 = 1986 PTD 137 = (1986) 53 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Actual Cost and Depreciation Calculation\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sched., rr. 5, 8(7)(b) & 8(8)\n•\nIssue: How the term actual cost in the rules relates to depreciation and the effect of exchange rate changes on this calculation.\n•\nConclusion: While the term actual cost in Rule 8(8) refers to the cost in the income year in which the plant or machinery was acquired, Rule 8(7)(b) does not define it in the same way. The Income-tax Commissioner’s interpretation of actual cost as it relates to the year of acquisition was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sched., rr. 5, 8(7)(b), 8(8)\n________________________________________\n(b) Depreciation Claims and Eligibility for Initial Allowance\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sched., rr. 5, 7(8) & 8(8)\n•\nIssue: Whether depreciation claims can be made for machinery or plants installed between 1-7-1976 and 30-6-1988, and the eligibility for initial depreciation in such cases.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation can be claimed either in the year of installation, when the machinery is first used, or when commercial production begins, whichever occurs later. However, for machinery installed prior to 1973-74, Rule 5 would not apply.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sched., rr. 5, 7(8), 8(8)\n________________________________________\n(c) Depreciation and Erection/Installation Dates\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sched., rr. 5, 7(8) & 8(8)\n•\nIssue: Clarification on whether the term in respect of the year in Rule 5 means the year in which machinery was erected or installed.\n•\nConclusion: The Income-tax Commissioner’s conclusion that the term in respect of the year refers to the year in which the machinery was erected or installed was upheld, as the words in the year clearly imply the installation period.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sched., rr. 5, 7(8), 8(8)\n________________________________________\n(d) Levy of Surcharge and Commissioner’s Decision\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sched., rr. 5, 7(8) & 8(8)\n•\nIssue: Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax correctly levied a surcharge based on Appellate Tribunal’s decision, which was binding on him.\n•\nConclusion: The Commissioner’s decision to levy a surcharge, following the Appellate Tribunal’s binding decision, was upheld. No reason was found to depart from the consistent application of this decision under the circumstances of the case.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sched., rr. 5, 7(8), 8(8)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,Sched.,5,8(7)(b),8(8) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 372/KB and 373/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 24-09-1985, hearing DATE : 15-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Amin-e-Ajam. D R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 29 = 1986 SLD 29 = 1986 PTD 141 = (1986) 53 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Escaped Assessment and Time Limit under the Income Tax Act, 1922 and Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusions:\n1.\nEscaped Assessment and Income Offering for Assessment (Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 34):\no\nFacts: The assessee offered income from running a poultry farm but had no concealment of income or omission of material facts.\no\nConclusion: The case was covered by Section 34(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for escaped assessment. The notice could be issued within two years from the end of the assessment year.\n2.\nSavings Clause under Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Section 65:\no\nFacts: The Income Tax Ordinance (1979) specified savings clauses but excluded cases involving concealment of income. It also outlined the procedural framework for reopening assessments.\no\nConclusion: Under the Savings Clause of Section 166(2) of the Ordinance, the concealment of income was not a basis for reopening assessments under the new law.\n3.\nEscaped Assessment, Exemption Claimed, and Re-Assessment under the Income Tax Act (1922):\no\nFacts: The assessee claimed an exemption on income derived from a poultry farm, but after an inquiry, the officer doubted its existence and issued notices for reassessment under Section 34(1).\no\nConclusion: Reassessment under Section 34(1) was valid within the prescribed two-year period, but the six-year period under Section 34(1A) was incorrectly applied. Thus, the notice was time-barred under the six-year limitation.\n4.\nRepeal of Income Tax Act, 1922, and Effect on Re-assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance (1979):\no\nFacts: The Income Tax Ordinance (1979) repealed the Income Tax Act of 1922 after assessments were completed.\no\nConclusion: Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (1897), once the Income Tax Act was repealed, the assessment rights of the assessee under the old Act ceased. Reassessment could not be initiated post-repeal if the time limit expired.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSaeed Ahmad v. State PLD 1964 SC 266\n•\nEastern Federal Union Insurance Co. v. C.I.T. PLD 1982 SC 247\n•\nKoh-i-Noor Textile Mills v. C.I.T. PLD 1974 SC 284", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166,65,166(2) Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=60 Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23,34(1),34(2),34(1A),34,31 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3376 of 1982 83, I. T. A. No. 3377 of 1982 83 and I. T. A. No. 3378 of 1982 83, decision dated: 2-10-1985. dates of hearing: 24-06-1984 and 24-02-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALID, ZAFAR HUSSAIN AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Muhammad Hafeez and Zia H. Rizvi. Imtiaz Anjum and Arshad Pervez", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 30 = 1986 SLD 30 = 1986 PTD 174 = (1986) 53 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions on Consultancy Fees, Taxation, and Sales Tax Liability\nConclusions:\n1.\nConsultancy Fee Deduction under Income Tax Act (1922), Section 18(3BB):\no\nFacts: The assessee claimed deductions on consultancy fees paid to consultants who were employees and non-executive directors. The tax was not deducted at source, citing Section 18(3BB).\no\nConclusion: The consultants' fees were valid for deduction as they were employees as per the consultancy agreement. The tax at source was not applicable, and the addition of the consultancy fee was ordered to be deleted.\n2.\nDifference between 'Salary' and 'Remuneration':\no\nFacts: There was a need to differentiate between 'salary' and 'remuneration' for the purpose of deduction.\no\nConclusion: Salary refers to fixed, periodical payments for services rendered, while remuneration is a broader term and can apply to various forms of compensation for services.\n3.\nProvision for Sales Tax Liability under Income Tax Act (1922), Sections 10(2) & 23(3):\no\nFacts: The assessee made provisions for a sales tax liability, but the income tax officer added it back as the liability was not paid.\no\nConclusion: The provision for sales tax liability should be deleted as it was ascertained and determined by the Sales Tax Demand Notice.\n4.\nCapital Gain Tax on Sale of Land:\no\nFacts: The assessee claimed capital gain tax on the sale of land. The officer disallowed the expense, arguing it was a capital expenditure.\no\nConclusion: A fresh investigation of facts was required, as the claim involved complex issues regarding asset nature and the capital gain tax.\n5.\nSurcharge on Difference Between Declared and Assessed Income:\no\nFacts: A surcharge was levied on the difference between the income declared and assessed, but the tax authorities failed to take proper cognizance.\no\nConclusion: The surcharge was not allowed due to procedural lapses on the part of the tax authorities.\nCitations/References:\n•\nShri Kant Textiles v. C.I.T. (1971) 81 I.T.R. 222", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18(3BB),18(2),10(4)(d),10(2),23(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 451/KB, 452/KB 427/KB and 428/KB of 1982-83, heard on 30-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din. Muhammad Farid, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 31 = 1986 SLD 31 = 1986 PTCL 109 = 1986 PTD 188 = (1986) 53 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Demand Notice under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusions:\n1.\nLegality of Demand Notice Service on Advocate/Authorized Representative (A.R.) under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 85:\no\nFacts: The income tax officer served demand notices to the advocate/AR, who was not legally authorized to accept such service.\no\nConclusion: The service of the demand notice on the advocate/AR was not valid. Only the assessee or an authorized person, as specified in the law, can accept the service of a demand notice.\n2.\nScope of Service of Demand Notice under Section 85 of the Ordinance:\no\nFacts: The statute specifies who is authorized to receive demand notices. The AR or advocate cannot accept service on behalf of the assessee.\no\nConclusion: Service of demand notice on a person not specified under Section 85 of the Ordinance does not count as legal service. The provisions of the statute cannot be extended by interpretation.\n3.\nAppeal and Limitation Period in Case of Invalid Service of Demand Notice:\no\nFacts: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the appellate authority on the grounds of being time-barred due to the assumption that the demand notice was properly served.\no\nConclusion: Since the service of the demand notice on the advocate/AR was invalid, the time for filing the appeal should be counted from the proper date. Therefore, the appeal was within time and should be remanded for reconsideration.\nCitations/References:\n•\nPrashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas (1963) 49 I.T.R. 1\n•\nC.I.T. v. Sardar Lakmir Singh (49 I.T.R. 70)\n•\nJ.P. Jani, Income Tax Officer v. Indurprasad Devsanker Bhait (72 I.T.R. 595)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1562/LB of 1984 85, decision dated: 8-10-1985, hearing date: 15-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.R. Farooqi, I.T.P.\nJaved Tahir Butt, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 32 = 1986 SLD 32 = 1986 PTCL 233 = (1986) 53 TAX 49 = 1986 PTD 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Statement Filing Requirement:\n•\nIssue: Whether filing a wealth statement is mandatorys whose income is greater than Rs. 1,00,000.\n•\nConclusion: Wealth statement must be filed by those whose income exceeds Rs. 1,00,000, and other assessees are required to submit it only when requested by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The ITO can impose penalties under Section 110, not Section 108, of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.55, 56, 58, 108, 110.\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Penal Provision (S. 108):\n•\nIssue: Strict interpretation of Section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance for imposing penalties.\n•\nConclusion: Penal provisions of Section 108 are to be interpreted strictly. This section applies only to returns, not to wealth statements.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.108.\n________________________________________\n(c) Failure to File Wealth Statement:\n•\nIssue: Whether the ITO can impose a penalty for failure to file a wealth statement.\n•\nConclusion: The Income Tax Officer cannot levy penalties for default in filing wealth statements under Section 58(2), as this is not authorized by Section 108.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.58, 108.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,58,58(2),108,110 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 391-A/KB of 1981 82, decision dated: 8-05-1985, hearing DATE : 13-04-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood A. Hashmey Muhammad Farid D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 33 = 1986 SLD 33 = 1986 PTD 194 = (1986) 53 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Effective Date of Finance Ordinance:\n•\nIssue: The effective date of provisions in the Finance Ordinance and its dual nature (financial proposals vs amendments).\n•\nConclusion: The financial proposals of the Finance Ordinance take effect from July 1st of the year, while the amendments take effect immediately upon promulgation unless specified otherwise.\n•\nCitations: Finance Ordinance (XXV of 1980), Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.13.\n________________________________________\n(b) Assessment Additions and Prior Approval:\n•\nIssue: Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner’s prior approval is necessary to be mentioned in the assessment order.\n•\nConclusion: While it is beneficial for the assessing officer to mention the approval, its absence does not invalidate the order, as long as the approval was obtained.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.13.\n________________________________________\n(c) Deletion of Additions by Appellate Assistant Commissioner:\n•\nIssue: Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can delete additions solely on assumption.\n•\nConclusion: The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was vacated, and the case was remitted for a fresh decision on merits.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.13.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5868/1980 81, decision dated: 14-09-1985, hearing DATE : 27-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Tahir Butt, A.C./D.R.. Mian Ghulam Muhammad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 34 = 1986 SLD 34 = 1986 PTD 197 = (1986) 54 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Disallowance of Expenses:\n•\nIssue: Disallowance of expenses related to film production.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal’s finding that a 12% disallowance was reasonable is upheld, and the reference is answered in the negative, confirming no question of law.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.66(1), Miss Assia v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PLD 1979 SC 949.\n________________________________________\n(b) Receipts from a Film:\n•\nIssue: Whether receipts from a film, which was allegedly old, should be included in the income.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal found no justification for including the receipts, and the addition by the Income Tax Officer was deleted.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.66(1).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 37 of 1975, decision dated: 2nd May,1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs DABISTAN Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 35 = 1986 SLD 35 = 1986 PTD 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Reassessment Due to Failure to Disclose Income:\n•\nIssue: Whether reassessment is justified when an income was not disclosed but was found during the assessment process.\n•\nConclusion: The ITO had jurisdiction to issue a notice for reassessment as income had escaped assessment.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) Ss.22, 23, 34.\n________________________________________\n(b) Nil Assessment in Return:\n•\nIssue: Whether a no proceeding order equates to acceptance of a return as ‘Nil’.\n•\nConclusion: The ITO’s order was considered as accepting the return as ‘Nil’ and did not invalidate the assessment.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) Ss.22, 23, 34.\n________________________________________\n(c) Revised Return and Reassessment:\n•\nIssue: Whether the submission of a revised return can prevent reassessment under Section 34.\n•\nConclusion: A revised return could not prevent reassessment under Section 34, which was initiated on the basis of material facts not disclosed.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) Ss.22, 23, 34.\n________________________________________\n(d) Applicability of Income Tax Act Post Local Act:\n•\nIssue: Whether the assessees in a district governed by a local law are liable under the Income Tax Act, 1922, after the local law ceased operation.\n•\nConclusion: Assessees are liable under the Income Tax Act, 1922, following the cessation of the local act in 1950.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) Ss.22, 23, 34.\n________________________________________\n(e) Validity of Reassessment Notice:\n•\nIssue: Whether a notice for reassessment was valid when the ITO had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.\n•\nConclusion: The notice was valid and issued within the statutory period.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.34(1)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23,34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1960, decision dated: 5-12-1960", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND, J. C. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishan. A.N. Kirpal and D. Gupta", + "Party Name:": "ESTHURI ASWATHIAH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, MYSORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 36 = 1986 SLD 36 = 1986 PTD 208 = (1986) 54 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction of High Court under S. 136:\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court has appellate jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court cannot act as an appellate court under Section 136; its role is advisory in nature.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.136, Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.34-A.\n________________________________________\n(b) Questions of Law in Reference:\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court could review and frame questions of law arising out of the Tribunal’s order.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court has to frame questions of law and cannot act as an appellate court to set aside orders of the Tribunal.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.136.\n________________________________________\n(c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Income Tax Commissioner:\n•\nIssue: Whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government can appoint the Income Tax Commissioner despite any provision in the Income Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: The appointment was valid, and the appeal was maintainable.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.5, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Income-tax Commissioners (Validation of Appointment) Ordinance, 1984.\n________________________________________\n(d) Ordinance Validating Appointment of Tax Commissioner:\n•\nIssue: The validity of an ordinance validating the appointment of the Income Tax Commissioner in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.\n•\nConclusion: The ordinance was valid as it was issued in accordance with the powers of the President under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act.\n•\nCitations: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Income-tax Commissioners (Validation of Appointment) Ordinance, 1984.\n________________________________________\n(e) Revisionary Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner:\n•\nIssue: Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can revise a decision based on material available to the ITO.\n•\nConclusion: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was authorized to initiate revisionary proceedings based on material before the ITO.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.34-A.\n________________________________________\n(f) Revisionary Powers and Evidence:\n•\nIssue: Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner’s review of the ITO’s decision was based on admissible evidence.\n•\nConclusion: The revisionary powers are valid if based on sufficient independent material, even if local inquiry results are not directly confronted with the assessee.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.34-A.\n________________________________________\n(g) Local Inquiries and Principles of Natural Justice:\n•\nIssue: Whether material gathered during local inquiries should be confronted with the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: If material from the inquiry is not the sole evidence against the assessee, non-confrontation does not invalidate the order.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) S.34-A, Evidence Act (I of 1872) S.114(e).\n________________________________________\n(h) Adequate Opportunity to the Assessee:\n•\nIssue: Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the revisionary proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Adequate opportunity was given to the assessee, and principles of natural justice were not violated.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.136.\n________________________________________\n(i) Remand for Reconsideration of Questions of Law:\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court addressed all questions of law raised in the case.\n•\nConclusion: The case was remanded to the High Court to reconsider and frame additional questions of law if applicable.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S.136.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Income Tax Act, 1922=34A,5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6 of 1984, decision dated: 23rd December, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN AND SHER ZAMAN CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt and Sardar Rafique Mahmood Advocate General. Ch. Muhammad Afzal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 37 = 1986 SLD 37 = 1986 PTD 86 = (1986) 53 TAX 137 = (1986) 54 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #6946\nDeductions for Fees Paid to Tax Advisers\nConclusion: Fees paid to tax advisers by the assessee for conducting legal proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Such payments are deemed reasonable and bona fide if made to reduce tax liability, which is likely to result in higher funds being available for the business, thus potentially increasing profits.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSmith's Potato Estates Ltd. v. Bolland (1949)\n•\nTravancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala (1966) 40 ITR 277\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 575\n•\nR. B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona (1971) 81 ITR 34\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 SC\n•\nModi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 90 ITR 201\n•\nAta Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax P.L.D 1969 SC 517\n•\nJ.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 46 ITR 970 (distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.2 of 1976, decision dated: 5-12-1985, hearing DATE : 14-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TANZIL-UR REHMAN AND K.A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmed for Petitioner. Mrs. Rashida Patel", + "Party Name:": "UNITED LINES AGENCY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 38 = 1986 SLD 38 = 1986 PTD 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #6947\nDeductions for Fees Paid to Tax Advisers\nConclusion: Similar to SLD #6946, fees paid to tax advisers to conduct legal proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are considered deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, provided they are bona fide and made with the intention of reducing the assessee's tax liability, ultimately leading to greater funds for business operations and possible increased profits.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSmith's Potato Estates Ltd. v. Bolland (1949)\n•\nTravancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala (1966) 40 ITR 277\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 575\n•\nR. B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona (1971) 81 ITR 34\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 SC\n•\nModi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 90 ITR 201\n•\nAta Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax P.L.D 1969 SC 517\n•\nJ.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 46 ITR 970 (distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Gift Tax Reference No. 94 of 1974, decision dated: 11th December 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND AHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqi for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "UNITED LINES AGENCY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 39 = 1986 SLD 39 = 1986 PTD 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #6948\nDeduction Claims and Tribunal’s Powers\nConclusion (a): The Tribunal is authorized to deal with a new or additional claim for a deduction, even if the claim was not initially presented to the assessing authority. It can also remand the case for further consideration of such an enhanced claim.\nConclusion (b): If a bus company repudiates a contract and is required to pay damages, including interest due to a court decree, the loss incurred is considered incidental to the assessee’s trade and can be claimed as a deductible loss.\nCitations/References:\n•\nA.I.R. 1968 SC 101", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=84 ", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 835 of 1976 and 754 of 1959, decision dated: 17-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASAWAMI AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram for Petitioner. K. Srinivasan, R. Janakiraman and J. Viswanathans", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nMessrs SRI RAJAGOPAL TRANSPORTS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 40 = 1986 SLD 40 = 1986 PTD 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Excise Law\nConclusion: A partnership firm formed by a licensee under the Excise Act to carry out liquor business is not illegal. Registration under the Income Tax Act cannot be refused on the grounds that the license under the Excise Act is granted to only one partner. The partnership is valid, as no transfer of the license occurs, and the partnership agreement does not violate public policy under the Contract Act.\nCitations/References:\n•\nA.I.R. 1950 Mad. 441 (FB)\n•\nA.I.R. 1957 Mad. 186\n•\nA.I.R. 1950 Mad. 451\n•\nA.I.R. 1960 Kar. 276\n•\n(1962) 44 ITR 835 (Punj)\n•\n(1962) 46 ITR 784 (Andhra Pradesh)\n•\n(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)\n•\n1972 Tax LR 2436 (SC)\n•\nA.I.R. 1969 SC 493", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=185 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred Nos. 241 and 279 of 1980, decision dated: 18-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SEETHARAM REDDY AND, JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD\nvs\nNALLI VENKATRAMANA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 41 = 1986 SLD 41 = 1986 PTD 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedy\nConclusion (a): A writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of an Income Tax Officer (ITO) can be entertained even if there is an alternative remedy available. The existence of another remedy is a factor for the court to consider in exercising its discretion in granting a writ. In this case, a question of law regarding a new section of the Income Tax Act was raised, and the court decided to hear the case.\nConclusion (b): The expression income or loss returned refers to the total income or loss as shown in the return of the assessee after computation, not to amounts shown under individual heads of income.\nCitations/References:\n•\n85 ITR 77 (Guj.)\n•\n1976 105 ITR 864\n•\n1973 Tax LR 2425\n•\n1973 89 ITR 281 (Cal.)\n•\nA.I.R. 1971 SC 33\n•\nA.I.R. 1969 SC 556\n•\nA.I.R. 1968 SC 13\n•\nA.I.R. 1968 SC 153\n•\nA.I.R. 1965 SC 1321\n•\nA.I.R. 1962 SC 1694\n•\nA.I.R. 1961 SC 372\n•\nA.I.R. 1961 SC 1506\n•\nA.I.R. 1957 SC 882\n•\nA.I.R. 1957 Cal. 702\n•\nA.I.R. 1955 SC 661", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143,226 ", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 4775 (W) of 1976, decision dated: 19-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Pal with R.K. Murarka for Petitioner. Mihir Bhattacharyya,s", + "Party Name:": "NEW INDIA INVESTMENT CORPORAFION\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 42 = 1986 SLD 42 = 1986 PTD 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion: A penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed if the difference between the income returned and income assessed was due to an honest belief by the assessee. The Tribunal's finding that the difference was not intentional, and the failure of the revenue to establish a case for penalty, was not challenged. Therefore, no penalty was warranted.\nCitations/References:\n•\n85 ITR 77 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 73 of 1979, decision dated: 21st March, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T. K. BASU, ACTG. C.J. AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dhar for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax WEST BENGAL VI CALCUTTA\nvs\nKALICHARAN AGARWALLA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 43 = 1986 SLD 43 = 1986 PTD 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Connection and Royalty Payment\nConclusion: A non-resident company that renders marketing services in India, with payments made for royalties outside India, does not have a business connection in India. Therefore, the royalty paid to the non-resident company is not chargeable to tax in India.\nCitations/References:\n•\n119 ITR 986\n•\n108 ITR 335", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 487 of 1979, decision dated: 14-03-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T.K. BASU AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Bagchi for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OE Income Tax WEST BENGALII, CALCUTTA\nvs\nMessrs USHA MARTIN BLACK (WIRE ROPES)/CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 44 = 1986 SLD 44 = 1986 PTD 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Losses and Bad Debts\nConclusion: The amount contributed by the assessee to the capital of a firm is not deductible as a revenue loss when written off during the dissolution of the firm. The amount due from one partner, transferred upon dissolution, was not considered a bad debt.\nCitations/References:\n•\n(Not provided)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 25 of 1981, decision dated: 12-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G.G. SOHANI AND R. K. VIJAYWARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.W. Mahajan for Petitioner. R.C. Mukati", + "Party Name:": "FATEHCHAND MVONAT RATLAM COMMISSIONER OF NCOMETAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 45 = 1986 SLD 45 = 1986 PTD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Partnership Dispute\nConclusion: The rejection of the application for firm registration was overturned by the Tribunal, which relied on statements from other partners and an affidavit to establish that a partner was validly included, and registration was granted. The issue of whether someone is a partner is a factual matter and does not raise a question of law.\nCitations/References:\n•\n(Not provided)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 301 of 1979, decision dated: 25-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND B.C. VARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B.K. Rawat for Applicant. V.S. Malhotra for Non Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax MADHYA PRADESH, II BHOPAL\nvs\nMessrs BIRBAL KHANNA CO. JABALPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 46 = 1986 SLD 46 = 1986 PTD 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference by Tribunal and Appeal Process\nConclusion (a): The High Court declined to answer a question referred by the Tribunal, as it did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.\nConclusion (b): An order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) refusing the continuation of firm registration is appealable.\nConclusion (c): The ITO is justified in refusing to continue the registration of a firm if the assessee does not show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the prescribed form.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1981 Tax LR 851 (Madh. Pra.)\n•\n1983 140 ITR 413 (Madh. Pra.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=258 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 202 of 1981, decision dated: 15-03-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. G, SOHANI AND R.K. YIJAYVARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.M. Mehta for Applicant. R.C. Mukati", + "Party Name:": "MOTIRAM\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 47 = 1986 SLD 47 = 1986 PTD 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue Receipt and Cessation of Business\nConclusion: Compensation received for the cessation of business, including the acquisition of the business premises, is not a revenue receipt and is not chargeable to tax.\nCitations/References:\n•\n(1982) 137 ITR 295", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 82 of 1981, decision dated: 11-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G.G. SOHANI AND R.K. VIJAYVARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.C. Mukati for Petitioner. J.W. Mahajan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF JNCOMF TAX, M.P. BHOPAL\nvs\nINDORE TVRE HOUSE, INDORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 48 = 1986 SLD 48 = 1986 PTD 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firm and Transfer of Contract\nConclusion: A firm obtaining an excise contract in the name of certain partners, with the head office in one province and the contract being executed in another, is not barred from registration under the Income Tax Act. The transferability of the contract must be determined according to the law of the province where it is to be executed.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1982 Tax LR 567 (Madh. Pra.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 242 of 1975, decision dated: 29-07-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C. P. SINGH, C, J AND B. C. VARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat for Applicant. K. M. Agarwal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M.P. II BHOPAL\nvs\nMessrs GUPTA S CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 49 = 1986 SLD 49 = 1986 PTD 314 = 1987 PTCL 35 = (1986) 53 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Territorial Jurisdiction in Assessment\nConclusion (a): If the Income Tax Officer (ITO) has no jurisdiction over the area where the assessee conducts business or resides, any order of assessment passed by that officer is invalid and annulled.\nConclusion (b): Subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) should be read in conjunction with subsections (3) and (4).\nConclusion (c): Jurisdictional issues, if raised before an Appellate Authority, should not be limited to the specific provisions about filing returns.\nConclusion (d): Frequent changes in jurisdiction of ITOs may make it difficult for the assessee to determine the correct authority to issue notices.\nCitations/References:\n•\n(Not provided)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(3),(4),(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 821/Lb, 822/LB and 823/LB of 1984 85, decision dated: 9-12-1984, hearing DATE : 5-11-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.R. Ahmad Dar. M. Arshad Pervez AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 50 = 1986 SLD 50 = 1986 PTD 316 = (1986) 54 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of statutes\n•\nThe intention of the legislature is crucial in the interpretation of statutes.\n(b) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) & Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nThe preamble of the Income Tax Ordinance and Act provides the framework for tax levying and collection. Provisions relating to the object of the Act/Ordinance should be construed with this framework in mind.\n•\nSections imposing tax charges should be strictly construed, whereas provisions dealing with the machinery for assessment and collection need not be subjected to such strict interpretation.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65 (Reassessment)\n•\nA mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening a matter if all material facts were already available to the Income Tax Officer.\n•\nReopening is not allowed on the basis of mere second thoughts or differing views, whether on legal or factual grounds.\n•\nIf an assessee fails to disclose essential facts, reassessment may be valid.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n���\nThe principle behind Section 65 is to ensure that no income escapes taxation.\n•\nReassessment is justified when an apparent error exists and when there is no possibility of a second legal or factual view.\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\n Escaped income includes evasion, omission, or inadvertent oversight. If such conditions exist, the Income Tax Officer (or their successor) may issue a notice under Section 65.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65(1)\n•\nReassessment under Section 65(1) requires the Income Tax Officer to have definite information before taking action. The Officer may act if the failure to examine accounts was due to negligence or if the law was incorrectly applied to the case.\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\nSuccessor Income Tax Officers have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings if the conditions under Section 65 exist, regardless of whether they were involved in the initial assessment.\n(h) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) & Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nDoctrines like res judicata and estoppel do not apply to proceedings under the Income Tax Act because the authorities are not courts. The principles governing judicial proceedings do not apply in the context of income tax assessments.\n(i) Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981) - Article 9 (Constitutional Jurisdiction)\n•\nA petitioner can approach the High Court in cases where an authority has acted without jurisdiction, especially if such jurisdictional errors are clear from the record.\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction is not automatically available if an alternative remedy exists, unless the remedy is ineffective or cumbersome.\n(j) Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981) - Article 9\n•\nThe High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate body over administrative decisions. It cannot review the sufficiency of evidence unless jurisdictional issues are clear.\n(k) Precedent\n•\nA decision by a higher court on a legal point can be cited as precedent in other cases, irrespective of whether the observation was made in a reference or constitutional petition.\n(l) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\nReassessment may be valid if the information leading to the reopening is based on subsequent facts.\n(m) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65(2)\n•\nAction can be initiated by the Income Tax Officer based on definite information about the facts in Sections 65(1)(a) and (b). Approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is required for such actions.\n(n) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65(2)\n•\nThe word or in Section 65(2) is disjunctive, meaning it is not a conjunctive condition.\n(o) Evidence Act (I of 1872) - Section 114\n•\nEvery act of an officer is presumed to be in accordance with the law unless proven otherwise.\n(p) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\nIf the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is satisfied with the material presented, they can permit action under Section 65(1). There is no legal requirement to provide detailed reasoning for this permission.\n(q) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 111 & 119\n•\n Concealment of income and escaped income differ. Concealment implies intent, whereas escaped income may arise due to a bona fide belief that tax is not applicable.\n(r) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\nThe intention of the legislature is clear: no income should escape taxation, but Section 65 should not be used oppressively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure income is taxed.\n(s) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\nSection 65 is a procedural provision and should not be strictly construed.\n(t) Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981) - Article 9 & Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 65\n•\nA constitutional petition cannot be entertained if an adequate and effective alternative remedy exists. The petitioner is expected to be given a fair chance to show that the notice was issued improperly, with investigation done under the relevant law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2),111,119 Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)=9 Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=114 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 100 of 1985, decision dated: 16-01-1986. dates of hearing: 6th, 7th and 12-11-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nMAMOON QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: M.S.A. Wadood \nRespondent(s) by: M. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "ARAFAT WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLES E 1, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 51 = 1986 SLD 51 = 1986 PTD 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 56, 62 & 65\n•\nAn assessment made without issuing a notice under Section 65 is annulled.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 56 & 62\n•\nThe Assessing Officer arbitrarily estimated the production of excisable goods without providing a basis for the estimate. The sales were reduced, and the case was remitted back to apply a reasonable Gross Profit (G.P.) rate, as seen in other similar cases.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,62,65 ", + "Case #": "I. T.A. No. 3134/LB of 1983 84 Assessment year 1977-78, I. T.A. No. 3135/LB of 1983-84, Assessment year 1978-79, I. T.A. No. 3136/LB13136 of 1983-84, Assessment year 1978-80 and 1. T.A. No 3137/LB of 1983-84 Assessment year 1980-81, derided on 9th April 1985, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ramzan Butt. M. Arshad Pervaiz, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAVED BROTHERSTEEL REROLLING MILLS, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 52 = 1986 SLD 52 = 1986 PTD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "West Pakistan Finance Act (IX of 1963) - Section 16 & Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)\n•\nSince immovable property is not defined as a capital asset under the Income Tax Act for capital gains, the assessee is liable for capital gains tax under the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, and not under the Income Tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,2(41),6a12B ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 805 of 1977, decision dated: 10-11-1985. dates of hearing: 2nd, 8th and 10-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Razzak Siddiqui for Petitioner. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A. G.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZLMRAN ENTERPRISES\nvs\nSPECIAL DIRECTOR/ COLLECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 53 = 1986 SLD 53 = 1986 PTD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 34(1)(b) (Escaped Assessment - Reopening)\n•\nTwo categories for reopening assessments under Section 34(1): (1) when the assessee has failed to disclose income, and (2) when the Income Tax Officer finds that income has escaped assessment despite no fault by the assessee.\n(b) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 34 (Objective of the Act)\n•\nThe object of the Act is to ensure effective tax collection, ensuring that taxpayers do not escape paying taxes on income.\n(c) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 34(1)(b)\n•\nThe word information in Section 34(1)(b) includes various factors and can be based on new facts or even judicial decisions that affect the application of the law.\n(d) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 34(1)(b)\n•\n Information for reopening an assessment can come from external sources, new facts, or judicial rulings. Even an erroneous ground in previous assessments revealed by superior courts can trigger reopening.\n(e) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 34(1)(b)\n•\nInformation for reopening an assessment must be subsequent to the original assessment, either from a fresh investigation or from existing materials.\n(f) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 34(1)(b)\n•\nThe information in Section 34(1)(b) must meet certain criteria: (1) it must relate to facts or legal matters impacting the assessment, (2) it must arise after the original assessment, and (3) it can come from either the current record or new investigations.\n(g) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Sections 34(1)(b) & 66(1)\n•\nIn the case of reopening an original assessment, the reassessment was based on the discovery of incorrect deductions claimed by the assessee, leading to reassessment due to fresh facts.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(b),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 522 of 1971 , decision dated: 10-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. K. MATHEW AND MURTAZA FAZAL ELAHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Banerjee, N.V. Goswamy and Arviud Minocha. B.A. Ahuja and S.P. Nayar", + "Party Name:": "KLAYANJI MAVJI & COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL II" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 54 = 1986 SLD 54 = 1986 PTD 357 = (1986) 53 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Retrospective effect of S. 59(1A) of the Income Tax Ordinance (as amended by the Finance Ordinance, 1985) allows the Self-Assessment Scheme to include provisions for selecting cases for detailed scrutiny. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) has the authority to do so. The judgment distinguishes from Cannon Products Limited v. Income tax Officer (1985 PTD 549).\n•\n(b) Powers of CBR to select cases for detailed scrutiny under the Self-Assessment Scheme were not excessive delegation of legislative power, as the discretion was limited and guided by legislative intent.\n•\n(c) The selection criteria for detailed scrutiny are not arbitrary or discriminatory, and the power of CBR is valid if exercised reasonably.\n•\n(d) Even if a case is selected for detailed scrutiny under the Self-Assessment Scheme, it does not automatically impose an unjust tax burden on the assessee.\n•\n(e) In constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the High Court did not intervene in the decision regarding immunity from scrutiny under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1984, decision dated: 11-01-1986. dates of hearing: 10th, 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 24th, 25th June; 6th, 8th and 9-07-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Ch. M. Ishaq", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 55 = 1986 SLD 55 = 1986 PTD 368 = (1986) 54 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Limitation Act and Income Tax Ordinance provisions indicate that limitation is procedural and does not create a substantive right. The rules for filing a reference to the tribunal depend on the law applicable at the time the reference was filed, not when the original ordinance was enacted.\n•\n(b) Reference filed before the tribunal, under the new ordinance, was not barred by time if filed within the prescribed period, irrespective of the old Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) Limitation Act, 1908=3 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 4450 to 4455 and 4458 of 1985, decision dated: 11-01-1986, hearing DATE : 19-11-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Ali Zafar No. 2", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSyeda SARWAT SULTANA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 56 = 1986 SLD 56 = 1986 PTD 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAvoidance of Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and the UK: The CBR Circular, which exempted non-resident assessees from tax on dividends, was retrospective. The CBR’s surcharge imposition was not valid as the exemption under the treaty should have been applied to the dividends received by the non-resident assessee, and the assessment officer’s surcharge orders were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 423, 424, 425 and 426/KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 10-09-1985, hearing DATE : 9-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM NABI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R. K. Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 57 = 1986 SLD 57 = 1986 PTD 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Section 12(13) of the Income Tax Ordinance cannot apply to security deposits received before the promulgation of the ordinance. Applying the provision retrospectively was held to be illegal.\n•\n(b) Maintenance expenses were allowed as deductions, and the case was sent back for further examination regarding the eligibility of the deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(13) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 851/ KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 20-09-1985, hearing DATE : 17-11-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Arif M. Khan,. Amin e Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 58 = 1986 SLD 58 = 1986 PTD 376 = (1986) 54 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) No advance tax is required to be paid when the income for the latest previous year is a net loss. The appeal against the order imposing additional tax was justified.\n•\n(b) In interpreting the definition of 'tax' under the Income Tax Ordinance, supertax and surcharge are also considered within the scope of tax.\n•\n(c) Surcharge paid by a firm could be deductible by a partner up to 70% of their total income and should be included in the firm's total tax paid for determining the partner's share.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(43)a69(4)(a),69(4)(x) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 678 to 687/KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 6-10-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Butler, I.T.P.. M. Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 59 = 1986 SLD 59 = 1986 PTD 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) The CBR Circular provides guidelines on assessing profit and loss accounts, with provisions for adjustments to excessive or disproportionate claims, and requires the consent of the assessee.\n•\n(b) Reasonableness of the adjustment for add-backs was contextual, taking into account the social, political, and economic backgrounds.\n•\n(c) The Income Tax Officer is authorized to make adjustments even without the assessee’s consent if the add-back is reasonable and the assessee has had an opportunity to respond.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1179/KB of 1981 82, decision dated: 30-09-1985, hearing DATE : 23rd September, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. A. A. M. Mohsin", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 60 = 1986 SLD 60 = 1986 PTD 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) The term 'manufacture' in tax laws is interpreted consistently in both sales tax and income tax contexts. The assembly of motorcycle parts into a completed unit is considered manufacturing.\n•\n(b) The assembly of motor parts from imported components into motor cycles qualifies for the manufacturing exemption under the relevant notification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=60,60(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 688(PB) of 1981 82, decision dated: 6-01-1986, hearing DATE : 4-01-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND CHULAM MURTAZA KHAN. MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Fareed. I.N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 61 = 1986 SLD 61 = 1986 PTD 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Penalty for failure to file a return on time depends on whether there was sufficient cause, which is a factual question.\n•\n(b) The failure to file a return despite a statutory obligation and the availability of audited accounts may justify the imposition of penalties.\n•\n(c) Filing a return with unaudited accounts when it was possible to submit a return on time constituted a deliberate defiance of the Income Tax Officer’s requests, justifying the penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(1A),22,28(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No.173/HQB of 1982 83, decision dated: 30-12-1985, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND CHULAM SADIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Salman Pasha. Amin e Ajam D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs VOGUE CARPETS Ltd\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 62 = 1986 SLD 62 = 1986 PTD 392 = (1986) 54 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (1979) S.56: Notice issued under the repealed Income Tax Act (1922) under S.22(2) can still be valid, as S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance mirrors the provisions of S.22 of the repealed Act. The validity of the notice remains unaffected.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (1979) S.136(2): An Income Tax Officer's findings on local sales and failure to produce books are a factual matter. The Income Tax Officer's reliance on inspection notes and material is considered valid, and no legal error is found in the Tribunal's decision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,136(2) Income Tax Act, 1922=22(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 89, 70 and 71 of 1985, decision dated: 24-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAINBOW CARPETS, KASUR\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 63 = 1986 SLD 63 = 1986 PTD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision merges with the Income Tax Officer's order, making the original order of the Income Tax Officer non-existent in law. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could not take action against a merged order.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A Theory of Merger: The merger theory applies to the entire order, but only to the extent the appellate authority has examined the issues. Issues not raised in an appeal do not merge into the appellate order.\n•\n(c) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A Assessment and Deductions: An entity, even if government-controlled, can be taxed on profits made from its business. Payments made to the government are not considered as its own income.\n•\n(d) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A Merger Theory: The theory of merger only applies to issues the appellate authority has considered; it does not affect unaddressed points.\n•\n(e) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A Re-opening of Assessment: Re-assessment can be done by the Income Tax Officer or Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if income has escaped or was incorrectly assessed, regardless of the appeal's status.\n•\n(f) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A Interpretation: Re-opening and actions under S.34-A should not be limited by the merger theory, as the powers of the Income Tax Officer to re-assess are not negated by an appeal.\n•\n(g) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A: Limiting actions under S.34-A based on merger theory would violate its intent and undermine its provisions.\n•\n(h) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A: Statutes should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to both conflicting provisions without violating the law's intention.\n•\n(i) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A & S.30-31: Powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are broad, and they can address any issue in an assessment, even if not raised by the appellant.\n•\n(j) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A & Enhancement of Income: Powers of reassessment are vested in the Income Tax Officer or Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and not exclusively with the appellate authority.\n•\n(k) Interpretation of statutes: Where provisions appear inconsistent, they must be interpreted in a manner that preserves both.\n•\n(l) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A: The merger theory should not be stretched to nullify the provisions of law giving the department powers to act on the Income Tax Officer's orders.\n•\n(m) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A: After an appeal is final, powers of re-assessment remain with the Income Tax Officer or Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\n•\n(n) Income Tax Act (1922) S.34-A: Appellate authorities should maintain the revenue's interest when exercising powers.\n•\n(o) Civil Procedure Code (1908) S.11: Res judicata applies constructively, meaning issues not raised before an appellate authority are assumed to be decided by it.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34A,30,31 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11 ", + "Case #": "A.T.As. Nos. 123/KB to 125/0 of 1978-79, decision dated: 5-03-1986. dates of hearing: 4-01-1982 and 2-02-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "E.U. Khawaja. Yusuf Sharih, Abrar Ahmed and Muhammad Farid, D.Rs.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 64 = 1986 SLD 64 = 1986 PTD 433 = (1983) 48 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (1979) S.31, 65, 88, and Schedule III: Depreciation on assets and their disposal are taxable if proceeds exceed the written down value. The tax on such fictional income is legitimate under the provisions of the Ordinance.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (1979) S.31: The provisions for taxing deemed income are self-contained and unaffected by previous acts or provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=31,65,88,167,Sched.III,7,8 Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 389(PB) to 391 (PB) of 1981-82, decision dated: 14-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt. Abrar Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 65 = 1986 SLD 65 = 1986 PTD 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Act (1922) S.15 BB & Finance Ordinance (1972): Retrospective amendments made to exempt certain income from taxation under S.15 BB of the Income Tax Act were deemed ultra vires, violating constitutional principles.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Act (1922) S.15 BB & Finance Ordinance (1972): Dividends from industrial undertakings were not exempt from tax under S.15 BB, contrary to the earlier assumption.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15BB Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=279 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 6 of 1978, decision dated: 03-2-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, C, J. AND MAMOON KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Sheikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 66 = 1986 SLD 66 = 1986 PTD 441 = (1986) 54 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Act (1922) S.30 Appeal: Legal questions can be raised at any stage, including during the appeal process, even if not addressed during the assessment.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Act (1922) S.4(3) Charitable Purpose: Educational institutions can set conditions for admission. Not all applicants can be admitted, but this does not affect their status as educational institutions.\n•\n(c) Income Tax Act (1922) S.4(3) Charitable Institution: A flying club offering aeronautical training qualifies as a charitable institution, even if it charges fees, as long as profits are used to promote its educational purposes.\n•\n(d) Income Tax Act (1922) S.4(3) and Companies Act (1913): A flying club, even when deriving income from business activities, can still qualify for charitable exemptions as long as profits are reinvested into its educational goals.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,30,4(3) Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=26 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1636 to 1640 of 1979 80, decision dated: 30-06-1985, hearing DATE : 29-06-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Tahir Butt, A.C./D.R.. Waqas A. Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 67 = 1986 SLD 67 = 1986 PTCL 337 = (1986) 54 TAX 6 = 1986 PTD 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Concealment of Income – Validity of Penalty – Revised Return Filed During Proceedings\nDetails:\nThe department filed two appeals challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12-05-1985, whereby the penalty imposed under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was remitted for the tax years 1980–81 and 1981–82.\nThe assessee originally filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 61,683 for the year 1980–81, and later revised it to Rs. 74,283. Similarly, for 1981–82, he revised his return to include Rs. 12,800 of hotel income. The Income Tax Officer held that the omissions in the original returns amounted to concealment, and accordingly imposed penalty under Section 111.\nHowever, the CIT (Appeals) observed that under Section 57 of the Ordinance, the assessee was legally entitled to revise his return during the course of proceedings, and doing so did not amount to concealment attracting penalty.\nThe department argued that the words without prejudice to any liability incurred under Section 57 meant that the liability to be penalized remains even after revision of return. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) insisted that once concealment is found, penalty follows.\nHeld:\nThe appellate authority rejected the department’s argument, ruling that:\nThere is no penalty prescribed in the Ordinance merely for revising a return.\nSection 57 explicitly allows a revised return during ongoing proceedings.\nPenalizing an assessee for exercising a statutory right would defeat the purpose of that provision.\nTherefore, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed, and the remission of penalty by the CIT (Appeals) was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,57 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 46(PB) and 47(PB) of 1985 86, decision dated: 28-02-1986, hearing DATE : 5-02-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulfiqar Ali, D.R., A.C.\nNemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 68 = 1986 SLD 68 = 1986 PTD 447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n________________________________________\n(a) Self-Assessment Scheme and Plea of the Assessee: The Assessee, deriving income from salary and business, argued that their case should fall under the Self-Assessment Scheme as per Circular No. 3 of 1979. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was bound to address this plea, and the case was to be considered under the scheme.\n(b) Denial of Self-Assessment Scheme: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee’s plea for self-assessment, citing the return of income being more than 10% less than the last assessed income. The Court determined that the assessee fell under Clause 2(a) of the Circular, and the case was to be processed under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n(c) Detailed Scrutiny and Incorrect Procedure: The ITO selected the case for detailed scrutiny without involving the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or seeking approval from the Commissioner. The ITO's actions were in error, as they ignored the procedural requirements for detailed scrutiny under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(d) Self-Assessment Qualification with Increased Income: The Circular No. 18 of 1980 provided that if the total income of the assessee exceeds the highest assessed income, the case qualifies for treatment under the self-assessment scheme. The assessee’s case was found eligible for self-assessment under this rule.\n(e) Self-Assessment Scheme Applicability: The return did not fall short of the previously assessed income by more than 10%, thus qualifying the case for processing under the Self-Assessment Scheme", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 449(PB), 450(PB) and 618(PB) of 1981 82, decision dated: 24-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, M.A. M. SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Ahmad. Muhammad Khan, I.A.C., D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 69 = 1986 SLD 69 = 1986 PTD 453 = (1986) 53 TAX 165 = 1986 PTCL 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Speculative Losses under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nIn this Income Tax Reference under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1960–61, the assessee claimed losses of Rs. 21,600 and Rs. 2,600 in gram and rape seed accounts respectively, contending that these were genuine trading losses due to non-delivery of goods owing to transport difficulties. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held the transactions as speculative, within the Explanation to Section 24(1) of the Act, since they were settled otherwise than by actual delivery of goods.\nThe assessee cited prior favorable judgments (e.g., Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad and Gauri Dutt Bhagwan Das), but the Tribunal and the High Court noted that these had been overturned by the Indian Supreme Court in CIT v. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad [(1969) 71 ITR 296].\nThe Court held that the explanation to Section 24(1) unequivocally characterizes transactions settled without actual delivery as speculative, and such speculative losses, as per the first proviso to Section 24(1), cannot be set off against non-speculative business profits under Section 10.\nHeld:\nLosses in gram and rape seed accounts were speculative in nature under the Explanation to Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nSpeculative losses could not be set off against other business income under Section 10 due to the overriding effect of the first proviso to Section 24(1).\nCitations:\nCIT v. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad & CIT v. Gauri Dutt Bhagwan Das, (1969) 71 ITR 296 (SC India)\nKeshavlal Premchand v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 7\nCIT v. Kantilal Nathuchand, (1967) 63 ITR 318\nManohar Lal Munshi Lal v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 618\nCIT v. Ram Sarup, (1962) 45 ITR 248", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,24,24(1),24(2),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 41 of 1968, decision dated: 19-02-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, C.J. AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Applicant\nA.A. Dareshani", + "Party Name:": "M/s DADA SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 70 = 1986 SLD 70 = 1986 PTD 461 = (1986) 54 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)\n________________________________________\n(a) Deductions for Sale or Transfer of Assets: Deductions for buildings, machinery, or plant disposed of (sold, transferred, discarded, etc.) can be claimed under Section 10(2)(vii), and such deductions are not limited to capital gains.\n(b) Interpretation of “Discarded” Property: The term “discarded” in Section 10(2)(vii) means voluntarily cast off or rejected assets, not abandoned. The definition clarifies that only intentionally discarded property can be adjusted against its written-down value.\n(c) Abandonment of Assets: If an asset is abandoned by an assessee due to circumstances beyond their control, it does not qualify for a deduction under Section 10(2)(vii), as abandonment does not equate to discarding", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Petition No. 1167 of 1979, decision dated: 24-04-1986. dates of hearing: 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th March,1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Sheikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN SERVICES Ltd.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 71 = 1986 SLD 71 = 1986 PTD 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income Tax\n________________________________________\nBusiness Expenditure and Contingency Reserve: An electric supply company was required by statute to create a Contingencies Reserve from its revenue. The expenditure to set apart income under compulsion of law was considered part of the business income and could not be excluded or deducted from taxable income. The reserve fund was used for business purposes, but the company was not entitled to claim it as a deductible expense under Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 44 of 1979, decided oh 7-02-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajit Sengupta with Sunil Mukharjee for Revenue. Dr. D. Pal with Miss Manisha Seal and Joydev Saha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BANGAL, CALCUTTA\nvs\nMessrs SIJUA (JHARRIAH) ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 72 = 1986 SLD 72 = 1986 PTD 479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income Tax\n________________________________________\nMaintainability of Writ Petition: A writ petition challenging a notice proposing to assess income from property escaping assessment was not maintainable. The issue could be raised before the Income Tax Officer (ITO), not through a writ petition.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=226,227 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 297 of 1981, 17-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. G. SOHANI AND R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Bagadiya for Petitioner. R. C. Mukati for the Opposite-Parties", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SADHANA AGRAWAL\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, Speicial and Survey Ward, Indoor and other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 73 = 1986 SLD 73 = 1986 PTD 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax\n________________________________________\nTransfer of Asset and Indirect Gifts: The assessee’s indirect gift to his sister-in-law, which was later invested in a partnership firm, resulted in income for his wife. This income was deemed to arise from assets indirectly transferred by the assessee, making it part of the assessee’s taxable income. This was similar to precedents in 102 ITR 385 and 83 ITR 208.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 130 of 1973, decision dated: 16-02-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND KANIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Joshi with R.L. Butani for Applicant. V.J. Pandit with V.H. Patil", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, POONA\nvs\nM.K. PANDYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 74 = 1986 SLD 74 = 1986 PTD 482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax\n________________________________________\nAllowable Deduction and Nexus to Income: Expenditure must be incurred for earning income to qualify for a deduction. In this case, the assessee's interest paid on borrowed funds for both personal and business purposes was not deductible, as there was no direct nexus between the borrowing and the business income. Reference to Commissioner of Income Tax v. H.H. Maharani Vijaykuverba Saheb (1975) 100 ITR 67 (Bom.) supports the ruling.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=56 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.200 of 1973, decision dated: 14-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.D. and C.J. Thakkar for Applicant. R.J. Joshi and R.G. Deshpande", + "Party Name:": "Smt. ZUBEDA BAI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIDARBHA AND MARATHWADA, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 75 = 1986 SLD 75 = 1986 PTD 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax\n________________________________________\nInterest on Overdraft Account and Deduction: Interest on overdraft accounts used for paying advance tax cannot be disallowed if the overdraft is specifically for business purposes. Referenced cases like Reckit and Colman of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1982) and Woolcombers of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1982) support this interpretation", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 390 of 1979, decision dated: 25-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal with Miss Manisha Seal. B.K. Bagchi for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "CRESCENT DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST BENGAL III, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 76 = 1986 SLD 76 = 1986 PTD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax\n________________________________________\nInterest Charges and Validity: Interest charged by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the late submission of the return was found invalid after the case was remanded for reconsideration. The ITO failed to consider whether interest should be waived or reduced under the relevant rules.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 41 of 1981, decision dated: 18-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal with miss M. Seal with Jaydev Saha. A.C. Maitra with Ram Chandra Prosad for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax WEST BEGNAL II, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 77 = 1986 SLD 77 = 1986 PTD 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n________________________________________\n(a) S. 66A - Invalid Order and Rectification: The ITO failed to mention or deal with unexplained income from abroad in his order. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner issued a valid show-cause notice, finding that the ITO’s omission prejudiced the revenue. The provisions of Section 66A applied, and the ITO's order was deemed erroneous.\n(b) Approval in Consultation: Section 66A stipulates that the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is required, but merely consulting him is insufficient. If the ITO acted without fully disclosing facts to the Assistant Commissioner, the latter could revise the order.\n(c) Fraudulent Investment and Validity of Notice: A fraudulent attempt by the assessee to explain investments in shares through a bogus bank certificate led to a valid notice under Section 66A. The order of the ITO was found to be dishonest.\n(d) Opportunity to be Heard: Despite the assessee’s claim of not being heard before the order was declared erroneous, records indicated that the assessee had been given an opportunity to explain and inquiries were made.\n(e) No Prior Approval for Additional Income: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner’s action of adding unexplained income to the assessee’s total income under Section 13(1)(aa) was valid, even without prior approval under Section 13(2) of the Ordinance.\n(f) Prosecution for Concealment of Income: The matter of prosecution for income concealment was not addressed at this stage, as the proceedings were still ongoing and not yet finalized.\n(g) Non-Resident Tax Liability: A non-resident was held liable for tax on income accruing or arising in Pakistan during the relevant year, and unexplained amounts were taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,62,13(1)(aa),11(1)(b),119 ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 3rd November, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Tahir Butt", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 78 = 1986 SLD 78 = 1986 PTD 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Estate Duty Act (X of 1950):\n•\nPrincipal value of property: The valuation of immovable property for estate duty is based on a hypothetical estimate considering factors such as location, construction type, taxes on immovable property, and whether the property is vacant or rented. Annual letting value is not a criterion for valuation.\n•\nLiability for tax: Even if certain taxes (property or income taxes) are not fully paid, they should be included in the deceased's liability if they were due during the time of death, and the controller must accept the full claim subject to verification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=4,38 ", + "Case #": "E. D. H. No. 10 of 1981 82. decided on 12-06-1983, hearing DATE : 19-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. Khalid Mahmood, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 79 = 1986 SLD 79 = 1986 PTD 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax:\n•\nUndistributed profits: When a company pays tax on its undistributed profits, the same income cannot be taxed again when distributed to shareholders. This would lead to double taxation, which is not allowed under the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=104 ", + "Case #": "C.R.P. 129 to 131 of 1980, decision dated: 9-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan for Petitioners. Nalini Chidambaram and C.V. Rajans", + "Party Name:": "RADHAKRISHNAN and another \nvs \nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 80 = 1986 SLD 80 = 1986 PTD 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income Tax:\n•\nPenalty and criminal proceedings: Even if an assessee seeks judicial review (reference to High Court) of a decision by the Tribunal, it is not grounds to stay criminal proceedings. Any favorable findings in the reference will be considered during criminal proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=277 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 680 M of 1983, decision dated: 10-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.M. PUNCHHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "D.N. Awasthy with B.K. Jhingan for Petitioners. Ashok Bhan with A. K Mittals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TELU RAM RAUNQI RAM and another\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER A WARD, HOSHIARPUR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 81 = 1986 SLD 81 = 1986 PTD 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income Tax:\n•\nVoluntary contributions and trust income: Voluntary contributions received by a trust are not treated as income for tax purposes if they are designated as part of the trust’s corpus. Such donations are not considered income even if they are used for charity expenses, as they represent windfalls and not expected returns.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "T.C. 1177 of 1977, decision dated: 25-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAMANUJAM AND RATNAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram for Petitioner. S. V. Subramaniam for Subbaraya Iyer, Padmanabhan and Ramamani", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nShri BILLESWARA CHARITABLE TRUST, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 82 = 1986 SLD 82 = 1986 PTD 514 = (1986) 54 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax:\n•\nTrust and property transfer: When a donor executes a gift deed, the gift is only effective once it is registered under the relevant Act. Until registration, the donor remains the legal owner and is liable for tax on the income from the property.\n•\nIncome from property: The person legally owning the property (not merely receiving the income from it) is liable for tax on that income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9 ", + "Case #": "T.C. No.1646 of 1977 (Reference 1176 of 1977), decision dated: 19-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAMANUJAM AND FAKKIR MUHAMMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. V. Subramaniam for Subbaraya Iyer, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for Petitioner. J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram", + "Party Name:": "Rajah Sir M.A. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR, MADRAS\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 83 = 1986 SLD 83 = 1986 PTD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922):\n•\nCapital gains and retirement from partnership: On the retirement of a partner, the transfer of assets and liabilities is not considered a transfer that generates capital gains, as it is treated as a mutual relinquishment or release of the partner's share.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12B(1) ", + "Case #": "T.C. No.113 of 1976, decision dated: 25-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASWAMI AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Rangaswami and Nalini Chidambaram for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nN. PALANIAPPA GOUNDER (DIED) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 84 = 1986 SLD 84 = 1986 PTD 530 = (1986) 54 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income Tax Act (1922):\n•\nComputation of business income and depreciation: In computing business income, current year’s depreciation must be deducted first before any carried forward business losses can be set off. The unabsorbed depreciation cannot be given preference over current depreciation when determining the total taxable income", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1570-1571 (NT) of 1973, with Tax Reference Case No.15 of 1983, decision dated: 14-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. V.D. Tulzapurkar, Saby Asachi Mukharji and Ranganath Misra, JJ", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOMTAX, KANPUR\nvs\nMessrs MOTHER INDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (P). Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 85 = 1986 SLD 85 = 1986 PTD 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax and Criminal Proceedings\no\nCase 1: A false statement in an income tax return claiming exemptions was not subject to criminal prosecution, as no formal proceedings were initiated by the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.), and no evidence was presented in relation to the alleged false claim.\no\nCase 2: A complaint against the assessee for submitting a false affidavit to claim an exemption violated principles of natural justice due to lack of preliminary inquiry or hearing before the I.T.O. Prosecution for submitting a false affidavit in tax matters is unjustified if the assessee is given the opportunity to make voluntary declarations.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148 ", + "Case #": "C.W.P.No.1284 of 1972, decision dated: 20-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. L, JAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. Lal for Petitioner. Wazir Singhs", + "Party Name:": "S. HARNAM SINGH SURI\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 86 = 1986 SLD 86 = 1986 PTD 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Appeal Process\no\nThe I.T.O. allowed a deduction for interest, but denied other deductions. The assessee appealed for the disallowed deductions, which were partly allowed. Further appeals resulted in an order where the interest deduction wasn't contested, thus it remained open for revision by the Commissioner even if no issues were raised in the appeal about it.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "M.C.C. 142 of 1978, decision dated: 14-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. G. SOHANI AND R.K. VIJAYVARGIYA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G.M. Chaphekar. S.C. Bagadiya", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALOK PAPER INDUSTRIES\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, M.P. BHOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 87 = 1986 SLD 87 = 1986 PTD 552 = (1986) 54 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax and Litigation Expenditure\no\nCase 1: Litigation expenses incurred by an assessee to enforce a right to obtain title to land could not be treated as a revenue expenditure, as the land wasn't acquired by the assessee at the time of the litigation.\no\nCase 2: Personal insurance premiums for protecting a director’s assets unrelated to business activities are not an allowable deduction.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 275 of 1973, decision dated: 15-07-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MUNIM WITH S.J. MEHTA FOR APPLICANT. R.J, JOSHI WITH H.K. SAJNANI", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Munim with S.J. Mehta for Applicant. R.J. Joshi with H.K. Sajnani", + "Party Name:": "THE RAJASTHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 88 = 1986 SLD 88 = 1986 PTD 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act 1922 - Section 34 & 23\no\nCase 1: The Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) can reopen assessments under Section 34 if the material facts were not fully disclosed. The fact that the assessment was based on an estimate rather than a definitive determination of income doesn't bar reassessment under Section 34.\no\nCase 2: Trustees cannot be involved in reassessment for years preceding the year of a deceased's death; however, they are responsible for reassessment for the year of death.\no\nCase 3: Writ petitions filed by trustees challenging notices under Section 23(2) of the Income Tax Act are valid as the trust continues for administration until final discharge.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,34(1)(a),24B,34 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2085 of 1976, decision dated: 2-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TULPULE AND BHONSLE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.J. Thakar for Petitioners. A. Shelat", + "Party Name:": "TRUSTEES AND EXECUTORS OF THE LATE SHRI SHAMJI KHETA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 89 = 1986 SLD 89 = 1986 PTD 572 = (1986) 54 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Deduction on Machinery Costs\no\nAn amount forfeited under a bond for not meeting foreign exchange conditions cannot be added to the actual cost of machinery for depreciation purposes, as it was incurred after the machinery was installed.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 231 of 1973, decision dated: 28-06-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CNANDURKAR AND KANIO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Joshi with H.K Sajnani for Applicant. S.S. Shetty with D. Vyas and R.M. Kadam", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY IV, BOMBAY\nvs\nMessrs INTERLINK TRADERS PVT. LTD., BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 90 = 1986 SLD 90 = 1986 PTD 576 = (1986) 54 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Deduction on Testing and Certification Expenses\no\nExpenditure incurred for testing and certifying articles to meet specifications for a foreign firm is not an allowable deduction if the testing and certification took place in the country, as it doesn’t meet the business purpose requirement.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 53 of 1979 In Miscellaneous Petition No.1963 of 1978, decision dated: 4-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND LENTIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.J. Mehta with S.P. Mehta and I.M. Munim. R.J. Joshi with S. V. Naik and L. K. Chatterjees", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SEARLE (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 91 = 1986 SLD 91 = 1986 PTD 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act 1922 - Section 4(2F) and Section 34\no\nCase 1: The I.T.O. was not justified in making additions without prior written approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.), as this approval is necessary.\no\nCase 2: The approval of the I.A.C. need not be in writing for additions to be valid, as the act of the I.A.C. endorsing the draft order suffices.\no\nCase 3: The requirement of I.A.C.'s approval is satisfied if the I.A.C. approves the draft order in writing. Oral approval is insufficient, and a written endorsement is required to fulfill legal requirements for tax assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2F),334,34 ", + "Case #": "I . T . A . No. 213 of 1978-79, decision dated: 29-04-1986, hearing DATE . 28-04-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KARIM, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Younas Paracha. Ashfaq Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 92 = 1986 SLD 92 = 1986 PTCL 35 = (1986) 54 TAX 4 = 1986 PTD 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Proceedings Under Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails: Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Despite the assessment being completed in 1974, these penalty proceedings remained pending until 1984, raising concerns about the unjustified delay. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) Circular No. 10 of 1977 emphasizes the need for finalizing penalty proceedings within a reasonable time frame to ensure procedural fairness and maintain public confidence in the tax system. Prolonged delays without justification undermine the credibility of the tax administration and potentially infringe on taxpayers' rights.\nHeld: The court held that there was no justification for keeping the penalty proceedings pending for such a long period. Penalty proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure effective enforcement of tax laws.\nCitations: (1977) 35 Tax 26; CBR Circular No. 10 of 1977.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "vI.T.As. Nos. 3222 LB and 3223/LB of 1984 85, decision dated: 20-04-1986, hearing DATE : 26-02-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL. MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Ali Ranjha A.U. Malik", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 93 = 1986 SLD 93 = 1986 PTCL 35 = 1986 PTD 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Validity of Notices and Ex Parte Assessments Under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nDetails:\n(a) Improper Service of Notices: Notices under Sections 56 and 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, were simultaneously served on the assessee on 25-4-1984, requiring compliance by 29-4-1984. This provided only four days for compliance, which was deemed insufficient and unreasonable. Section 56 mandates that the Income-tax Officer must allow a reasonable period for the assessee to file their return of income, and only upon failure to comply can a notice under Section 61 be issued. In this case, the simultaneous issuance denied the assessee a fair opportunity to respond.\n(b) Curtailing Compliance Period: Under Section 56, a standard compliance period of 30 days is stipulated unless the Income-tax Officer records reasons for allowing a shorter or longer period. The Officer failed to document any such reasons for curtailing the compliance period in this instance.\nHeld:\n(a) The court found the simultaneous issuance of notices improper and emphasized that a reasonable opportunity must be granted to comply with the requirements of each notice. Consequently, the ex parte assessment made on the basis of these notices was deemed legally invalid.\n(b) The failure to record reasons for curtailing the compliance period rendered the assessment under Section 63 unlawful. The Officer must comply with procedural requirements to ensure validity.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Sections 56, 61, 63).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61,63 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.322 (IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 15-04-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND AMJAD ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed A. Qureshi. Ihsan Ellahi Tariq D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 94 = 1986 SLD 94 = 1986 PTD 597", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Lump Sum Additions in Trading Results and Capital Asset Classification\nDetails:\n(a) Lump Sum Additions: The assessee, engaged in mining silica, did not maintain proper account books. The Income-tax Officer made lump sum additions to the trading results, applying a higher gross profit rate than declared by the assessee. However, the Officer failed to cite any comparable cases or rational criteria for these additions. Additionally, no independent inquiries were made to ascertain the extent of the business or to collect data from the Industries Department regarding the mine's production capacity, lease details, and market conditions. The court found that the mere history of account rejection could not justify such arbitrary additions without substantive evidence.\n(b) Capital Asset or Trade Transaction: The mining lease transfer was scrutinized under Section 2(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which defines a capital asset. The lease was transferred to another concern for a lump sum payment. The court evaluated whether this constituted a capital asset exempt from tax under Clause (79) of the Second Schedule or an adventure in trade. It was found that the assessee regularly engaged in similar transactions, indicating a trade activity rather than a mere capital gain.\nHeld:\n(a) The court directed the Income-tax Officer to carry out proper inquiries and provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain their position. Arbitrary lump sum additions without a rational basis were deemed invalid.\n(b) The transfer of the mining lease was held to be an adventure in the nature of trade, and the lump sum consideration received was taxable. The court relied on precedents to conclude that the transfer was motivated by profit intentions and constituted a taxable event.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Sections 2(12), 27); Second Schedule (Clause 79); General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 3(25)); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 105); Stamp Act, 1899 (Section 2(16)); 1985 PTD (Trib.) 267; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Christian Mica Industries Limited (1977) 36 Tax 292.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,2(12),27,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 270(I B) of 1983 84, decision dated: 30-04-1986, hearing DATE : 17-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Latif. Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 95 = 1986 SLD 95 = 1986 PTD 607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Assets and Taxability of Profits Under Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\n(a) Transaction in Nature of Trade: A company sold mining funds, plants, and machinery to its 100% subsidiary. The sale resulted in profits exceeding the written-down value of the assets, but not exceeding their original cost. Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, provides that such profits from the sale are taxable as income if the transaction is in the nature of trade.\n(b) Admission by Counsel: The court highlighted that admissions made by counsel are substantive evidence against their clients, emphasizing the importance of arguments and evidence presented during proceedings.\nHeld:\n(a) The sale of the mining assets was considered a venture in the nature of trade, and the profits were held to be taxable under Section 10(2)(vii).\n(b) The Tribunal was directed to consider all relevant facts and circumstances on record to ascertain the true character of the transaction. Ignoring material evidence constituted a misdirection in law.\nCitations: (1958) 34 ITR 336 (Bom.); (1963) 47 ITR 565 (Cal.); (1969) 72 ITR 603 (SC); (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.153 of 1968, decision dated: 4-07-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DEB AND PYNE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Sen for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), CALCUTTA\nvs\nCHRESTIAN MICA INDUSTRIES Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 96 = 1986 SLD 96 = 1986 PTD 618 = (1986) 54 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Remand of Case for Fresh Assessment by Tribunal\nDetails: The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.) and remanded the case to the Income-tax Officer for fresh assessment. This decision was based on the finding that the financial position of exempt and non-exempt activities could not be clearly determined from the accounts. The Tribunal concluded that reassessment was necessary to resolve these ambiguities and ensure that the assessee's claims were appropriately evaluated.\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment, as the unclear financial position necessitated further examination. This ensured compliance with procedural requirements and accurate determination of tax liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 444 of 1980, decision dated: 19-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. P. SINGH AND K.K. ADHIKARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.S. Kale for Petitioner. B.K. Rawalfor Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SARVAJANIK SEWA SAMAJ, KAPA, RAIPUR M.P\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, JABBALPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 97 = 1986 SLD 97 = 1986 PTD 619 = (1986) 54 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Assessment Without Approval Under Section 52(2) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\nDetails: The Income-tax Officer omitted to seek approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while estimating the valuation of transferred property under Section 52(2). The Commissioner sought to revise the assessment order on this ground. However, the court emphasized that such omission did not prejudice the revenue unless the assessee contested it on appeal. The appellate authority, if necessary, could remand the case for compliance with procedural requirements.\nHeld: The omission to obtain approval under Section 52(2) did not render the assessment invalid or prejudicial to revenue interests. The Commissioner had no authority to revise the assessment on this basis.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 52(2)).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=52 ", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 357 of 1979, decision dated: 30-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. P. SINGH, C .J. AND B. C. VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat, Standing Counsel, for the Department. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax M.P.II., BHOPAL\nvs\nSmt. CHANDRA PRABHA PATERIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 98 = 1986 SLD 98 = 1986 PTD 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability of Trustees as Representative Assessees\nDetails: Sections 160 and 161 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, define the role and extent of liability for trustees as representative assessees. A trustee can only be assessed in respect of income meant for the beneficiary they represent, and the liability must be equivalent to what could be recovered from the beneficiary. The Department cannot assess the trustee personally unless it directly assesses the beneficiary.\nHeld: The assessment must be limited to the income attributable to the beneficiary's entitlement. The trust cannot be assessed as an Association of Persons. The court relied on various precedents to affirm this principle.\nCitations: (1982) 138 ITR 808 (Ker.); (1978) 112 ITR 652; (1977) 108 ITR 555; (1966) 59 ITR 758.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=160,161 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 3 of 1981, decision dated: 13-07-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G.L. OXA AND K.K. ADHIKARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat for Applicant. Y.S. Dharmadhikari", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABBALPUR\nvs\nMessrs KARELAL KUNDANLAL TRUST SAGAR, SAGAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 99 = 1986 SLD 99 = 1986 PTD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Reassessment\nHeld: For reassessment under Section 147 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) must clearly state the facts constituting non-disclosure by the assessee in the reasons recorded for reassessment. The Commissioner must independently verify these reasons and form a satisfaction before granting approval for reassessment under Section 151(2). If the ITO fails to adequately indicate non-disclosure of material facts, the reassessment notice is invalid.\nCase Illustration:\nWhere an ITO alleged non-disclosure of profit from machinery sales and improper claims under Section 80-I without substantiating the non-disclosure of facts, the reassessment notice under Section 148 was deemed invalid.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 41(2), 80-I, 147, 148, 151(2).\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax - Non-Disclosure\nHeld: Non-disclosure includes failure to disclose facts that materially affect the assessment. For instance, if an assessee claims normal depreciation without revealing that initial depreciation already availed exceeds statutory limits, it constitutes non-disclosure.\nCitations: AIR 1959 SC 881 distinguished; 1975 Tax LR 940 dissented.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax - Notice Validity\nHeld: A reassessment notice is valid if based on an affidavit where the assessee claimed disputed amounts as their own. Failure to include such amounts in assessable income reflects non-disclosure.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147, 148.\n________________________________________\n(d) Income Tax - Development Rebate\nHeld: Development rebate under Section 33 is granted for the year of machinery installation. It cannot be revised in subsequent years due to currency devaluation. A notice to reopen assessment based on such grounds is invalid.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 33, 43-A(2).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=151 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 6247, 6248, 6275 and 6276 of 1979, decision dated: 16-07-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MADHAVA RAO AND, JEEVAN REDDY, T.T", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Parvatha Rao for Petitioner (in all Petitions). M. Suryanarayana Murthy for the Income-tax Department (in all Petitions)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs K.C.P. Ltd\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-3 and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 100 = 1986 SLD 100 = 1986 PTD 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Reference of Question of Law\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding that no interest accrued is upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal cannot be directed to refer the same question to the High Court for earlier assessment years.\n________________________________________\n(b) Business Income - Deduction of Expenses\nHeld: Expenses and Managing Agency Commissions are questions of law, and the Tribunal can be directed to refer them to the High Court.\n________________________________________\n(c) Business Income - Sales Tax Deduction\nHeld: Deduction of sales tax for earlier assessment years in a subsequent year raises a question of law and can be referred to the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 167 of 1975, decision dated: 9-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. KAPUR AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Wazir Singh with P.N. Misra for Petitioner. F.S. Nariman with N.R. Khaitan, A.T. Patra and Miss Dina Gupta", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI\nvs\nMessrs DALMIA CEMENT Ltd., NEW DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 101 = 1986 SLD 101 = 1986 PTD 653 = (1986) 54 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Genuineness of Debit Entry\nHeld: On finding a debit entry genuine, no question of law arises. The Tribunal's conclusion that excess price credited to a company by an assessee under dispute was not income is final.\nCitations: Findings of the Tribunal upheld, no further reference allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 94 of 1973, decision dated: 15-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PRAKASH NARAIN, C, J. AND S. S. CHADHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G.C. Lalwani, for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax DELHI II, NEW DELHI\nvs\nSHRI NETAR KRISHANA SAHGAS Pvt. Ltd., NEW DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 102 = 1986 SLD 102 = 1986 PTD 656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue or Capital Expenditure\nHeld: Payments made for consultancy services under a collaboration agreement are revenue expenditure. These payments are unrelated to capital investment like plant and machinery. Payments based on gross production do not constitute capital expenditure.\nCitations: 124 ITR 1, 102 ITR 665, 69 ITR 692.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 774 and 775 of 1976, decision dated: 17-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAMASWAMI AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for Petitioner. S. P. Mehta assisted by S.V. Subramaniam", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADRAS\nvs\nMessrs MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LIMITED, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 103 = 1986 SLD 103 = 1986 PTD 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Assessment - Status of Assessee\nHeld: An assessee can change their claimed status during or after assessment proceedings (e.g., from Body of Individuals to Individual ).\n________________________________________\n(b) Status - Body of Individuals\nHeld: Income from joint property managed by an authorized individual cannot be assessed as that of a Body of Individuals. The individual members should be assessed separately.\nCitations: 121 ITR 985 (Ker.), AIR 1973 SC 1461, 106 ITR 111 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "I. T. R Nos.103 and 104 of 1978, decision dated: 30-8-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P SUBRAMONIAN POTI, C.J. AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. K.P. Radhakrishana Menon, Mr K.K. Ravindranath, P.G.P. Panicker and V. Bhaskara Menon", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nA.P. PARUKUTTY MOOPILAMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 104 = 1986 SLD 104 = 1986 PTD 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Revised Returns and Penalty\n•\nDetails: Filing a revised return voluntarily does not automatically exempt the assessee from penalty liability. The intention behind the original return and subsequent conduct are crucial in determining concealment.\n•\nHeld: Mere voluntary filing of a revised return cannot exonerate the assessee from penalty for income concealment under relevant provisions.\n•\nCitations: (1981) 129 ITR 703 (Delhi) dissented from; (1981) 127 ITR 601 (Pat.) distinguished.\n(b) Income Tax – Penalty Computation\n•\nDetails: Penalty was computed based on actual income of Rs. 14,242 instead of declared income of Rs. 6,000.\n•\nHeld: Penalty should align with actual assessed income, not the declared income.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148 ", + "Case #": "I . T. Rs. Nos. 154 and 155 of 1979, decision dated: 19-07-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUBRAMONIAN POTI, C, J. AND SUKUMARAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for Petitioner. G. Sivarajan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM\nvs\nK. MAHIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 105 = 1986 SLD 105 = 1986 PTD 690", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax---Revision by Commissioner--Opportunity to assessee--Partial partition between M. the assessee, his wife and minor daughter accepted by I.-T.O.--Revision--Held, Commissioner was correct in disposing of revision after giving notice only to M. the assessee in question.\n \nWhere the Income-tax Officer accepted the assessee's claim of partial partition between the members of a Hindu undivided family M. the assessee, his wife and a minor daughter and finalised the assessment, the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his powers was correct in disposing of the revision after giving notice only to M, the assessee as he was the only person entitled to the family properties and the income accruing to him on all the family properties was exigible to tax. There was no need for him, in the circumstances, to have issued a notice to his wife and daughter as well as no income can be said to have accurd to them on the family properties allotted to them under an invalid partititon.\n \n(1960) 39 I T R 394 (Andh. Pra.) distinguished.\n \n(b) Income-tax--\n \n---Reference--Question of law neither raised before Tribunal nor considered by it--It will not be a question arising out of its order though it may arise on findings given, by it--High Court may decline to answer such question.\n \nIt is now well-settled that the High Court may decline to answer such question that does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.\n \nA I R 1968 S C 779 rel.\n \nWhen a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, it will not be a question arising out its order notwithstanding that it may arise on the finding given by it. Stating the position compendiously, it is only a question that has been raised before or decided by the Tribunal that could be held to arise out of its order.\nA I R 1961 S C 1633 fol.\n \nWhere the order of the Addl. Commissioner, in revision against the order of I.-T.O. accepting partial partition between M. the assessee, his wife and adopted minor daughter, itself makes it clear that the notice was issued by him only to the assessee and not to either his wife or adopted daughter which fact is also apparent from the order of the Tribunal and from the statement of case prepared by the Tribunal in making the reference but this point was not, however, specifically raised before the Additional Commissioner or before the Tribunal. The validity or otherwise of the orders of the Additional Commissioner passed without giving a notice to either the wife or the daughter is not a question of law which arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The High Court declined to answer the reference.\n \n(1980) 123 I T R 281; I T R 750; 42 I T R 589; I L R (1959) Andh. Pra. 1038 and 16 I.-T.O. 227.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=171 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 71 of 1977, decision dated: 9-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHENNAKESAV REDDI AND P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Dasaratha Rama Reddy, for C. Trivikrama Rao and D.V.H. Prasad for Applicant. M. Suryanarayana Murthy", + "Party Name:": "BORDIANDAU MADANMOHAN RAO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, A.P.III, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 195 = 1989 SLD 195 = 1989 PTD 698 = (1986) 54 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Delay in Filing Appeal\n•\nDetails: A delay of 520 days in filing an appeal due to a misconceived rectification application was not condoned.\n•\nHeld: Appeal dismissed due to inordinate delay.\n•\nCitations: AIR 1970 SC 1953 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 3 of 1974, decision dated: 13-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.D. and C.J. Thakkar for Applicant. R.J. Joshi and R.G. Deshpande", + "Party Name:": "RAJU\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 106 = 1986 SLD 106 = 1986 PTD 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Accrued Income and Compensation\n•\nDetails: Compensation disputed by the landlord and not yet finalized by the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be treated as accrued income.\n•\nHeld: Assessee's compensation amount was not assessable until determination.\n•\nCitations: (1980) 122 ITR 21; (1976) 105 ITR 721 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.514 of 1974, decision dated: 5th July,1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.K. Chakravorty led by S.K. Mitra for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL V, CALCUTTA\nvs\nMessrs HERCULES TRADING CORPORATION, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 107 = 1986 SLD 107 = 1986 PTD 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Replantation Expenditure\n•\nDetails: Expenditure for replantation of abandoned tea plantation was not allowed as revenue expenditure.\n•\nHeld: Development allowance permitted; replantation expense disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.51 of 1978, decision dated: 30-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.N. Banerjee for the Assessee. S.K. Maha for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "DEBPARA TEA CO. LTD., JALPAIGURI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL XIII, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 108 = 1986 SLD 108 = 1986 PTD 704 = (1986) 54 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Gratuity Provisions\n•\nDetails: Deduction claimed for gratuity liability without provisioning was disallowed.\n•\nHeld: Section 40A(7) prohibits deductions for unprovisioned gratuity liabilities.\n•\nCitations: Section 40A(7), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(b) Income Tax – Appeals\n•\nDetails: Question of interest waivers in appeals should not be dismissed in limine.\n•\nHeld: AAC erred in summary dismissal of appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40,40A(7),256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.646 of 1979, decision dated: 9-03-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, ACTG. C.J. AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A.N. Bhattacharji for the Revenue. R.N. Bajoria with S.K. Bagaria for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL V, CULCUTTA\nvs\nMessrs NEW SWADESHI MILLS OF AHMEDABAD LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 109 = 1986 SLD 109 = 1986 PTD 718 = (1986) 54 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\n•\nDetails: Expenditure on demolition and reconstruction for leased property deemed revenue expenditure due to recurring business advantage.\n•\nHeld: Expenditure classified as revenue.\n•\nCitations: 124 ITR 1; (1977) 109 ITR 714.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos.1561 and 1562 of 1977, decision dated: 9-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND PADMANABHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for Applicant. S. Swamination", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nMessrs MADRAS AUTO SERVICE PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 110 = 1986 SLD 110 = 1986 PTD 725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Rectification of Order\n•\nDetails: Relief granted under Section 80T was rectified due to a mistake apparent on record.\n•\nHeld: Rectification under Section 154 justified; Section 67(2) inapplicable.\n•\nCitations: (1981) 127 ITR 175; 82 ITR 50.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=35,62,67,67(2),80T,154 Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5(1)(viii) ", + "Case #": "T.C.No.1366 of 1977 Reference No. 951 of 1977, decision dated: 7-02-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAMANUJAM AND SHANMUKHAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. V. Subramaniam Ayer Padmanbhan and Ramamani for Petitioner. J. Jayaramanna. Nalini Chidambaram", + "Party Name:": "T. MANICKAVASAGAM CHETTIAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 111 = 1986 SLD 111 = 1986 PTD 730", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLoss on account of devaluation as an allowable deduction under Income Tax.\n•\nDetails: The assessee, a branch of a foreign company in the U.S., incurred additional rupee expenses due to currency devaluation to reimburse its head office in dollars. The head office charged the branch for overheads, including work like designs and drawings.\n•\nHeld: The extra rupee payment due to devaluation was an allowable business loss deduction under the mercantile system of accounting.\n•\nCitations: 137 I.T.R. 310 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 55 of 1974, decision dated: 25th August,1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DESAI AND BHARUCHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Joshi with H. K. Sajnani for Applicant. V.H. Patil with S.J. Mehta, I.M. Munim and Mrs. A.H. Vissinji", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II\nvs\nMessrs VITRO ENGINEERING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 112 = 1986 SLD 112 = 1986 PTD 735 = (1986) 54 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTaxation of interest income from loans under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nDetails: Various rulings on whether loans advanced prior to specific dates or used for business/professional purposes fell under Section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLoans outstanding in the relevant income year could fall under Section 12(7).\no\nDeemed interest on loans before specific dates (e.g., July 1, 1976) was not retroactively applicable.\no\nIncome from interest on securities was treated differently from business/professional income under the ordinance.\n•\nCitations: Multiple cases referenced, including A.N. Luxman Shenoy v. I.T.O. and Chloride India Ltd. v. C.I.T.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(7),17,22 Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1), ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 120/KB of 1983 84, decision dated: 9-08-1986, hearing DATE : 6-08-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND MANZUR UL HAQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. G. M. Gangat, C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 113 = 1986 SLD 113 = 1986 PTD 741 = (1986) 54 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRegular assessment and reassessment under the Income Tax Acts.\n•\nDetails: Various aspects of regular assessments and reassessments, including definitions, procedures, and limitations for levying additional tax.\n•\nHeld:\no\nRegular assessments distinguished from provisional assessments.\no\nLimitation periods for additional assessments were tied to the date of revised assessments, not original ones.\no\nOrders based on appellate directions were regular assessment orders.\n•\nCitations: Cases cited include Chloride India Ltd. v. C.I.T. and Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment v. I.T.O.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(7),18A(7)(b),23,31,18A,35 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No.1662/KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 27-07-1986, hearing DATE : 14-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, AND GHULAM SADIQ MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ather Saeed Khan, D.R.. Boli Farekh, C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 114 = 1986 SLD 114 = 1986 PTD 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAssessment in cases of defaulting assessees.\n•\nDetails: The Income Tax Officer must base assessments on relevant gathered materials, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to explain and be heard.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessments must be quasi-judicial and based on materials gathered with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.\no\nOrders made without such opportunities were quashed and cases remanded.\n•\nCitations: Koyammankuty v. Fourth Addl. I.T.O. (1965) 58 I.T.R. 871 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=144 ", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 2057 of 1971, decision dated: 24-07-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. U. ISSAC, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Sukumaran, K.K. Usha and M.K. Ramadevi. P.A. Francis", + "Party Name:": "T.C.N. MENON\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 115 = 1986 SLD 115 = 1986 PTD 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReassessment and the validity of notices under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nDetails: Notices for reassessment served beyond the prescribed period were challenged as void.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSuch notices were deemed void and without jurisdiction.\no\nWords like served and issued were used interchangeably, not affecting the legislative intent.\n•\nCitations: Banarsi Debi v. I.T.O. (1964) 53 I.T.R. 100 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,36 Income Tax Act, 1961=147,148,149,34 ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 631 of 1970, decision dated: 20-08-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B, J. DIVAN, C, J. AND B. K. MEHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Jashbhai C. Patel for Petitioner. K.H. Kaji with G.G. Mehta", + "Party Name:": "SHANABHAI PATEL\nvs\nR. K. UPADHYAYA Income Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 116 = 1986 SLD 116 = 1986 PTD 761 = (1985) 52 TAX 23 = 1985 PTCL 491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowability of Ex-Gratia Payment as Revenue Expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi), Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nMessrs CIBA (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi, had appointed Messrs Eastern Pharmaceutical Distributors as their distributors across Pakistan via an agreement dated 07-09-1951. A revised agreement dated 22-08-1961 restricted this distributorship to only the southern part of West Pakistan. The distributors resisted this change and raised a counter-claim of Rs. 3,53,000, alleging underpayment of commissions. Ultimately, a compromise was reached, and CIBA paid Rs. 1,00,000 as an ex gratia payment to settle the matter and preserve mutual goodwill.\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,00,000, treating it as non-deductible. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction, viewing it as a payment made out of commercial expediency and for the benefit of the assessee's business operations. The Tribunal held that the payment was made solely for business purposes and did not result in any enduring advantage, thus qualifying it as revenue expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax referred the matter to the High Court for opinion.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and held that:\nAlthough described as an ex gratia payment, the Rs. 1,00,000 was in reality made to avoid a larger counter-claim and to ensure smooth business operations after reducing the distributor’s territorial rights.\nThe payment was not for acquiring a capital asset or enduring benefit but was made for commercial expediency and in the interest of business continuity.\nThus, it was a revenue expenditure allowable under Section 10(2)(xvi).\nQuestion was answered in the affirmative.\nCitations:\n1978 PTD 191 (Relied upon for precedent)\nCommissioner of Income Tax Reference regarding CIBA (Pakistan) Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 558 of 1972, decision dated: 10-04-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant\nA.A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "CIBA (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 117 = 1986 SLD 117 = 1986 PTD 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPartnership firms and registration under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nDetails: Legal implications of partnership deeds, benami transactions, and firm registration for tax purposes.\n•\nHeld:\no\nPartnerships formed with ulterior motives to reduce tax liability could still be valid if legal.\no\nRegistrations could be denied if the partnership was found to be a sham.\no\nTribunals could assess genuineness based on evidence.\n•\nCitations: Multiple cases, including R.C. Mitter & Sons v. C.I.T. and K.D. Kamath & Co. v. C.I.T.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 59 of 1967, decision dated: 28-03-1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MASUD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B.L. Pal with S C Sen for the Commissioner. Dr. D. Pal with R.N. Dutt for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL II\nvs\nHIND COMMERCIAL COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 4 = 1985 SLD 4 = 1985 PTCL 266 = 1986 PTD 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRegistration of firms and genuineness of partners.\n•\nDetails: Discrepancies in partner statements led to challenges on the firm’s registration.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDiscrepancies did not invalidate the existence of the firm as an association of persons.\no\nThe refusal to grant registration was deemed unjustified as technical grounds for rejection were not established.\n•\nCitations: None specifically noted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 3309/LB of 1982-83, decision dated: 16-11-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj Khalid. Akhtar Nazar, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 5 = 1985 SLD 5 = 1985 PTCL 511 = 1986 PTD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Assessment Proceedings under Section 56 vs. Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979\nDetails:\nThe cases involve two different assessees for multiple assessment years ranging from 1976-77 to 1981-82. In both cases, assessments were initiated by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) following allegations or discovery that the assessees were deriving taxable income but not filing tax returns.\nCase 1: Assessee operating in a posh commercial area\nA spot inspection on 11-7-1982 revealed lucrative business involving sale of soft drinks, cigarettes, and pan.\nITO estimated substantial daily sales and issued notices under Section 56 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nAssessee filed nil or low-income returns.\nITO assessed income ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 28,000 for the years 1976-77 to 1981-82.\nThe Authorized Representative (AR) argued that assessments for pre-1979 years (1976-77 to 1978-79) were invalid under Section 56 and should have been initiated under Section 65 due to the savings clause in Section 166(2)(c)(ii).\nCase 2: Contractor Assessee (Labour and Civil Contractor)\nA complaint was received on 22-2-1982; notice under Section 56 was issued on 28-2-1982.\nRealizing the limitation, the ITO subsequently issued notice under Section 65 on 4-3-1982 for all years.\nThe assessee declared modest income, but due to evidence of high living expenses, the ITO estimated significantly higher income (up to Rs. 55,000 for earlier years, and Rs. 38,750 for 1981-82).\nAR challenged the validity of the Section 65 notice, arguing it was vitiated by the earlier Section 56 notice.\nHeld:\nCase 1:\nThe Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 1979-80, assessments made under Section 56 were invalid.\nThe correct provision was Section 65, as clarified under the savings clause in Section 166(2)(c)(ii).\nThus, assessments for AYs 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79 were annulled as ab initio void.\nFor AYs 1979-80 to 1981-82, assessments were upheld as legally valid, based on proper estimation and legal provisions.\nCase 2:\nThe Tribunal upheld the use of Section 65, stating that the ITO was legally empowered to issue such notice after discovering that income had escaped assessment.\nThe initial Section 56 notice did not vitiate the legality of the later Section 65 notice.\nEstimates for the first four years were slightly reduced based on the family’s size and evidence from the assessee’s mother-in-law about agricultural support.\nIncome for AY 1981-82 was upheld.\nCitations:\nNazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253]: On procedural requirements under law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(1),56,65,166(2)(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 2661-L.B., 2662-L.B., 2663-L.B., 2664-L.B and 2665 L B. of 1984-85, decision dated: 31st August, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajud Din Khalid\nJaved Tariq Butt, AC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 118 = 1986 SLD 118 = 1986 PTD 779 = (1964) 9 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of Agreement on Assessment\nDetails:\nThe ITO discovered defects in the assessee’s accounts and obtained a written agreement on income figures. The assessee later challenged the agreement and assessment on grounds of excessive turnover and profit estimates.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe agreement was binding as it was entered into without fraud or coercion.\n2.\nAssessees cannot later contest agreed figures.\n3.\nITO’s actions adhered to justice and equity principles.\nCitations:\n•\nGanga Ram Balmokand v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1937 ITR 464", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income--tax Appeals Nos. 1008, 1009 and 1010 of 1960-61", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NUR ELAHI AND M. T. SIDDIQUI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Abbasi. S.H. Suleman DR,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 119 = 1986 SLD 119 = 1986 PTD 784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Cases and Jurisdiction under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979\nDetails:\nProvisions under Section 5(1)(b) authorized the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) and Regional Commissioners to transfer cases between appellate authorities. An Appellate Assistant Commissioner contested the legality of these provisions.\nHeld:\n1.\nCBR has the authority to confer and transfer jurisdiction.\n2.\nProvisions under Section 5(1)(b) are valid and not ultra vires.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 5(1), proviso", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(b), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1845/LB and 1846/LB/1 of 1984-85, decision dated: 31st July, 1985, hearing DATE : 12-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Arshad Pervez, AC/DR. Zia Rizvi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 120 = 1986 SLD 120 = 1986 PTD 793 = (1986) 54 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Concealed Income\nDetails:\nThe ITO initiated proceedings under Section 65 for concealed income despite self-assessment immunity. Assessee contested the notice's validity and penalty imposition.\nHeld:\n1.\nImmunity under the self-assessment scheme does not override Section 65 provisions.\n2.\nNotices were valid, and time curtailments did not prejudice the assessee.\n3.\nBurden of proof for cash credits lies with the assessee.\n4.\nPenalty for concealed income upheld.\nCitations:\n•\n1958 34 ITR 807 (SC)\n•\n1973 PTD 124\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 65, 111", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65, ", + "Case #": "I . T . As. Nos. 1918/ KB of 1983-84 and 702/ KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 7-10-1985, hearing DATE : 10-07-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nasim. Muhammad Farid, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 121 = 1986 SLD 121 = 1986 PTD 805 = (1986) 54 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act and Interpretation of Statutes\nDetails:\nThe case primarily discusses various provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922, particularly Section 4(1) and Explanation 8, as well as related provisions in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal and tax authorities' limitations in adjudicating constitutional validity or vires of statutory provisions are highlighted. Key principles of statutory interpretation are applied to the retrospective and prospective applicability of laws and the treatment of loans as income under certain conditions. It also explores the meaning of the term Explanation within statutory provisions and the implications of charging sections.\nHeld:\n1.\nJurisdiction of Tax Authorities: Tax authorities, being creations of the Act, cannot rule on the constitutional validity of its provisions.\n2.\nExplanation as a Charging Provision: Explanation 8 under Section 4(1) is deemed a substantive charging provision but applies prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.\n3.\nRetrospective Laws: Retrospective application of taxing provisions is not presumed and requires clear legislative intent.\n4.\nInterpretation of ‘Loan’ and ‘Deemed Income’: Loans carried forward from previous years and not written off are subject to interest as deemed income under Explanation 8.\n5.\nTaxpayer Protection: In cases of ambiguity, interpretations favoring the taxpayer should prevail.\nCitations:\n•\nJurisdiction of Tax Authorities: PLD 1966 SC 854; (1965) 57 ITR 149; 1985 PTD 235.\n•\nRetrospective Laws and Explanation 8: CIT v. Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd. 67 ITR 102 (SC); CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines 20 ITR 572.\n•\nInterpretation of Statutes: State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerlay Co. AIR 1958 SC 560; Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. AIR 1933 PC 63; CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons 1966, 60 ITR 392.\n•\nTaxpayer Protection: CIT v. National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 533; CIT v. The Hindu 1950 ITR 237.\n•\nProspective Application of Law: Messrs Cochin Co. v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 822; Tarulata Syam v. CIT AIR 1977 SC 1803.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,4(1),l0(2)(xi) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133,12(7) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 818/KB of 1979-80 and 14 others, 429/KB of 3981-82 and 16 others, decision dated: 19-12-1985, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Dareshanifor the Department. Muhammad Farid, D.R., Amin-E-Ajam, D.R. and Arshad Pervez, D.R. Ali Athar, Sirajul Haq, I.N. Pasha, Shaban, Ayub Lambot and Ebrahim, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 122 = 1986 SLD 122 = 1986 PTD 828 = (1986) 54 TAX 40 = 1987 PTCL 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act and Interpretation of Statutes\nDetails:\nThe case primarily discusses various provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922, particularly Section 4(1) and Explanation 8, as well as related provisions in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal and tax authorities' limitations in adjudicating constitutional validity or vires of statutory provisions are highlighted. Key principles of statutory interpretation are applied to the retrospective and prospective applicability of laws and the treatment of loans as income under certain conditions. It also explores the meaning of the term Explanation within statutory provisions and the implications of charging sections.\nHeld:\n1.\nJurisdiction of Tax Authorities: Tax authorities, being creations of the Act, cannot rule on the constitutional validity of its provisions.\n2.\nExplanation as a Charging Provision: Explanation 8 under Section 4(1) is deemed a substantive charging provision but applies prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.\n3.\nRetrospective Laws: Retrospective application of taxing provisions is not presumed and requires clear legislative intent.\n4.\nInterpretation of ‘Loan’ and ‘Deemed Income’: Loans carried forward from previous years and not written off are subject to interest as deemed income under Explanation 8.\n5.\nTaxpayer Protection: In cases of ambiguity, interpretations favoring the taxpayer should prevail.\nCitations:\n•\nJurisdiction of Tax Authorities: PLD 1966 SC 854; (1965) 57 ITR 149; 1985 PTD 235.\n•\nRetrospective Laws and Explanation 8: CIT v. Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd. 67 ITR 102 (SC); CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines 20 ITR 572.\n•\nInterpretation of Statutes: State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerlay Co. AIR 1958 SC 560; Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. AIR 1933 PC 63; CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons 1966, 60 ITR 392.\n•\nTaxpayer Protection: CIT v. National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 533; CIT v. The Hindu 1950 ITR 237.\n•\nProspective Application of Law: Messrs Cochin Co. v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 822; Tarulata Syam v. CIT AIR 1977 SC 1803.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 461/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 10th February,1986, hearing DATE : 24-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Muhammad Farid D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 123 = 1986 SLD 123 = 1986 PTD 831 = (1986) 54 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax Act and Market Value Assessment\nDetails:\n1.\nGift-Tax Officer's valuation influenced by alleged practices of understating sale prices.\n2.\nPresumption of honest performance by public officers unless proven otherwise.\n3.\nExcessive valuation by Gift-Tax Officer deemed arbitrary and adjusted by appellate authorities.\nHeld:\n1.\nMisstatements about notorious practices without evidence are misdirection.\n2.\nPublic officials presumed to act honestly in absence of contrary evidence.\n3.\nArbitrary valuations corrected based on property conditions and available evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nEvidence Act, 1872, Section 114.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=15,15(3), Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=114 ", + "Case #": "G.T.A. No. 6/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 26-02-1986, hearing DATE : 24-02-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Sultan Ahmed, I.T.P.. Amin-e-Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 124 = 1986 SLD 124 = 1986 PTD 834 = (1987) 55 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Reopening of Assessments\nDetails:\n1.\nIncome-Tax Officer withheld refunds subject to appeal outcomes with necessary approvals.\n2.\nReopening of assessments done with prior approval and within lawful timelines.\nHeld:\n1.\nActions in withholding refunds and issuing notices were valid and lawful.\n2.\nReopening assessments conformed to statutory requirements.\nCitations:\n•\nBurhan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. IT Officer Circle 11, 1985 PTD 465.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=103,65,99 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-337 of 1985, decision dated: 17-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND ABDUR QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mazharul Hassan for Petitioner. Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs STEEL SALES\nvs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOUTHERN ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 125 = 1986 SLD 125 = 1986 PTD 839 = (1986) 54 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Authority of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner\nDetails:\n1.\nOriginal assessment order deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\n2.\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner directed fresh assessment while adhering to statutory requirements.\nHeld:\n1.\nRevisional powers exercised to safeguard revenue interests were valid.\n2.\nOrders not adhering to appellate directions were corrected.\nCitations:\n•\nJeewanlal Limited v. CIT Calcutta (1977) 106 ITR 33.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,166 Income Tax Act, 1922=34A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 492 to 496/IS of 1984-85, decision dated: 2-04-1986, hearing DATE : 1st April, 1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "G.A. Chatha. Ehsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry and Ihsan Elahi Tariq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 126 = 1986 SLD 126 = 1986 PTD 843 = 1987 PTCL 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Reopening of Assessment\nDetails:\n1.\nAssessment reopened without prior written approval.\n2.\nIncorrect invocation of legal provisions in notices rendered them invalid.\nHeld:\n1.\nReopening assessments without procedural adherence was illegal.\n2.\nNotices and resultant assessments were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65,62,58,65(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 296(1-B)/1985-86, decision dated: 30-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javaid A. Qureshi. Bilal Khan D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 127 = 1986 SLD 127 = 1986 PTD 846 = (1986) 54 TAX 37 = 1987 PTCL 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "The Income Tax Department appealed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 18-03-1984, which annulled a penalty of Rs. 1,815 imposed on the assessee under Section 91(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The penalty was imposed for failure to pay super tax within the specified period. However, the Tribunal observed that the demand notice, dated 28-06-1984, specified the same date for payment but was served on the assessee much later, on 15-07-1984. Thus, the assessee could not comply due to lack of adequate time.\nIt was further held that no prior notice of intention to impose penalty was served on the assessee, which violated the principle of natural justice as upheld in PLD 1964 SC 410 and 1981 PTD (Trib.) 179. The Tribunal confirmed that a valid notice under Section 85 must allow a reasonable period for payment and that the omission to specify such period rendered the demand legally unenforceable. The Tribunal also remarked that the penalty imposed was excessive and should have been lower (2.5%) in case of first default. The contention regarding tax refund adjustment was noted but not accepted due to lack of proof.\nHeld: Appeal dismissed. Penalty annulled due to absence of prior notice and invalid demand notice.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,85,91(1),91(5)(a),108 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 296(Pb). of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-06-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Umer Khan D.R.\nMaqbool Ahmad Saigol", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 128 = 1986 SLD 128 = 1986 PTD 849 = 1987 PTCL 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Repairs and Capital Expenditure\nDetails:\n1.\nReplacement of refractory material classified as capital expenditure, not current repairs. \n2.\nExpenditures restoring fixed assets were not deductible as repairs.\nHeld:\n1.\nSubstantial repairs deemed capital expenditure.\n2.\nEach case considered individually based on specific facts.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Oxford University Press (1979) 40 Tax 1.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 29(IB) of 1983-84, decision dated: 19-07-1986, hearing DATE : 6-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL", + "Lawyer Name": "F.R. Hashmi, F.C.A.. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 129 = 1986 SLD 129 = 1986 PTD 855 = (1986) 54 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income and Property Valuation\nDetails:\n1.\nValuation by one government agency (Excise and Taxation) can’t be discarded without solid evidence.\n2.\nUnexplained income or investments not explicitly covered under statutory provisions cannot be taxed.\nHeld:\n1.\nProper valuation methods emphasized.\n2.\nUniversal presumptions of undervaluation in sale deeds rejected.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1981 SC 85.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,,61,62,13(1)(d),13(1)(e),9 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 1939 of 1982, decided, on 12-02-1986. dates of hearing: 23rd April, 1983 and 1st December, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): -INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL", + "Lawyer Name": "M.R. Farooqi, I.T.P.. Imtiaz Anjum, A.C., D.R. with Sarwar Khawaja, A.C., D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 130 = 1986 SLD 130 = 1986 PTD 866 = (1986) 54 TAX 138 = 1987 PTCL 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Surcharge on Specific Income\nDetails:\n1.\nIncome from labor charges for setting gems was not considered equivalent to manufacturing or selling jewelry.\nHeld:\n1.\nLevy of surcharge on gem setters’ income was unjustified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 754/IB of 1985-86, decision dated: 26-08-1986, hearing DATE : 9-07-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Latif Sheikh, D.R.. Respondent in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 131 = 1986 SLD 131 = 1986 PTD 868 = (1987) 55 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Expenditure for Criminal Defense\nDetails:\n1.\nProfessional charges for defending criminal charges unrelated to business were inadmissible.\n2.\nWithdrawal of criminal cases did not retroactively validate expenses for tax purposes.\nHeld:\n1.\nExpenses for legal defense of criminal charges not deductible as business expenditure.\n2.\nCommissioners’ arbitrary surcharge directives deemed unsustainable.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1981 SC 293.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=294B ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal Nos. 1310/KB and;1368/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 25-06-1986, hearing DATE : 15-06-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Parekh, C.A.. Muhammad Farid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 132 = 1986 SLD 132 = 1986 PTD 873 = (1987) 55 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal & Limitation - Additional Grounds\nDetails: The appellate court allowed additional grounds of appeal raising important legal questions, even after the limitation period expired, by condoning the delay.\nHeld: Delay was condoned, and additional grounds were admitted for hearing.\nCitations: Second Schedule, Items 134 & 135, Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979); S.5, Limitation Act (IX of 1908).\n(b) Presumption in Taxation Law\nDetails: The Constitution of Pakistan (Art. 165) is not presumptive legislation. Exemptions for Federal Government departments do not automatically follow from exemptions granted to Provincial Governments.\nHeld: Constitution cannot be interpreted based on presumptions for taxation.\nCitations: PLD 1965 SC 527.\n(c) Tax Liability Without Presumption\nDetails: Tax liability or exemption cannot be presumed.\nHeld: No one can be made liable or exempt from taxation by presumption.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 165.\n(d) Overseas Pakistanis Foundation Tax Exemption\nDetails: The Foundation, set up as a limited company under a Federal Statute, could not claim tax exemption under Art. 165. It was not a government department and primarily aimed at profit generation.\nHeld: Claim for exemption was denied.\nCitations: PLD 1975 Kar. 128; PLD 1974 Note 9 at p. 39; PLD 1985 SC 97.\n(e) Government-Controlled Corporations\nDetails: Corporations established or controlled by the government are not exempt from taxation unless explicitly stated in the law.\nHeld: Government-controlled corporations are not treated as government departments for taxation.\nCitations: PLD 1984 Kar. 1; (1979) 39 Tax 13 (Trib.).\n(f) Profit-Oriented Foundation Taxability\nDetails: The Foundation primarily earned profits for distribution among shareholders and lacked charitable or religious objectives.\nHeld: Tax exemption claim was rejected.\nCitations: Arts. 89, 165-A, & 260, Constitution; Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,135,SecondSched.,2(32),9 Limitation Act, 1908=5 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 55, 56, 57(IB), 130 , 131 and 132 of 1984-85, decision dated: 20-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Hanif Bhatti, Amir Alam Khan, F.C.A. and Z.A. Sheikh. Noor Ali Ismaili, Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.Rs. and Akhtar Hussain, Legal Advisor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 700 = 1982 SLD 700 = (1982) 46 TAX 170 = 1982 PTD 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Net Wealth Valuation\nDetails: Wealth-tax Officer cannot compute the value of shares at market price under Sec. 7(1) if net wealth has been computed on bulk valuation under Sec. 7(2)(a).\nHeld: Market price computation not allowed after bulk valuation.\nCitations: Sec. 7, Wealth-tax Act; Rules 8(2) & 8(9). Cases: (1973) 92 ITR 101, (1969) 73 ITR 388.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27(1),7(2)(a),46 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(9) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1981. On appeal form the judgment and order dated 15-7-1980 passed by the High Court Division in Application No. 9 of 1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KEMALUDDIN HUSSAIN, C.J., FAZLE MUNIM, ISLAM, BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY AND SHAHABUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmudur Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Md. Sajjadul Huq, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellant. M. Hasan, Advocate, instructed by S.M. Huq, Advocate-on-Record, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, DACCA\nvs\nADAMJEE SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 196 = 1989 SLD 196 = 1989 PTD 150 = (1989) 59 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Compliance in Income Additions\nDetails: The Assessing Officer must follow procedural requirements, including obtaining explanations and approvals. Non-compliance renders additions invalid.\nHeld: Additions made without procedural compliance are void.\nCitations: Sec. 13, Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).\n(b) Distinction Between Void & Illegal Orders\nDetails: A void order is jurisdictionally invalid, while an illegal order requires formal annulment.\nHeld: Void orders are non-existent in law; illegal orders need appellate intervention.\nCitations: PLD 1963 Lah 390; PLD 1958 SC 104; PLD 1975 SC 506.\n(c) Partial Invalidity of Assessment Proceedings\nDetails: If procedural illegality arises at any stage, proceedings before that point remain valid.\nHeld: Illegal additions can be deleted, preserving valid portions.\nCitations: Collector, Sahiwal v. Mohammad Akhtar 1971 SCMR 681.\n(d) Deemed Income & Penalty\nDetails: Deemed income is treated as concealed income, attracting penalties. Procedural strictness is essential.\nHeld: Non-compliance with procedures invalidates additions and penalties.\nCitations: Sec. 13, Sec. 111, Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).\n(e) Partial Nullification of Additions\nDetails: Additions under Sec. 13(2) without providing opportunity or approval must be deleted, leaving the rest of the order intact.\nHeld: Additions invalid; overall order remains valid.\nCitations: Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(2),111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2506/LB/1986-87, decision dated: 4-09-1988, hearing DATE : 20-06-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Aziz Chaudhary C.A. AND Javed Tahir Butt, A.C./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 197 = 1989 SLD 197 = 1989 PTD 1240 = (1990) 61 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 7047\nReference to High Court—Limitation Period\nConclusion:\nWhere original assessment orders were passed under the Income-tax Act, 1922, the limitation period for reference to the High Court is 60 days as per Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 136 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, does not apply due to the explicit provision in Section 156(2)(a) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome-tax v. Saeed Sarwat Sultana and others 1986 PTD 368 (ref).\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi v. Messrs Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. 1988 PTD 227 (fol).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,156(2) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-353 to 357 and 360 to 362 of 1984, decision dated: 6th June 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 187 = 1991 SLD 187 = 1991 PTD 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance—Condition Precedent\nConclusion:\nDepreciation can only be granted if the claim is made by the assessee in the return with the prescribed particulars. If no claim or application is made, the deduction cannot be allowed.\n•\nWhere an assessee initially claimed depreciation in the original return but withdrew it in the revised return via a covering letter, the claim for depreciation was invalid.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer cannot base depreciation allowance on information from the original return when it has been withdrawn.\nReferences:\n•\nDasprakash Bottling Co. v. C.I.T. (1980) 122 ITR 9 (Mad.) (dissented).\n•\nBeco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P & H).\n•\nChokshi Metal Refinery v. C.I.T. (1977) 107 ITR 63 (Guj).\n•\nC.I.T. v. Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 165 (SC) (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Income Tax Act, 1961=32,34 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. III of 1976, decision dated: 8-12-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian and S.V. Naik for the Commissioner. S.N. Inamdar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nShri SOMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 188 = 1991 SLD 188 = 1991 PTD 308 = 1992 PTCL 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme (1986–87)—Understatement and Enquiry\nConclusion:\n(a) Understatement of the cost of construction cannot equate to concealment of income unless evidence explicitly shows intent to conceal.\n(b) A return filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme fulfilling all requirements cannot be reassessed through normal procedures unless explicitly selected for a total audit.\n(c) Discoveries made during an unauthorized enquiry cannot override the protections under the Self-Assessment Scheme. If necessary, the case should be reopened under Section 65 with proper approval and procedure.\nReferences:\n•\n1989 PTD 311 (ref).\n•\n1989 PTD 1141 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 1218/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 7-11-1989, hearing DATE : 2-10-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IBRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid Ahmad Sheikh. Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 189 = 1991 SLD 189 = 1991 PTD 569 = (1991) 64 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowance for Bad Debts\nConclusion:\nWhen the Tribunal finds that an amount claimed by the assessee constitutes a bad debt, such a finding is treated as a finding of fact. High Courts should not interfere with such findings unless there is a substantial legal error.\nReference: Not explicitly cited in the summary provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 37 of 1982, heard on 12-12-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 190 = 1991 SLD 190 = 1991 PTD 687 = (1991) 63 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Place of Accrual of Income—Banking Companies\nConclusion:\n(a) Interest income from securities accrues at the location where the securities are issued and payable, not where they are physically held or registered.\n(b) Income accrued and received outside Pakistan is not taxable in Pakistan even if remitted to Pakistan later.\n(c) The provisions of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, regulate banking operations but do not affect the determination of the place of income accrual.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Bansilal Motilal AIR 1930 Bom. 381 (ref).\n•\nKeshav Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1963) 23 ITR 230 (rel).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42,42(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=13(1)(3),(4),5,6,7,8,9 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 72-K of 1985, 217-K of 1986, 221-K, 359-K and 582-K of 1990, decision dated: 27-02-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 72-K of 1985).\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 72-K of 1985). Nasim Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos. 217-K of 1986, 221-K, 359-K and 582-K of 1990).\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos. 217-K of 1986, 221x, 359-K and 582-K of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "GENERAL BANK OF NETHERLAND LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL KARACHI\nCivil Appeal No. 217-K of 1986\nMessrs AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nCivil Appeals Nos. 221-K. 359-K and 582-K of 1990\nMessrs CITI BANK N.A\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 201 = 1994 SLD 201 = 1994 PTD 949 = (1994) 69 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Finding of Fact by Tribunal—Binding Nature\nConclusion:\nFindings of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are binding in proceedings under Section 136 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited in the summary provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2D) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 36 of 1986, decision dated: 26-04-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for Applicant. Kh. Muhammad Sharif", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMst. SAEEDA NASREEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 202 = 1994 SLD 202 = 1994 PTD 1271 = (1994) 70 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Taxability of Interest Earned on Securities by Non-Residents\nConclusion:\nThe interest earned by a non-resident company's head office from securities deposited outside Pakistan is not taxable under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nReferences:\n•\n1991 PTD 687 (fol).\n(b) Non-Taxability of Securities Income for Non-Residents\nConclusion:\nIncome or realization from securities, including treasury bills deposited outside Pakistan, is not taxable under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for non-resident companies engaged in banking in Pakistan.\nReferences:\n•\n(1981) 43 Tax 69 (Trib.) (fol).\n(c) Penal Interest vs. Penalty—Admissibility as Deduction\nConclusion:\nPenal interest levied by the State Bank of Pakistan on violations of credit ceilings is admissible as an expense for deduction under Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it is integrally connected with normal banking business. The terms penalty and penal interest are distinct; the latter relates to operational expenses.\nReferences:\n•\n(1981) 43 Tax 69 (Trib.).\n•\n1986 PTD 52.\n•\nBlack's Law Dictionary (ref).\n(d) Interpretation of Statutes\nConclusion:\nUnderstanding a term in a statute requires examining the statute itself as an interpretive aid.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.\n(e) Definition and Distinction—Penalty vs. Penal Interest\nConclusion:\n Penalty and penal interest have distinct legal meanings, as indicated by legislative intent and statutory usage.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42,42(1),10(2)(xvi) Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=25(3)(b) State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=36(4)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Nos. 62 of 1982 and 26 of 1985, decision dated: 21st March, 1994. dates of hearing: 6th May and 26-09-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IMAM ALI G. KAZI AND SYED KHURSHEED HAIDER RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muktada Karim for the Applicant (in ITR No. 62 of 1982). Iqbal Naeem Pasha for the Applicant (in ITR No. 26 of 1985). Nasrullah Awan for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CITY BANK N.A., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 115 = 1995 SLD 115 = 1995 PTD 262 = (1995) 71 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-off of Investments in National Special Fund Bonds\nConclusion:\nAn assessee is entitled to the set-off benefit under Clause 172 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provided the assessment is not finalized before the enactment of the clause. The rejection of the set-off claim by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was unjustified.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs Chanda Motors v. Central Board of Revenue and 3 others 1990 PTD 948.\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue and others v. Chanda Motors 1992 PTD 1681 (fol).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,Sched,136,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 4 of 1990, heard on 7-07-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIR A. SHAIKH AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE B, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 116 = 1995 SLD 116 = 1995 PTD 366 = (1995) 71 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Validity of Total Audit Selection and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe High Court's constitutional jurisdiction cannot replace the Income Tax Department's fact-finding inquiries. A constitutional petition cannot be invoked unless statutory remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance are exhausted.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.\n(b) Laches in Filing Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\nA two-year delay in filing a constitutional petition against a total audit invalidates the petition due to laches and lack of bona fides.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 1829 of 1994, decision dated: 30-06-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ali Hadi\nRespondent(s) by: Khawaja Noor Mustafa", + "Party Name:": "ALLIED CANS\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER (NOW DESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) CIRCLE8, MULTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 117 = 1995 SLD 117 = 1995 PTD 399 = (1995) 71 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Payment of Total Tax\nConclusion:\nUnder the Self-Assessment Scheme (1993–94), payment of the total tax declared in the return is a mandatory precondition for immunity from detailed scrutiny. Adjustment of earlier refunds is not permissible.\nReferences:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No.9 of 1993 (para.1(f)).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,59 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12054 of 1994, announced on 28-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butts", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AZIZ BOOK DEPOT, LAHORE\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 118 = 1995 SLD 118 = 1995 PTD 752 = (1995) 71 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rejection of Accounts—Subjectivity vs. Evidence\nConclusion:\nRejection of accounts must be based on tangible evidence, not subjective conjectures or presumptions.\nReferences:\n•\nStar Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. 1974 PTD 200 (ref).\n(b) Tribunal’s Findings as Question of Law\nConclusion:\nWhen findings are based on conjectures, they raise questions of law, allowing challenges on those grounds.\nReferences:\n•\nM/s. Sultan Textile Mills Limited v. CIT 1990 PTD 241 (ref).\n(c) Addition of Unsubstantiated Trading Liability\nConclusion:\nFor an addition under Section 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act, the trading liability must have been claimed in previous assessments; otherwise, such additions are unjustified.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Jethabin Gokal 1983 PTD 30 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,10(2A) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 35 of 1987, decision dated: 21st February, 1995, hearing DATE : 11-01-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq Memon for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "LAL MUHAMMAD ABDUL SATTAR & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 119 = 1995 SLD 119 = 1995 PTD 761 = (1995) 71 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Definite Information in Tax Reassessment\nConclusion:\nThe term definite information under Section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, includes actual information or judicial precedents but excludes circulars from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR). Notices served on the assessee based on judicial interpretation are valid and free from infirmity.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766 (fol).\n(b) Computation of Profits and Gains of Insurance Companies\nConclusion:\nIncome from dividends, along with other profits and gains, must be assessed as a single unit for insurance companies under Section 26 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, without concessions for dividend income due to overriding provisions in the Fourth Schedule.\nReferences:\n•\nAdamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The Central Board of Revenue 1989 PTD 1090.\n•\nMessrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766 (ref).\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. American Life Insurance Company 1967 PTD 427 (distinguished).\n(c) Comparison of Section 26 (1979 Ordinance) and Section 10(7) (1922 Act)\nConclusion:\nSection 26 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, overrides all conflicting provisions in the Ordinance, unlike Section 10(7) of the 1922 Act, which had limited application.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2),26,FourthSched.Rr.5,8 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(7) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1695, 1645--1649, 1686--160, 1696--1699, 1742--1750 of 1991, 37--44, 206, 653-656, 1203, 2055-2058 of 1992, 2, 1313----1316,1698--1699, 2279 of 1993,1442 to 1444 of 1994, decision dated: 7-02-1995. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th,18th,19th, 23rd and 24-01-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha, M.G. Hasan, Sirajul Haque, Muhammad Farid, Sultan Muhammad Tanauli and Muhammad Ather Saeed, Advocates for Petitioners. Shaik Haider, Advocate, Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Deputy Attorney General and Nasrullah Awan, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 120 = 1995 SLD 120 = 1995 PTD 850 = (1995) 71 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Denial of Relief in Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nRelief under Article 199 of the Constitution is not granted unless adequate remedies under the law are exhausted or extraordinary circumstances show injustice in the impugned order.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.\n(b) Vested Rights and Retroactive Circular Application\nConclusion:\nSubsequent circulars clarifying earlier interpretations apply retroactively if they create substantive rights. The assessee’s right under the Self-Assessment Scheme cannot be denied based on filing delays if clarified circulars retrospectively apply.\nReferences:\n•\nFederation of Pakistan v. Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd. 1992 SCMR 1898 (rel).\n•\nA & B Food Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., Karachi 1992 SCMR 663 (rel).\n(c) Interpretation of Fiscal Circulars\nConclusion:\nCirculars should harmonize with the statute's intent, eliminating contradictions and uncertainties. Interpretations favoring the taxpayer must prevail in cases of ambiguity.\nReferences:\n•\nM/s. Miran Associates v. CIT, Karachi 1993 SCMR 274 (rel).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,62,59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1023 of 1995, decision dated: 28-02-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butts", + "Party Name:": "M/s. FAISAL PLAZA through Mr. Saleem Khalid, Member of Association of Persons, Lahore\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE (through Chairman), Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 121 = 1995 SLD 121 = 1995 PTD 856 = (1995) 72 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deemed Income and Judicial Review\nConclusion:\nHigh Courts can intervene in cases of excess by public functionaries to ensure justice in interpreting deemed income under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nReferences:\n•\nM/s. Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer 1992 PTD 1.\n•\nEdu1ji Dinshaw Limited v. Income Tax Officer 1990 PTD 155 (ref).\n(b) Scope of Section 80-C on Deemed Income\nConclusion:\nSection 80-C applies to income derived from unexplained credits or expenditures as per Section 13 of the Ordinance. The assessing officer must identify the income source before invoking subsection (5) of Section 80-C.\nReferences:\n•\nM/s. Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer 1992 PTD 1 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,80C(5),80 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-714, 723, 724, 1364, 1365 of 1994, 1556 and 1642 of 1993, decision dated: 9-02-1995. dates of hearing: 30th, 31st January, 1st and 2-02-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Sirajul Haque and Dr. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Petitioners. M.G. Hasan and Shaik Haiders", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GEC AVERY (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 122 = 1995 SLD 122 = 1995 PTD 882 = (1995) 72 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Erroneous Orders Under Section 66-A\nConclusion:\nThe mandatory provisions of Section 66-A allow revision of erroneous orders by the Income Tax Officer, even if an appeal or reference has been decided, provided the point was not subject to the appeal.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.152 of 1995, decision dated: 2-02-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Amjad Andrabi for Petitioner. Liaquat Nasir on behalf of Zahid Pervezs", + "Party Name:": "Sh. ABDUL SATTAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE C and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 123 = 1995 SLD 123 = 1995 PTD 1087 = (1995) 72 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Requirement of Speaking Orders by the Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal must provide detailed reasons for rejecting or accepting an appeal. A non-speaking order is invalid. The High Court remanded the case for the Tribunal to decide afresh, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard and reasoning in the decision.\nReferences:\n•\nSohail Jute Mills Ltd., and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1991 SC 329 (fol).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No: 1326 of 1993, heard on 23rd April, 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M, JAVED BUTTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Abbas Chatha and Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad, Standing Counsel for the Government of Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL AZIZ KHAN NIAZI\nvs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 124 = 1995 SLD 124 = 1995 PTD 1128 = (1995) 71 TAX 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Admissibility of Sale Promotion Expenses Beyond Statutory Limits\nConclusion:\nExpenses incurred on advertising and sales promotion, even exceeding statutory limits under the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976, are admissible for deduction under income tax law, as penalties under these rules are not applicable in income tax cases.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Alpha Insurance Company PLD 1981 SC 293.\n•\nM/s. General Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Karachi 1986 PTD 52 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) Drugs (Appellate Board) Rules, 1976=33,12 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 287 of 1988, decision dated: 1st December, 1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naim Pasha for Applicants. Shaik Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs POIBANI DOLLS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 125 = 1995 SLD 125 = 1995 PTD 1248 = (1995) 72 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Withholding of Refund—Appeals or Further Proceedings\nConclusion:\nRefunds can only be withheld if the related assessment orders are subject to appeal or further proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(b) Legality of Withholding Refund Without a Specified Period\nConclusion:\nAn order to withhold a refund is illegal if the Commissioner fails to specify the withholding period. The High Court declared the act mala fide and without lawful authority.\n(c) Indefinite Withholding of Refunds\nConclusion:\nProvision of Section 102(3) does not permit indefinite withholding of refunds without a specified period.\n(d) Compensation for Withholding Refunds\nConclusion:\nAssessees are entitled to compensation if refunds are not paid within three months of their due date.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,103,102(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6034 of 1994, heard on 17-04-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. KHURSHID AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Agha Ali Imran Mirza for Petitioner Zahid Pervaizs", + "Party Name:": "M/s AFZAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and others\nvs\nTHE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE/ THE SECRETARY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 122 = 1996 SLD 122 = 1996 PTD 734 = (1995) 73 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Selection for Total Audit\nConclusion:\nSelection of cases for audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme must be based on definite information supported by material evidence. Conducting local inquiries after receiving returns is contrary to the scheme's spirit. The Tribunal canceled the audit-based assessment and directed the case to be processed under the scheme.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 323/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 30-08-1995, hearing DATE : 17-08-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farogh Nasim. Muhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 324 = 1997 SLD 324 = 1997 PTD 70 = (1995) 71 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Appeal in Similar Cases\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal was granted on similar legal issues raised in other cases. Tax recovery was suspended during the pendency of appeals, provided appellants undertook to pay taxes with interest if appeals were dismissed.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,80CC,80D Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 293, 295, 297, 298, 280, 302 to 314, 316 to 326 and 333 to 343-L of 1995, decision dated: 12-04-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN, MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL AND ZIA MEHMOOD MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Saqib Nisar, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record, Syed Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record, Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record and Umer Atta Bindial (with permission of Court for Petitioners). Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARDARPUR TEX ZAHUR TEXTILE MILLS, MANDIWALLA MAUSER M/S SH. SPINNING MILLS and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 198 = 1989 SLD 198 = 1989 PTD 521 = (1989) 60 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deviating from Assessee’s Past History\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer must substantiate deviations from past assessments with detailed evidence and efforts to verify the assessee’s claims.\n(b) Penalty Proceedings as Criminal in Nature\nConclusion:\nPenalty proceedings require cogent evidence akin to criminal trials. Mere unsatisfactory explanations by the assessee do not suffice for imposing penalties.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "PTR No.65 of 1988, decision dated: 11-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAHBOOB AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs KAMRAN STEEL REROLLING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 199 = 1989 SLD 199 = 1989 PTD 632 = (1989) 60 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Validity of Gifts Under Muslim Law\nConclusion:\nA gift by a father to minor children does not require formal delivery of possession, but symbolic transfer suffices. A gift to minors through their mother is invalid as she is not their legal guardian.\n(b) Mutation of Gift\nConclusion:\nMutation in revenue records does not validate an otherwise invalid gift.\nReferences:\n•\nD.J. Mulla on Principles of Mohammedan Law, 16th Edn., p.13.\n•\nPLD 1965 SC 665.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As: Nos. 1135 to 1142/KB of 1984-85,decided on 4-03-1989, hearing DATE : 25-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I.N. Pasha. Shahid Jamal", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 6 = 1985 SLD 6 = 1985 PTD 1 = (1984) 50 TAX 130 = 1985 PTCL 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Employer's Contribution to Provident Fund\nConclusion:\nEmployer’s contributions to a recognized provident fund do not fall under perquisites or other benefits as clarified by Explanation 3 to Section 10(4)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nReferences:\n•\nColony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1969 Lah. 228 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(4)(d), ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 121, of 1974, decision dated: 25-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Sharif for Applicants. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN PETROLEUM Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 7 = 1985 SLD 7 = 1985 PTD 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration and Reconstitution of Firms\nConclusion:\nRegistration of a firm with the Registrar of Firms creates a rebuttable presumption of correctness. If evidence indicates a new firm was constituted, registration renewal can be refused.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Haji Mukhtar & Co. 1980 PTD 415.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 Partnership Act, 1932=68 ", + "Case #": "Income tax case No. 117 of 1973, decision dated: 11-12-1983, hearing DATE : 13th October 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z.C. VALLIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naim Pasha. Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAJI USMAN TAYAB & Sons \nvs\nThe COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST) Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 8 = 1985 SLD 8 = 1985 PTD 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Separation Allowance\nConclusion:\nSeparation allowance not related to past services is exempt from tax under Section 7(1), Explanation (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,7(1), ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 544 of 1972, heard on 26-03-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND K.A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Miss Nuzhat Alvi and Kazim Hussain on behalf of Waheed Farooqui. M.H. Khashwani (absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nM.H. KHASHWANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 9 = 1985 SLD 9 = 1985 PTD 41 = (1984) 49 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Hedging Contracts vs. Speculative Transactions\nConclusion:\nForward sales settled to prioritize overseas contracts are hedging transactions, not speculative, if incidental to business operations and resulting in higher profits.\nReferences:\n•\nRaghunathdas Prahiladdas v. C.I.T. (1976) 104 ITR 95 (All.).\n•\nPankaj Oil Mills v. C.I.T. (1978) 115 ITR 824 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 561 of 1973, decision dated: 17-11-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Bagchi with B. K. Naha for the Commissioner. Dr. D. Pal with Miss M. Seal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGOUREPORE Co. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 10 = 1985 SLD 10 = 1985 PTD 53 = (1984) 49 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Business Expenditure—Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nConclusion:\nThe disallowance of 2/3rds of the expenses incurred on a foreign tour by the Technical Director was upheld due to lack of evidence regarding his actual activities during the tour. The stated purpose in official documents did not suffice.\n(b) Technical Know-How and Training Expenses\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on acquiring technical know-how and training personnel is classified as revenue expenditure, as technical know-how does not constitute a capital asset.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC).\n•\nMysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1968) 67 ITR 23 (Mys.) (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.106 of 1971, decision dated: 31st March, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.N. CHANDURKAR & P.B. SAWANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.J. Mehta with V.S. Patil and I.M. Munim. R.J. Joshi with V.C. Kotwal for, Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COOPER ENGINEERING Ltd.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 11 = 1985 SLD 11 = 1985 PTD 61 = (1984) 49 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Benami Transactions and Burden of Proof\nConclusion:\nThe Department bears the burden of proving that transactions are benami. In the absence of evidence proving that property purchases were not genuine, they cannot be deemed benami for tax purposes.\nReferences:\n•\nJaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra (1974) AIR 1974 SC 171.\n•\nC.I.T. v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) (applied).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax .References Nos. S.35 of 1976, 3 of 1977, 49 and 331 of 1978 and Wealth Tax Reference No. 593 of 1977, decision dated: 24-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H.N. SETH AND M. P. MEHROTRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.M.L. Hajela for the Assessee. R.K. Gulati for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PRAKASH NARAIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 12 = 1985 SLD 12 = 1985 PTD 78 = (1983) 48 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital—Deduction Against Profits\nConclusion:\nInterest on borrowed capital used in a separate business can be deducted against profits of another business if liabilities and funds are transferred due to operational integration or business takeover.\nReferences:\n•\nChhabda (L.M.) and Sons v. C.I.T. (1967) 65 ITR 638 (SC).\n•\nC.I.T. v. Rao Raja Kalyansingh (1974) 97 ITR 690 (Raj).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.159 of 1974, decision dated: 25-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. KAPUR AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.K. Wadhera and P.N. Misra for the Commissioner. S.N. Kumar and K.B. Soni for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIOINER OF Income Tax \nvs\nREWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY. AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 13 = 1985 SLD 13 = 1985 PTD 85 = (1983) 48 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment—Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nConclusion:\nFailure to disclose relationships with minors admitted to the benefits of a partnership constitutes non-disclosure of material facts, justifying reassessment proceedings.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Kochammu Amma (P.K.) (1980) 125 ITR 624 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=64 ", + "Case #": "Income .tax Reference No. 118 of 1974, decision dated: 6-08-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RANGANATHAN AND MRS. LEILA SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.N. Goswami and Rajiv Khanna for the Assessee. Wazir Singh and Anoop Sharma for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SUSHILA DEVI JAIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 14 = 1985 SLD 14 = 1985 PTD 94 = (1983) 48 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Loss vs. Capital Loss\nConclusion:\nA loss incurred in the usual course of business is treated as a trading loss and is deductible if findings of fact support the claim.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 542 of 1973, decision dated: 24-06-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGILLANDERS ARBOTHNOT & Co. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 15 = 1985 SLD 15 = 1985 PTD 97 = (1983) 48 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Joint Ventures and Taxable Status\nConclusion:\nA joint venture for purchasing land and constructing a cinema theater is taxable as an Association of Persons (AOP) if the records indicate common management and shared use of property, even if initially assessed under individual statuses.\n(b) Income from Other Sources—Composite Leases\nConclusion:\nIncome from inseparable and composite leases for cinema theater buildings and fixtures is taxable under income from other sources. \nReferences:\n•\nSultan Brothers P. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.1027 of 1976, decision dated: 14-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATISH CHANDRA, C.J. AND R.R. RASTOGI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Harkauli and A. N. Mahajan for the Assesses. M. Katju for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "M.K. DAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 16 = 1985 SLD 16 = 1985 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Allowance for Hotel Decor and Murals\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on electric fittings, decor, and murals in hotels qualifies as plant under capital allowance provisions and is deductible as business expenditure.\nReferences:\n•\nBenson Inspector of Taxes v. Yard Arm Club Ltd. (1979) 22 All ER 336.\n•\nBrown Inspector of Taxes v. Burnely Football and Athletic Co. Ltd. (1980) 3 All ER 244.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Appeal decided on 4th March 1982. dates of hearing: 19th, 20th October; 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD SALMON, LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON, LORD LOWRY AND LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH", + "Lawyer Name": "Robert Carnwath and A. C. Hamilton (of the Scottish Bar) for the Crown. Lord McCluskey Q. C. and J. E. Drummond Young for the Tax payer", + "Party Name:": "INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS\nvs\nSCOTTISH AND NEWCASTLE BREWERINES Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 17 = 1985 SLD 17 = 1985 PTD 115 = (1984) 49 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Revision Powers by Commissioner\nConclusion:\nAspects not addressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in an appeal cannot be revised later by the Commissioner.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC).\n•\nJ.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Addl.) v. C.I.T. (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.23 of 1978, decision dated: 7th September 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND C.X. BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Pal with R.N. Dutta for the Assessee. B.L. Pal with A.N. Bhattacharji for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "OIL INDIA Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 18 = 1985 SLD 18 = 1985 PTD 121 = (1984) 49 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure—Unfinished Contracts\nConclusion:\nCommission paid to execute unfinished contracts during a business takeover is revenue expenditure, as it facilitates operational continuation without creating enduring benefits.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.205 of 1971, decision dated: 31st August 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.K. DESAI AND D.M. REGE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Joshi with S.V. Naik and L.K. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. V.H. Patil instructed by M/s. Purnanand & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I\nvs\nDESMET (INDIA) PVT Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 19 = 1985 SLD 19 = 1985 PTD 123 = (1984) 49 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Proceedings Based on High Court Decisions\nConclusion:\nA High Court decision on the non-deductibility of an expense constitutes valid information for reassessment. Reversal of the decision by the Supreme Court does not invalidate proceedings initiated under the earlier ruling.\nReferences:\n•\nBankipur Club Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC).\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. C.I.T. (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147,256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.374 of 1971, decision dated: 11th June 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SBYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nASSAM OIL Co. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 20 = 1985 SLD 20 = 1985 PTD 136 = (1984) 49 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Business Receipt – Insurance Compensation\nConclusion:\nExcess compensation received by the assessee from the insurance company due to devaluation of currency, representing the price of insured stock-in-trade lost during transit, was deemed a business receipt and liable to tax.\nReferences:\n•\nCalcutta Jute Agency (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1979) 117 ITR 741 (Cal.).\n•\nC.I.T. v. Canara Bank Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 328 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.57 of 1973, decision dated: 2nd March 1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND KANTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Joshi with H.K. Sajnani for the Commissioner. V.I. Pandit with Prakash Pandit for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPOPULAR METAL WORKS AND ROLLING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 21 = 1985 SLD 21 = 1985 PTD 144 = (1984) 49 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Continuity After Partner's Death\nConclusion:\nThe death of a partner does not necessarily dissolve the firm under Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932, if there is an express or implied contract to continue the business. Changes in the firm’s constitution did not require fresh registration with the Registrar of Firms.\nReferences:\n•\nLala Ram Kumar v. Kishori Lal AIR 1946 All. 259.\n•\nPunjab & Sind Bank Ltd. v. Kishen Singh Gulab Singh AIR 1935 Lah. 350.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26(A) Partnership Act, 1932=42 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 731 of 1972, heard on 27th September 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z.C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs MAZHIR & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 22 = 1985 SLD 22 = 1985 PTD 150 = (1985) 51 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Exemption of Casual and Non-Recurring Receipts\nConclusion:\nNon-recurring premiums received from tenants for tenancy rights are treated as capital receipts and are exempt under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n(b) Computation of Property Income\nConclusion:\nThe taxable annual value of property is based on its expected market rent, not the actual rent received.\nReferences:\n•\nRaja Bahadur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1943) 11 ITR 513.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vii),9(3) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 599 of 1972, decision dated: 30th May 1984, hearing DATE : 3rd May 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN H. SAHIKH AND GHULAM GHAUS SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Mazhar Jaffery", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKATHIAWAR CO OP. HOUSING SOCIETY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 23 = 1985 SLD 23 = 1985 PTD 147 = (1985) 51 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Rebates and Allocation of Donations\nConclusion:\nDonations can be allocated at the discretion of the assessee between taxable and exempted income divisions. The department cannot apportion donations for rebate purposes against the assessee’s preferences.\nReferences:\n•\nRaja Sheri Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) 36 ITR 94.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15D ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 796 of 1972, decision dated: 13th October 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z.C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaik Haidar. lqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMESSRS GUEST KEEN AND NETTLES FOLD IN (PAK.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 24 = 1985 SLD 24 = 1985 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Super Tax Differential – Avoidance of Double Taxation\nConclusion:\nThe differential rate of super tax cannot exceed 10% between companies complying with and those not complying with dividend arrangements under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23A(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.732 of 1972, decision dated: 29-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Respondent called absent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 25 = 1985 SLD 25 = 1985 PTD 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Clubbing of Income from Transferred Assets\nConclusion:\nIncome derived from assets transferred without adequate consideration can be clubbed with the transferor's income. Transfers with adequate consideration or gifts are excluded.\n(b) Validity of Gift Transfers\nConclusion:\nA valid and adequately considered gift divests the donor of ownership, and the income from the gifted asset cannot be clubbed with the donor's income.\nReferences:\n•\nGori Parshad Bagaria v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) 42 ITR 112.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3A) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 589 of 1972, decision dated: 25-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. I.N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nISMAIL ADAMJEE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 26 = 1985 SLD 26 = 1985 PTD 160 = (1984) 50 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Super Tax Rebate for Food Processing Businesses\nConclusion:\nBeverages prepared through processing methods qualify as food for tax rebate purposes. However, if the process only involves mixing or does not significantly alter the original product, it does not qualify.\nReferences:\n•\nEncyclopedia Britannica and James v. Jones (1894) 1 QB 304.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(9),35(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 552 of 1978, decision dated: 29-07-1984. dates of hearing: 11th March 1981 and 16-05-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashfaque Ahmad, A.C. D.R. and Tariq Aziz, A.C., D.R.. Muhammad Hafeez Khawaja and I.N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 27 = 1985 SLD 27 = 1985 PTD 170 = (1984) 50 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Tax Recovery During Appeal\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal has the power to stay recovery of tax demands related to an assessment year under appeal, even if the demands arise from a reassessment order. A stay may be refused if the assessee cannot prove financial inability to pay.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,134(6) ", + "Case #": "M. A. No: 35 Stay (KB) of 1983 84, decision dated: 28-05-1984, hearing DATE : 15-05-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar assisted by Faruq Ali, F.C.A. for Applicant. Amin e Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 28 = 1985 SLD 28 = 1985 PTD 175 = (1984) 50 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Application of Net Profit Rate and Allowance of Losses\nConclusion:\nNet profit rates cannot replace itemized examination of accounts where specific losses are documented and incidental to business. Loss deductions should be allowed if supported by evidence.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 591/PB and 592/PB of 1981 82 and 534/PB of 1983 84, decision dated: 3rd June, 1984, hearing DATE : 15-05-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ehsan ul Haq, I.T.P. Amin e Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 29 = 1985 SLD 29 = 1985 PTD 178 = (1984) 50 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Estimation of Sales Without Basis\nConclusion:\nSales estimation must rely on relevant and reliable data. Inspector’s reports from subsequent periods are not valid bases for estimating sales in prior years.\n(b) Compliance with Statutory Provisions\nConclusion:\nFailure to provide an opportunity for the assessee to explain investments renders the assessment order void.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1964 SC 410.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,13(1)(aa)(d),13(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 373/LB of 1983 84, decision dated: 15-05-1984, hearing DATE : 7-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.G. Y., I.T.P.. A.A. D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 30 = 1985 SLD 30 = 1985 PTD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Benefits Under Rule 40\nConclusion:\nDepreciation must be considered when calculating world profits under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1922, to ensure proper apportionment for assessing income in Pakistan.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No.90 of 1973, decision dated: 1st February 1984, hearing DATE : 25-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Mrs. Rashida Patel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ANCHOR LINES LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 31 = 1985 SLD 31 = 1985 PTD 189 = 1985 PTCL 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Acceptance of Income Under Self-Assessment Scheme\nFacts:\nThe respondent, deriving income from property and horse racing, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 22,993 under the self-assessment scheme for the assessment year 1970-71. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), however, assessed the income at Rs. 35,600 under Section 23(3) of the Income Tax Act, disregarding the self-assessment scheme. The respondent challenged this decision before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which directed the ITO to reassess the income on the basis of the self-assessment return.\nIssues:\nWhether the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to accept the self-assessment return despite the ITO's authority under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules.\nWhether the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to accept the return when the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts.\nArguments:\nDepartment: The ITO has the discretion under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules to assess income under the normal law even when a self-assessment return is filed.\nRespondent: The self-assessment return was duly filed, and there was no indication from the ITO that the provisions of the scheme had not been complied with.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming that the ITO was not justified in invoking Section 23(3) since the self-assessment return was properly filed and its provisions were not violated. The Tribunal clarified that if the ITO wished to reject the self-assessment return, he must provide substantial reasons for doing so. The Tribunal answered both questions in the affirmative.\nSignificance:\nThis case reaffirms that once a self-assessment return is filed in compliance with the scheme, the ITO must provide valid reasons for rejecting it and cannot arbitrarily proceed under normal assessment procedures. It upholds the principle that discretion vested in the ITO must be exercised judiciously, especially when the self-assessment provisions are duly met.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(3),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. -520 of 1972, decision dated: 27-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z.C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan. \nRespondent in person", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nFAZAL PEERA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 32 = 1985 SLD 32 = 1985 PTD 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebate Computation and Loss Set-Off\nConclusion:\nFor the purpose of export rebate under Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act and Finance Ordinance, 1970, losses need not be set off against export proceeds before calculating total income. Losses can be carried forward and set off in subsequent years. Rebate entitlement is independent of such adjustments.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(1)(2c) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 162 of 1973, decision dated: 1st March, 1984. dates of hearing: 11th and 21-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.H. Suleman. Mrs. Rashida Patel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAMSI INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 33 = 1985 SLD 33 = 1985 PTD 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Set-Off for Distinct Businesses\nConclusion:\nRevenue losses from a tyre retreating plant could not be set off against profits from the import and sale of tyres, as the two were distinct businesses under Section 24(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Closure of one business does not consolidate it with another.\nReferences: 1967 PTD (Trib) 60.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi),24(2)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 35 of 1973, decision dated: 19-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TYRES AND RUBBER COMPANY Ltd.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 34 = 1985 SLD 34 = 1985 PTD 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Refund of Sales Tax as Income\nConclusion:\nRefunded sales tax amounts should be apportioned to the relevant preceding years. Treating the entire refund as income of a single year was valid, provided the amount accrued in that year.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.\naccordance with law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 759 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd February, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Faruqui. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs FORSIGHT TRADING COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 36 = 1985 SLD 36 = 1985 PTD 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Perquisites – Independence of Rules\nConclusion:\nSection 10(4)(d) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 39 of the Income Tax Rules, 1959, operate independently. Rule 39 cannot be used to construe Section 10(4)(d) regarding perquisites.\nReferences: H.M. Inspector of Taxes v. Owen 45 Tax Cases 1966 69.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,7,10(4)(d) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Cases Nos. 202 to 205 of 1973, decision dated: 20th February 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MACKINNON MACKENZIE AND COMPANY\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 37 = 1985 SLD 37 = 1985 PTD 208 = (1985) 51 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure to Avoid Competition\nConclusion:\nPayments made to other dealers to avoid unhealthy competition were considered a legitimate business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act and admissible as a deduction.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Karachi v. Moosa Omar & Co. Ltd. (1980) 41 Taxation 19.\n•\nIndian Radio & Cable Communications Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1937) 5 ITR 270.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 254 of 1972, decision dated: 20-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NIMUDDIN AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs MOOSA OMER AND COMPANY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 38 = 1985 SLD 38 = 1985 PTD 223 = (1984) 50 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Interest for New Businesses\nConclusion:\nFor newly established businesses, penal interest under Section 18A(6) of the Income Tax Act is computed from the first day of July in the year tax becomes assessable, as clarified by the third proviso to subsection (6).\nReferences: 1965 PTD (Trib) 27 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(6) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 108 of 1974, decision dated: 7th March 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND K. A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 39 = 1985 SLD 39 = 1985 PTD 234 = (1985) 51 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Interest on Borrowed Capital\nConclusion:\nIf a property is constructed using borrowed capital, subsequent refinancing or change in creditors does not invalidate the deduction claim for interest payments.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Citizen Properties v. C.I.T. 55 ITR 262.\n•\nDalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. 65 ITR 408.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=20,20(1)(e) ", + "Case #": "I . T . A . No. 1268 of 1982 83, decision dated: 8-11-1984, hearing DATE : 18th April 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj Khalid. M. Arshad Pervez, AC, DR.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 40 = 1985 SLD 40 = 1985 PTD 235 = (1985) 51 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Free Reserve \nConclusion:\nThe inclusion of unappropriated profits in the definition of free reserve by the Finance Act, 1968, is retrospective and valid.\n(b) Income Definition – Bonus Shares\nConclusion:\nBonus shares are included in the definition of income under Section 2(6c) of the Income Tax Act. The legislature is empowered to define terms beyond their ordinary meaning.\nReferences:\n•\nMaharaja of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income Tax Madras (1945) 13 ITR 221.\n•\nC.I.T. v. K. Srinivasan & K. Gopalan (1953) 23 ITR 87.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6BB),4,33 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1000/LB of 1971 72, decision dated: 10-09-1984, hearing DATE : 6th August 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, ANSAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Mir, C.A.. Arshad Pervez, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 41 = 1985 SLD 41 = 1985 PTD 240 = (1985) 51 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deduction for Repairs\nConclusion:\nExpenses incurred on maintaining property, including salaries for electricians and caretakers, can qualify as repair expenses under Sections 20(1) and 19(2)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(b) Expanded Definition of Repairs\nConclusion:\nRepair expenses include costs essential to the upkeep of property and are necessary for deriving income.\nReferences:\n•\nJanda Das Pra Das v. C.I.T. (1951) 20 ITR 160.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=20,20(1),29(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1441/KB to 1443/KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 13th September 1984, hearing DATE : 12th September 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT AU KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid, D.R.. Ishratullah", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 42 = 1985 SLD 42 = 1985 PTD 245 = (1985) 51 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax Default and Penalty\nConclusion:\nTo impose penalties under Section 28(1B)(b) for underestimation of advance tax, evidence must show the taxpayer knowingly misreported estimated tax liability.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(3),28(1B)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 574 of 1983 84, decision dated: 10th July 1984, hearing DATE : 19th February 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Arshad Pervaz, AC, DR. Kh. A. Mueed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 43 = 1985 SLD 43 = 1985 PTD 247 = (1985) 51 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Deemed Income\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer exceeded jurisdiction by adding deemed income under Section 12(7) while processing self-assessment returns. Proper procedure requires completing the self-assessment first, then addressing undisclosed income separately.\nReferences: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(7),59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1302/KP of 1982 83, decision dated: 17-09-1984, hearing DATE : 16th September 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Faruq Ali. Amin e Ajam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 44 = 1985 SLD 44 = 1985 PTCL 453 = (1985) 51 TAX 1 = 1985 PTD 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Filing References Under Repealed Act\nConclusion:\nAppeals and references pending under the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922, must adhere to its provisions even after the enactment of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Delay in filing applications under the old Act without condonation cannot be entertained.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1961 SC 523.\n•\nPLD 1970 SC 264.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1),166 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1)(2),166(2)(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Applications Nos. 159 to 164 of 1980 81 and I.T.A. Nos.3942, 3943, 3946, 3969 to 3971 of 1979 80, decision dated: 23rd August, 1984, hearing DATE : 20-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Tahir Butt, D. R.. Mian Ghulam Muhammad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 45 = 1985 SLD 45 = 1985 PTD 255 = (1984) 50 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Escaped Assessment Under Repealed and New Acts\nConclusion:\nNotice for escaped assessment issued under Section 65 of the 1979 Ordinance is valid for cases where returns were filed after the commencement of the Ordinance.\n(b) Title of Section Not Binding\nConclusion:\nThe title of a statutory provision does not alter its substantive meaning.\n(c) Misquotation of Law\nConclusion:\nMere misquotation of a statutory provision does not invalidate proceedings unless prejudice to the taxpayer is demonstrated.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1969 Lah. 770.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,65,166(2)(b)(c)(ii) Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1),34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 1889/LB to 1894/LB of 1982 83, decision dated: 23rd July, 1984, hearing DATE : 7-12-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Arshad Pervaiz, A.C., D.R.. S.M. Raza Naqvi and M.H. Khokhar, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 46 = 1985 SLD 46 = 1985 PTD 261 = (1985) 51 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Application Barred by Limitation Period Under Income Tax Act, 1922\nKey Points:\n•\nAppeals pending under the Income Tax Act, 1922, were to be governed by its provisions as per Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nThe right to appeal is determined by the law in force at the time the appeal is commenced unless expressly altered or repealed by new legislation.\n•\nThe assessee’s reference application under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, was barred by limitation due to the absence of an application for condonation of delay.\nConclusion:\nThe reference application was rightly dismissed as time-barred under the 1922 Act.\nCitations:\n1984 P.T.D. (Trib.) 124.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "R . A . No. 236 of 1980 81 and I . T . A . No. 2402 of 1978-789 decided on 21st August, 1984, hearing DATE : 13-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Ishaque, Legal Adviser and Arshad Pervaiz, D.R.. Aftab Ahmad Advisor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 47 = 1985 SLD 47 = 1985 PTD 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Dividends Based on Declaration Date\nKey Points:\n(a) Only dividends declared during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year could be included as taxable income.\n(b) The term paid in Section 16(2) refers to the point when liability arises upon declaration, not physical payment. Actual payment timing is irrelevant for assessment purposes.\nConclusion:\nDividends must be assessed in the accounting year when declared, regardless of when they are received.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Laxmidas Mulraj Khatau (1948) 16 I.T.R. 248.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1162 of 1962 63, decision dated: 23rd January, 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NOOR ILAHI, PRESIDENT AND M. T. SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Shaban, I.T.P.. Iqbal Jafar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 48 = 1985 SLD 48 = 1985 PTCL 15 = (1985) 51 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Arbitration Fees Received by Advocate\nDetails:\nThe appellant, an Advocate, received arbitration fees across four years (Rs. 30,000, Rs. 30,000, Rs. 10,000, and Rs. 30,000 respectively). He claimed these receipts were exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the repealed Income Tax Act, arguing they were casual and non-recurring. The ITO, however, treated them as taxable, not meeting the criteria of casual/non-recurring income. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the ITO’s decision, citing that the receipts were foreseeable, earned through the exercise of professional knowledge, and thus not exempt. The appellant relied on the Allahabad High Court decision (67 ITR 616) distinguishing his case from the Madras High Court case (18 ITR 825), which the AAC had relied on. The Tribunal considered both judgments and found the appellant's situation aligned more closely with the Madras case, as he voluntarily accepted the arbitration assignments and expected remuneration due to his professional background.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal held that the arbitration fees were taxable income and not exempt under section 4(3)(vii). The income was not casual or accidental, but arose from the exercise of the appellant's professional knowledge. The appeals were dismissed.\nCitations:\nMadras High Court: Commissioner of Income-tax v. V.P. Rao, (1950) 18 ITR 825\nAllahabad High Court: (1968) 67 ITR 616\nSupreme Court of Pakistan: PLD 1981 SC 85 (on burden of proof for claiming exemption)\nAllahabad High Court: Chunnilal Kalyan Das, ITC 419\nLahore High Court: CIT v. Qazi Abdul Hameed Abid, (1979) 29 Tax 129 (distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii),23(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 1349 KB to 1352 KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 19-11-1984, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Faruq Ali F.C.A.. Muhammad Fareed D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 49 = 1985 SLD 49 = 1985 PTD 276 = (1984) 49 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Assessment and Limitation Periods Under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nKey Points:\n•\nThe 1982 amendment to Section 65 reduced the timeframe for additional assessments.\n•\nRetrospective application of procedural amendments was upheld as they applied to pending cases.\nConclusion:\nThe procedural amendment was correctly applied to pending cases, limiting the time for additional assessments.\nCitations:\nKoh-i-Noor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore P.L.D. 1974 S.C. 284; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company P.L.D. 1982 S.C. 247.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(3)(3A) ", + "Case #": "Petition No.3590 of 1982, decision dated: 3rd March, 1984, hearing DATE : 15-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND AKHTAR HASSAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Javed and Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad Shah, D.A.G. and Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "CRESCENT BOARDS Ltd., Lahore\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VIII, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 50 = 1985 SLD 50 = 1985 PTD 287 = (1985) 52 TAX 1 = 1986 PTCL 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Whether the Pakistan Management Association qualifies as a charitable institution entitled to income tax exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nKey Findings & Ruling\nCharitable Purpose Established:\nThe Association's primary objects (e.g., promoting management education, research, professional standards, and public utility) fall under charitable purpose as defined in the Act.\nActivities like seminars, publications, and training programs advance education and general public utility (benefiting businesses, industries, and the economy at large).\nMembership Restrictions Do Not Disqualify:\nThough benefits are primarily for members, membership is open widely (students, professionals, institutions).\nThis constitutes a section of the public – sufficient for general public utility (per SC precedents like Fauji Foundation and Indian cases Andhra Chamber of Commerce).\nNon-Profit Obligation:\nRegistered under Section 26 of the Companies Act, 1913, prohibiting profit distribution to members.\nIncome solely applied to charitable objects (Articles 4 & 46 of Association).\nAncillary Income Permissible:\nRevenue from consultancy, book sales, seminars, etc., is incidental to main charitable objects.\nDoes not violate the business restriction in the proviso to Section 4(3)(i), as these activities:\nFurther educational/research goals.\nAre not profit-driven.\nCBDT Approval Relevant:\nPrior approval under Section 15(D) (for donor rebates) reinforces charitable status, though not conclusive.\nOutcome\nExemption upheld: Association's income (subscriptions, fees, interest, etc.) exempt from tax for A.Y. 1969–70 to 1972–73.\nQuestion answered in affirmative: Tribunal correctly applied Section 4(3)(i).\nLegal Principles Clarified\n General Public Utility : Includes benefits to a defined section of the public (not necessarily the entire population).\nIncidental Business Activities: Do not negate charitable status if aligned with primary objects.\nMembership-Based Charities: Can qualify if open to a broad public segment and serve wider societal interests.\nSignificance: The judgment adopts a purposive interpretation of charity, emphasizing substance over form, and aligns with progressive tax jurisprudence supporting educational/professional development institutions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,4(3)(i),(ii),15(d),22 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 6 of 1974, decision dated: 6-06-1984. dates of hearing: 21st and 23rd November 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqi\nIqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs WEST PAKISTAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 51 = 1985 SLD 51 = 1985 PTD 297 = (1985) 52 TAX 17 = 1985 PTCL 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Donations as Income Under Income Tax Act\nKey Points:\n•\nVoluntary payments made without legal obligation or consideration do not constitute taxable income.\nConclusion:\nA donation made to offset losses does not qualify as taxable trading income.\nCitations:\nBombay City II (1963) 49 I.T.R. 594.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No.78 of 1973, decision dated: 23rd February, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Dareshani. A.A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs SMITH KLINE & FRENCH OF PAKISTAN Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 268 = 2006 SLD 268 = 2006 CLD 1539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease and Buy-Back Arrangements in Modaraba Transactions\nKey Points:\n(a) Lease and buy-back arrangements are not sales and are not taxable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.\n(b) Section 80(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not apply to such transactions.\nConclusion:\nLease and buy-back arrangements do not attract provisions of sale-related taxation.\nCitations:\nModaraba Companies Ordinance (XXXI of 1980).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),80(c) Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980=2(ab),(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882=54 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.479 of 2000, decision dated: 4-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yusuf Umar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs RAFHAN MAIZ PRODUCT COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 638 = 1999 SLD 638 = 1999 PTD 3853 = (1999) 79 TAX 208 = (1998) 231 ITR 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Deductions for Trusts Under Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\nKey Points:\n(a) Beneficiaries of discretionary trusts receiving dividends can claim deductions under Sections 80J and 80K.\n(b) The nature of the income does not change when passed from trustee to beneficiary.\nConclusion:\nDividends retain their nature and remain eligible for deduction in the hands of beneficiaries.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 I.T.R. 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80J,80K,165. ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.216 and 268 of 1977, decision dated: 26-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. H. Joshi for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. D. A. Mehta, R. K. Patel and D. B. Karia for K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDr. ANAND SARABHAI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 84 = 1982 SLD 84 = 1982 PTD 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Amendments to Tax Exemptions for Agricultural Companies\nKey Points:\n(a) Retrospective enactments are valid unless they affect completed transactions.\n(b) Amendments must adhere to constitutional provisions regarding retroactivity.\nConclusion:\nRetrospective amendments exempting dividends from agricultural companies were upheld but limited to transactions post-December 20, 1971.\nCitations:\nFederation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed Khan P.L.D. 1974 S.C. 151; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mst. Gulzarina (1973) 28 Taxation 61.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15BB,(4AA),(4C) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=279 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 51 of 1972, decision dated: 25-01-1982. dates of hearing: 24th and 26-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND G. M. KAUREJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz Ahmed Munshi, Deputy Attorney-General and Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicants. Ali Athar, Naseem Ahmed Khan, Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Muzaffar Hussain, Hyder Raza Naqvi, Mohsin Tayyabali, Naimur Rehman, Shah Hamid Sulaiman and Sirajul Haqs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nEBRAHIM D. AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 85 = 1982 SLD 85 = 1982 PTD 180 = (1982) 45 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Accounting Methods and Business Income Assessment\nKey Points:\n(a) The assessee used the mercantile method of accounting consistently and was not allowed to switch to a cash method retroactively for certain assessment years (1963–64, 1964–65).\n(b) The assessee, a statutory corporation run on a business proposition, had its profits assessed under Section 10 as business income.\nConclusion:\nConsistency in the chosen accounting method is mandatory, and statutory corporations operating for profit are assessable under business income provisions.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. (1938) 6 I.T.R. 36 (P.C).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(1),13,6 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 12 of 1977, decision dated: 8-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Hossain with A. M. Mahmudur Rahman for Applicant. Habibul Islam Bhuiyan", + "Party Name:": "HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, DACCA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 9 = 1984 SLD 9 = 1984 PTD 74 = (1985) 51 TAX 76 = 1985 PTCL 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Dividend Income\nKey Points:\n•\nDividends from shares of companies benefiting under Section 15BB were exempted from tax and not included in the shareholder's total income.\nConclusion:\nDividend income from companies enjoying Section 15BB benefits is exempt from tax.\nCitations:\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (East) v. Yasin Ali Akbar H Ibrahim P.L.D. 1982 Kar. E47.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15BB ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 419 of 1972, decision dated: 10-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND ALLEY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Mian Muhammad Yousuf and Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER of INCOME TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMian MUHAMMAD YOUSUF & Co., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 10 = 1984 SLD 10 = 1984 PTD 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers Welfare Fund Levy and Loss Carry-Forward\nKey Points:\n•\nLevy on Workers Welfare Funds is calculated based on assessable income.\n•\nIf the assessee’s loss is carried forward under Section 24(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and no assessable income remains, no surcharge can be levied.\nConclusion:\nNo surcharge applies if assessable income is nullified by carried-forward losses.\nCitations:\nWorkers Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971), Section 4.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(2) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 784/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 11-08-1983, hearing DATE : 27-07-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R.. Hyder Bhimjee, C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 11 = 1984 SLD 11 = 1984 PTD 77 = (1984) 49 TAX 12 = 1986 PTCL 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Validity of Revision under Section 66A – Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 / Section 34A – Repealed Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe assessee, an Association of Persons engaged in the business of scooters and rickshaws, was assessed for tax year 1976–77 under Section 23(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and an assessment order was passed on 27 June 1978. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who set aside the assessment on 2 October 1980.\nSubsequently, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) issued a notice under Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (analogous to Section 34A of the repealed Act), on 14 October 1980, asserting that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. A final order cancelling the original assessment and remanding the case for reassessment was passed by the IAC on 25 October 1980.\nHowever, by the time the IAC issued the notice, the assessment order no longer existed due to its annulment by the AAC on 2 October 1980.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal held that:\nSince the original assessment order was annulled on 2 October 1980, no valid assessment order existed as of 14 October 1980 (when the IAC issued the notice).\nTherefore, the IAC lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 66A of the Ordinance (or under Section 34A of the repealed Act), as such powers can only be exercised on an existing and valid order.\nThe impugned revision order dated 25 October 1980 was without legal authority and consequently void.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal accepted the appeal and set aside the revision order of the IAC for lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(3),34A,66A Income Tax Act, 1922=34A, ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 726/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 27-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood A. Hashmey\nAbrar Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 12 = 1984 SLD 12 = 1984 PTD 79 = (1984) 49 TAX 1 = 1986 PTCL 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Annulment of Income Tax Assessment\n(Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)\nCore Issue\nWhether the assessment framed solely by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was legally valid despite the Central Board of Revenue’s (CBR) directive requiring joint assessment by ITO and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) for cases under detailed scrutiny. \nKey Facts\nAssessee: A registered firm engaged in cotton ginning and seed crushing.\nA.Y. 1979–80: Filed initial return (15/9/1979) declaring ₹63,029; revised return (4/3/1980) declaring ₹2,35,000.\nProcedural Breach:\nCase selected for detailed scrutiny due to revised return and discrepancies.\nCBR Circular No. 3/1979 mandated:\n Assessment in cases selected for detailed scrutiny shall be made jointly by ITO and Range IAC. \nAssessment exceeding ₹1 lakh required Commissioner’s approval.\nAssessment Framed: Solely by ITO (income determined: ₹6,54,501), without IAC’s involvement or Commissioner’s approval.\nTribunal’s Ruling\nJurisdictional Void:\nSection 5(2), Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and CBR Circular No. 3/1979 were binding.\nITO had no authority to assess unilaterally in detailed scrutiny cases.\nDepartment failed to prove IAC’s involvement despite repeated directives to produce records.\nAssessment Annulled:\nBreach was fatal to validity – assessment declared void ab initio.\nRelied on:\nPLD 1978 Kar 723: Non-compliance with statutory directives invalidates proceedings.\nSection 8, ITO 1979: Officers must follow CBR orders.\nMerits Not Addressed:\nAnnulment rendered issues like deemed interest (₹84,119) academic.\nKey Legal Principles\nBinding Instructions: CBR circulars under Section 8 override general assessment powers.\nProcedural Sanctity: Mandatory joint-assessment requirements cannot be bypassed.\nBurden of Proof: Department must substantiate compliance (failed here).\nOutcome: Assessment quashed entirely; matter remitted for fresh proceedings per CBR norms.\nSignificance: Reinforces strict adherence to procedural safeguards in tax assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,8,12(7),134 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1460/LB of 1982-83, decision dated: 2nd October; 1983, hearing DATE : 16-03-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALT, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Saleem, C. A. Abrar Ahmad, D. R. and Muhammad Arshad Pervez, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 13 = 1984 SLD 13 = 1984 PTD 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Appeal Provisions\nKey Points:\n•\nAmendments providing two appeals under Section 30 by the Finance Act, 1967, were not retrospective.\n•\nAppeals filed for assessment years 1963–64 and 1964–65 were governed by pre-amendment laws.\nConclusion:\nLegislation does not apply retrospectively unless expressly stated.\nCitations:\nEssential Industries, Model Town Lahore v. C.B.R. P.L.D. 1969 Lah. 24.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,31 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd December, 1981, hearing DATE : 16-12-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS S. M. YUSUF BROTMRS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 14 = 1984 SLD 14 = 1984 PTD 87 = (1975) 32 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Agents of Non-Residents and Tax Deduction Obligations\nKey Points:\n•\nAgents of non-residents can be held liable for deducting taxes under Section 18(3B).\n•\nLiability as an agent arises only after the completion of an assessment.\nConclusion:\nAn agent is not personally liable until formally assessed in that capacity.\nCitations:\nRudhashyam Agarwala v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan P.L.D. 1960 S.C. 187.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,18,18(3B)(7)3,4(1)(c),42,43,23,29,42,45,46 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. 387 of 1972 (T. R. 20 of 1973), decision dated: 22-02-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND M. E. RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Lone for Petitioner. Khalil-ur-Rehman", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nNOON SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 15 = 1984 SLD 15 = 1984 PTD 95 = (1984) 49 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Continuation of Appeals Post-Legislation Change\nKey Points:\n•\nAppeals pending under the 1922 Act must be disposed of under the same law, even after the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, came into force.\nConclusion:\nPending appeals continue under the provisions of the original legislation.\nCitations:\nSections 6 & 24, General Clauses Act (1897).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=6,6(1),33(4),66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Applications Nos. 226-KB and 227-KB of 1980-81 (Assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79), decision dated: 23-10-1983, hearing DATE : 22-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Yusuf Sharih for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 16 = 1984 SLD 16 = 1984 PTD 99 = (1984) 50 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure Deductions\nKey Points:\n•\nExpenses incurred by a local company for a foreign parent company must be substantiated by agreements.\n•\nWithout evidence of contractual obligation, such expenses are disallowed.\nConclusion:\nUnsubstantiated business expenses cannot be claimed as deductions.\nCitations:\n1982 P.T.D. 339.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 626 of 1972, decision dated: 16th November 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALL NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Sharif for Applicant. Shaikh Hyder", + "Party Name:": "CIBA LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 17 = 1984 SLD 17 = 1984 PTD 101 = (1984) 50 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Companies and Production of Books of Accounts\nKey Points:\n•\nCertified copies of accounts are insufficient if detailed examination of expenses is required.\n•\nFailure to produce books may result in disallowance of expenses.\nConclusion:\nProduction of original books is mandatory for detailed assessments.\nCitations:\nSection 22(4), Income Tax Act (1922).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,22(4),2(aA) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 92 of 1973, decision dated: 7-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Sharif for Applicant. Shaikh Holder", + "Party Name:": "MECHANICAL MOVERS INC\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, B RANGE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 18 = 1984 SLD 18 = 1984 PTD 104 = (1984) 50 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Garnishee Proceedings for Revenue Recovery\nKey Points:\n•\nRevenue authorities can recover dues from parties assuming liability for an assessee's debt.\nConclusion:\nRecovery through garnishee proceedings is valid when liability is acknowledged.\nCitations:\nP.L.D. 1969 Kar. 21.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=93,93(1)(2)(3) Income Tax Rules, 1982=173,174,S.93(1)(2)(3) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-567 of 1983, decision dated: 15-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. C, J. AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahenshah Hussain for Petitioner. Aziz Munshi, Dy. A.G.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SAIFEE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE C5, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 19 = 1984 SLD 19 = 1984 PTD 108 = (1984) 49 TAX 2", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreed Assessments\nKey Points:\n•\nAssessments agreed upon by the assessee cannot be subsequently disputed.\nConclusion:\nAgreed assessments bind both parties.\nCitations:\nMadeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India (1975) 98 I.T.R. 209.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=32 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1976, decision dated: 5-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. R. SHARMA AND S. S. KANG, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. S. Gupta for the Assessee. D. N. Awasthy with B K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KANSHI RAM WADHWA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 20 = 1984 SLD 20 = 1984 PTD 110 = (1984) 49 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Business Activities\nKey Points:\n•\nLeasing out factory premises constitutes a business under the partnership deed.\nConclusion:\nFirms engaged in leasing activities are eligible for registration.\nCitations:\nDal Chand & Sons v. C.I.T. (1968) 69 I.T.R. 247.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=263 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 115 of 1976, decision dated: 10-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. R. SHARMA AND S. S. KANG, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. K. Sohdi for the Assessee. D. N. Awasthy with B. K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CAPITAL FOUNDRY & ENGINEERING WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 21 = 1984 SLD 21 = 1984 PTD 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reasonable Dower and Estate Duty\nKey Points:\n•\nDower must align with the income and lifestyle of spouses at the time of marriage.\nConclusion:\nCommunity traditions are irrelevant for determining dower under the Estate Duty Act.\nCitations:\nSection 45(2)(i), Estate Duty Act (1950).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=45,45(2)(i) ", + "Case #": "Estate. Duty Application No. 686 of 1972, decision dated: 16-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHUMMAD ZAHOARUL HAQ AND. ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. I. N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI\nvs\nMst. HALIMABAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 22 = 1984 SLD 22 = 1984 PTD 113 = (1984) 50 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday and Loss Carry-Forward\nKey Points:\n•\nTax holidays under Section 15BB allow carrying forward losses within the holiday period.\nConclusion:\nAssessees are entitled to carry forward losses during the tax holiday period.\nCitations:\n1982 P.T.D. 130.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1974, decision dated: 1st November, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaik Haider for Applicant. S. H. Suleman", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS ASAF INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 23 = 1984 SLD 23 = 1984 PTD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Goodwill Valuation for Estate Duty\nKey Points:\n•\nGoodwill valuation must consider multiple factors, including management, location, and business facilities.\nConclusion:\nGoodwill is an asset and its valuation must reflect comprehensive considerations.\nCitations:\nStroud’s Judicial Dictionary; Trego v. Hunt 1896 A.C. 7.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Rules, 1950=23 ", + "Case #": "Estate Duty Case No. 166 of 1972, decision dated: 25-04-1983, hearing DATE : 11-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naim Pasha. Nasraullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMER FAROOQUI\nvs\nTHE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 24 = 1984 SLD 24 = 1984 PTD 122 = (1985) 51 TAX 60 = 1984 PTCL 268 = 1985 PTCL 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Remedies and Tax Penalties\nKey Points:\n•\nConstitutional petitions may challenge penalties if departmental orders lack jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\nPenalties imposed without jurisdiction are void.\nCitations:\nSection 46(1), Income Tax Act (1922).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 615 of 1976, decision dated: 3rd October, 1983, hearing DATE : 30-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PRIZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MIR QADIR BUX & BROX. AND OTHERS\nvs\nPAKISTAN FHROUGH SECTRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF INANCE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 25 = 1984 SLD 25 = 1984 PTD 124 = (1984) 49 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Period for Reference Applications\nKey Points:\n•\nReference applications under the 1922 Act must adhere to its limitation period, regardless of subsequent laws.\nConclusion:\nDelayed applications cannot escape limitation provisions.\nCitations:\nSection 66(1), Income Tax Act (1922).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 General Clauses Act, 1897=6,24 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1)(2),166(2t(I) ", + "Case #": "R. As. Nos. 206/KB to 210/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 22nd October,1983, hearing DATE : 22-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND GHULUM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din and Abdul Matin, C. A. for Applicant. Yaasuf Sharih, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 26 = 1984 SLD 26 = 1984 PTCL 307 = (1984) 49 TAX 30 = 1984 PTD 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Adventure in the Nature of Trade – Isolated Transaction of Sale of Land\nDetails:\nThe case concerns the assessment year 1976-77 and relates to whether the resale of a plot of land by the assessee constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade and is hence liable to income tax as business income. The assessee was allotted a plot measuring 2,306 sq. yds. at Rs. 4,61,256 by the then Chief Minister of Sind on 6-6-1975 specifically for constructing a cinema house. The assessee made an application to obtain the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) and took genuine steps for the construction of the cinema. However, he eventually failed to obtain the NOC and decided to sell the land.\nThe first agreement for sale dated 16-6-1976 was made to one Messrs O. for Rs. 5,36,963, which fell through, and the land was later resold to Messrs A-1 on 14-1-1982 for the same price. The Income-tax Officer assessed the profit of Rs. 20,20,341 (after adjusting land cost and interest paid on a loan from Bank of America) as income from an adventure in the nature of trade. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulled this assessment, holding that it was an isolated transaction and not a business activity.\nThe Department appealed further, but the appellate authority affirmed the decision, emphasizing that:\nThe assessee made serious efforts to build a cinema.\nThe resale was not part of a series of transactions, nor did the assessee develop or parcel the land to suggest a trading motive.\nThe purchase was not made with a sole intention to resell at a profit.\nThe burden of proving the transaction to be an adventure in the nature of trade lay on the Department, and it failed to discharge that burden.\nHeld:\nThe transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade. The resale was a mere realisation of an investment, not a trading activity. The profit earned was not taxable as business income, and the Department’s appeal was dismissed. The court also referred to several landmark judgments to affirm the principle that isolated transactions, unless proven to be part of a trade or carried with that intent, are not necessarily taxable as business income.\nCitations:\nCalifornian Copper Syndicate v. Harris, (5 T.C. 159)\nCommissioner of Inland Revenue v. Livingston, (11 T.C. 538)\nG. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC)\nRaja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 179 (SC)\nJanki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT, (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC); (37 ITR 242 cited on burden of proof)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1136/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 19-12-1983, hearing DATE : 26-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmed, D. R\nZ.H. Joffery", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 27 = 1984 SLD 27 = 1984 PTD 131 = (1984) 49 TAX 28 = 1984 PTCL 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Non-Professional Artist Income\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee, a well-known singer and director of a company, claimed an exemption under Section 4(3)(xii-b) for singing income, arguing it was earned as a non-professional artist.\n•\nHeld: Since singing was not the primary source of livelihood or substantial income, the assessee was not a professional artist and could claim the exemption.\nConclusion:\nIncome from artistic endeavors may qualify for exemptions if the activity is not pursued as a profession or vocation.\nCitations:\nBallentine’s Law Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(xiib),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 347 of 1972, decision dated: 15th September. 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOM&TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nHABIB VALI MUHAMMAD, DIRECTOR, VALISONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 28 = 1984 SLD 28 = 1984 PTD 137 = (1984) 49 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Supervisory Powers under Section 34-A\nKey Points:\n(a) Section 34-A is supervisory, aiming to prevent arbitrary assessments by the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) and safeguard state revenue.\n(b) Erroneous assessments must be based on concrete evidence, not vague assumptions.\n(c) Inspecting Assistant Commissioners (I.A.C.) must confront the assessee with their findings.\n(d) Mere disagreements between officers do not justify invoking Section 34-A.\nConclusion:\nPowers under Section 34-A must be exercised cautiously, based on clear evidence and procedural fairness.\nCitations:\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 34-A.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),135 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 25 of 1982, decision dated: 24th December 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJID MALLICK AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner. Javed Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION, MIRPUR\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 29 = 1984 SLD 29 = 1984 PTD 150 = (1984) 49 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Gross Profit Enhancement\nKey Points:\n(a) Accounts maintained under Excise Rules cannot be rejected without cogent reasons proving profits cannot be deduced.\n(b) Enhancing gross profit rates without disclosing comparative cases to the assessee is unjustified.\nConclusion:\nAccount rejection and profit enhancement must follow principles of natural justice and substantive reasoning.\nCitations:\n(1938) 6 I.T.R. 36; (1954) 26 I.T.R. 159; (1974) 95 I.T.R. 401.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 596 of 1972, decision dated: 27-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS KARACHI TEXTILE DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS, KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 30 = 1984 SLD 30 = 1984 PTD 154 = (1984) 49 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Depreciation on Acquired Assets\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee claimed additional depreciation for second-hand ships under Section 10(2)(vi).\n•\nTribunal allowed the claim, affirming depreciation eligibility per prescribed rules.\nConclusion:\nAdditional depreciation on second-hand assets is permissible if conditions under the Income Tax Rules are satisfied.\nCitations:\nSection 10(2)(vi), Rule 9(1) & (2), Income Tax Rules, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi),66(1) Income Tax Rules, 1922=9(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 802 of 1982, decision dated: 4-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTER AND Z. C. VALIANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah A wan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 31 = 1984 SLD 31 = 1984 PTD 157 = (1984) 49 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Assessment of Inherited Property\nKey Points:\n(a) Legal issues can be raised at any stage, even if not presented earlier.\n(b) Income from inherited property must be assessed individually, not collectively, if shares are clearly defined.\n(c) Income from property leased for construction by lessees must be assessed as income from property under Section 9.\nConclusion:\nIncome from inherited property and leasing activities must be assessed accurately as per the specified sections.\nCitations:\nSection 9(3), Income Tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,9,9(1),12 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 638 of 1982-83; decided on 15-01-1984, hearing DATE : 21st August, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ADDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Hafeez Khawaja. Imtiaz Anjum", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 32 = 1984 SLD 32 = 1984 PTD 160 = (1984) 49 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Reference Applications\nKey Points:\n•\nApplications for references to the High Court must follow the limitation period under the repealed Act if pending appeals are decided under it.\n•\nFiling under a new provision does not extend the limitation period.\nConclusion:\nAdherence to the limitation period under the relevant legislation is crucial for reference applications.\nCitations:\nSection 66(1), Income Tax Act, 1922; Section 136(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),166(2) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 54/1-LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 19-12-1983, hearing DATE : 29-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Dareshahi and Qurban Ali Bugti, D. R. for Applicant. A. A Gangat, F. C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 33 = 1984 SLD 33 = 1984 PTD 166 = (1984) 49 TAX 117 = 1984 PTCL 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Claim for Rebate on Declared Dividends\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee declared dividends after filing the initial return but before finalizing the assessment.\n•\nRevised return claiming rebate was accepted since the assessment was not finalized.\nConclusion:\nRevised returns for rebates are valid if filed before finalizing assessments.\nCitations:\nSections 10(2) & 22(3), Income Tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),66(1),22(3) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 36 of 1974, decision dated: 8-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. A. A. Shareef", + "Party Name:": "TNE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRALZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS GRAMOPHONE CO. OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 34 = 1984 SLD 34 = 1984 PTD 167 = (1984) 49 TAX 55 = 1984 PTCL 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax Dues Based on Voluntary Undertaking\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, originally operating in East Pakistan, shifted his business to Karachi after the fall of East Pakistan. On 13-3-1972, he formed a one-day partnership with five individuals (former partners of Messrs Frederic's Cafeteria) under the name New Radio Palace, which was dissolved the next day, with the petitioner taking over the business as a sole proprietor. Facing tenancy transfer issues, the petitioner voluntarily submitted a declaration to the Income Tax Department on 9-9-1972, undertaking to pay any tax liabilities of Messrs Frederic Cafeteria and its partners up to 31-3-1972. Based on this undertaking, a demand of Rs. 2,18,920 was raised against him. His objections, appeal, and revision were all rejected by the tax authorities.\nHeld:\nThe Court upheld the action of the tax authorities, holding that recovery of dues based on an explicit undertaking was lawful. The petitioner’s attempt to deny liability by invoking Section 48 of the Income Tax Act was rejected, as the department was not recovering the tax of one assessee from another, but rather enforcing a voluntary guarantee. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim and dismissed the constitutional petition with costs.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44-C,46,48 Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)=9 ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 154 of 1976, decision dated: 25-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C, J. AND SALEEM AKHTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naasem Khan for Petitioner\nLatif Khans", + "Party Name:": "ZAFAR ALI\nvs\nIncome Tax Officer and Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 35 = 1984 SLD 35 = 1984 PTD 169 = (1984) 49 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Day-to-Day Expense Allowances\nKey Points:\n•\nForeign technicians receiving daily allowances for expenses in Pakistan were exempt from taxation.\n•\nSuch allowances were not considered part of salary under Section 4(3)(vi).\nConclusion:\nAllowances necessary for duty performance qualify for exemptions.\nCitations:\nC.I.T., Gujarat v. Tejajee Faras Ram Kharawala Ltd. (1968) 67 I.T.R. 95.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 792 of 1972, decision dated: 30-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. A. A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nVOLKMAR ROEDDEE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 36 = 1984 SLD 36 = 1984 PTD 171 = (1984) 50 TAX 37 = 1984 PTCL 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Assessment and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nKey Points:\n(a) Additional assessment proceedings require definite information or prior approval from the I.A.C.\n(b) Notices need not disclose all conditions but must comply with legal prerequisites.\n(c) Constitutional jurisdiction can address procedural errors in additional assessments.\nConclusion:\nInitiation of additional assessments must strictly follow statutory conditions.\nCitations:\nMessrs Paramount Electric Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax P.L.D. 1976 Lah. 1147.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65(2) Income Tax Act, 1922=16(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3644 of 1983, decision dated: 21st February, 1984, hearing DATE : 19-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan Syed Niaz Ali Shah, Federal Counsel under Courts Direction", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANEEF MONNOO\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 37 = 1984 SLD 37 = 1984 PTD 179 = (1984) 49 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Agent and Protective Assessments\nKey Points:\n(a) Persons with business connections with non-residents can be treated as agents.\n(b) Income of a principal may be taxed either in their name or the agent’s.\n(c) Protective assessments cannot be based on vague possibilities; liability must be definitive.\nConclusion:\nTax liability must be clearly established, whether assessed to a principal or an agent.\nCitations:\n(1958) 33 I.T.R. 154; (1967) 84 I.T.R. 428.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43,42 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 182 of 1973, decision dated: 21st February, 1983, hearing DATE : 7-12-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Dareshani. A. A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMESSRS PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 38 = 1984 SLD 38 = 1984 PTD 182 = (1984) 49 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts Without Definite Findings\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee, a medical practitioner, maintained proper accounts, but the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) rejected the book results due to the absence of a stock register for medicines and low profits.\n•\nThe same method of accounting had been accepted in prior years.\n•\nHeld: An assessee is free to choose any method of accounting, provided income, profits, and gains can be deduced. Rejection of accounts requires evidence of defects, deficiencies, or falsities, which were absent in this case.\nConclusion:\nAccounts cannot be rejected solely because a stock register is not maintained if the method allows accurate computation of profits.\nCitations:\n(194) 2 I.T.R. 305; (1974) 30 Taxation 27; (1954) 26 I.T.R. 159.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 126 of 1972, decision dated: 22-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR & Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "DR. COL. SAID AHMAD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 39 = 1984 SLD 39 = 1984 PTD 187 = (1984) 50 TAX 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subletting of Contracts and Agency\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee sublet a contract under a written agreement, but the I.T.O. treated the sublettee as a benamidar.\n•\nThe agreement was genuine, and the sublettee was independently assessed.\n•\nHeld: Subletting contracts under valid agreements are legitimate, and profits belong to the sublettee unless evidence proves otherwise.\nConclusion:\nSubletting is valid if agreements are genuine and not proved to be sham.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,33 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 743 and 744 of 1972, beard on 1st December, 1983. dates of hearing : 30th November and 1st December, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Hassan Inamullah", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS MUSTAFA PRESTRESSED, R. C. C. PIPE WORKS LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 40 = 1984 SLD 40 = 1984 PTD 189 = (1984) 50 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Provisions and Retrospective Application\nKey Points:\n•\nSection 45-A, a penal provision, is not retrospective unless explicitly stated.\n•\nPenal statutes must operate prospectively unless the law expressly provides otherwise.\nConclusion:\nPenal laws cannot be applied retroactively without specific statutory provision.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 741 of 1972, decision dated: 28-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. I. N. Pasta", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nNISAR AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 41 = 1984 SLD 41 = 1984 PTD 190 = (1984) 50 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts by Income Tax Officer\nKey Points:\n•\nThe I.T.O. rejected accounts due to unverifiable purchases, despite the assessee maintaining detailed registers.\n•\nHeld: Rejection of accounts was unjustified as there were no substantive defects, and the disclosed results were consistent with prior years.\nConclusion:\nAccounts should not be rejected without substantive evidence of defects or inaccuracies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 54 and 74 of 1973, decision dated: 11th October,1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. I. N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE\nvs\nMESSRS AHMED FOOD INDUSTRTES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 42 = 1984 SLD 42 = 1984 PTD 192 = (1984) 50 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Legal Expenses\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee incurred legal expenses for recovering a loan but failed to prove it was part of the business.\n•\nHeld: Legal expenses were disallowed as deductions due to a lack of evidence linking them to business activities.\nConclusion:\nLegal expenses are deductible only if directly related to the business.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 557 of 1972, decision dated: 28-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS COWASJEE FAMILY FUNDS\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 43 = 1984 SLD 43 = 1984 PTD 194 = (1984) 50 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice Compliance in Assessment Proceedings\nKey Points:\n•\nThe representative of the assessee signed an order sheet, fulfilling notice requirements under Section 23(3).\n•\nHeld: The signing of documents by an authorized representative amounts to sufficient compliance, even without written authorization.\nConclusion:\nCompliance with notice provisions does not always require formal written authorizations.\nCitations:\nP.L.D. 1959 S.C. (Pak.) 202.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(2)(3),61 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case-No. 830 of 1982, decision dated: 13-10-1983, hearing DATE : 6-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant A. A. Dareshani", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS CHURIGAR PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 44 = 1984 SLD 44 = 1984 PTD 197 = (1984) 50 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Addition to Declared Income\nKey Points:\n•\nThe I.T.O. added income based on assumptions, despite the assessee's accounts being verified.\n•\nHeld: Additions to income without evidence or authority under the law are arbitrary and unsustainable.\nConclusion:\nIncome additions must be backed by evidence and statutory authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,23(3) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 679 and 680 of 1972, decision dated: 28-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HUSSAIN EBRAHIM AGENCIES LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 45 = 1984 SLD 45 = 1984 PTD 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Liabilities as Income\nKey Points:\n•\nTime-barred liabilities do not automatically become profits in the hands of the assessee.\n•\nHeld: The mere expiration of limitation does not convert liabilities into taxable income.\nConclusion:\nLiabilities cannot be treated as income solely based on limitation laws.\nCitations:\n1980 P.T.D. 314.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2A) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application (Income-tax) No. 770 of 1972, decision dated: 3rd October, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CEN t RAL), KARACHI\n vs\nMESSRS MORRIS JACOB & Co., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 46 = 1984 SLD 46 = 1984 PTD 210 = 1983 PTCL 425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe appellant, a private limited company, had its origins in the business of Sharma Trading Company, operated by Deo Datt Sharma. In 1947, the appellant company was incorporated, taking over the business of Sharma Trading Company. Deo Datt Sharma was appointed as the managing director and paid salary, commission, and bonuses for his role in managing the Delhi branch of the business. Over time, Deo Datt Sharma’s remuneration was consistently allowed as a permissible deduction by the Income-tax authorities in earlier assessments.\nHowever, in 1968, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1959-60 on the grounds that income had escaped assessment. The Income-tax Officer's belief was based on his suspicion that Deo Datt Sharma's remuneration was not genuine, citing his minimal withdrawals and the large gifts and loans made to the relatives of Ganga Saran Sharma, the company's managing director.\nIssues Raised:\nWhether the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 148 to reopen the assessment was valid.\nWhether there was an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, justifying the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a).\nAppellant's Argument:\nThe appellant argued that there was no omission or failure to disclose any material facts in the original assessment. They contended that Deo Datt Sharma’s remuneration was genuine, paid for services rendered, and fully disclosed in the original assessment.\nThe appellant emphasized that the Income-tax Officer was aware of the gifts and loans made by Deo Datt Sharma and that these transactions did not imply that the remuneration paid was bogus or sham.\nRespondent's Argument (Income-tax Officer):\nThe Income-tax Officer argued that the remuneration paid to Deo Datt Sharma was not genuine, citing the fact that he had only withdrawn a small portion of his remuneration while making large gifts and loans to relatives of the managing director.\nThe Income-tax Officer contended that this raised suspicions about the true nature of the remuneration, leading to the reopening of the assessment.\nJudgment:\nThe Court ruled in favor of the appellant and quashed the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, holding that the conditions for reopening the assessment under Section 147(a) were not met. The key points from the judgment are as follows:\nReason to Believe: The Court emphasized that for a notice under Section 147(a) to be valid, the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose material facts. The Court found that there was no rational basis for the Income-tax Officer’s belief that the remuneration was bogus or sham.\nGenuine Remuneration: The Court noted that Deo Datt Sharma was genuinely managing the Delhi branch and was paid reasonable remuneration for his services. The mere fact that he made gifts and loans to close relatives did not invalidate the remuneration paid to him. It was not unusual for him to transfer money to his relatives, and there was no requirement for the assessee to disclose such personal financial matters during the assessment.\nDisclosure of Material Facts: The Court found that all material facts regarding the remuneration were disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no obligation on the assessee to disclose the manner in which Deo Datt Sharma had utilized his remuneration. The Court concluded that the assessee had not omitted any material facts.\nJurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer: Since neither of the conditions necessary for issuing a notice under Section 147(a) were satisfied, the Court held that the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer was without jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The notice issued by the Income-tax Officer on 28th March, 1968, was quashed. The Revenue was ordered to pay the costs of the appellant throughout.\nCost: The Revenue will bear the costs of the appellant throughout.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147(a),148 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1146 of 1973, decision dated: 23rd April, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Verona and X. J. John Advocates. \nV. S. Desai, Senior Advocate with Champat Rai and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "Messes GANGA SARAN & SONS (PRIVATE) LTD., CALCUTTA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 47 = 1984 SLD 47 = 1984 PTD 218 = (1984) 50 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts by I.T.O.\nKey Points:\n•\nAccounts were rejected without detailed reasoning, despite being similar to previous years’ accepted methods.\n•\nHeld: Rejection was arbitrary as explanations were reasonable and supported by evidence.\nConclusion:\nAccounts must not be rejected arbitrarily; detailed reasoning is essential.\nCitations:\nRohm Cloth House v. C.I.T. 1983 P.T.D. 63.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 218 of 1,973, decision dated: 17-11-1983. dates of hearing: 16th and 17-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAS BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Holder. Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS FATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 48 = 1984 SLD 48 = 1984 PTD 221 = (1985) 51 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Appellate Tribunal\nKey Points:\n•\nThe Tribunal can reject or accept accounts, provided its satisfaction is reasonable and non-arbitrary.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal can intervene in I.T.O. decisions if they lack reasonable grounds.\nConclusion:\nAppellate Tribunals hold the power to override unreasonable assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,33(4)(f),10,12 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 221, 222 and 223 of 1973, decision dated: 8-12-1983. dates of hearing : 7th and 8-12-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqi. Iqbal Naim -Pasha", + "Party Name:": "Tea COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSERS BAHAWALPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 49 = 1984 SLD 49 = 1984 PTD 225 = (1984) 50 TAX 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Additions to Gross Profits\nKey Points:\n•\nThe I.T.O. arbitrarily increased gross profits without evidence.\n•\nHeld: Additions must be based on rational material and evidence.\nConclusion:\nArbitrary profit additions are unjustified without substantial evidence.\nCitations:\nMuhammadi Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner (East) Karachi (1982) 45 Taxation 140.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 72, 7s and 39 of 1973, decision dated: 22-12-1983, hearing DATE : 1st November, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naseem Pasha. Nasrullah A war fur Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messes ZAFAR SALEEM BROS. LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nThe COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 50 = 1984 SLD 50 = 1984 PTD 231 = (1985) 51 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Residents\nKey Points:\n•\nNon-resident income is taxed under specific provisions, ensuring allowances and exemptions are considered unless excluded by law.\n•\nHeld: Benefits under Section 15-C are applicable unless expressly denied.\nConclusion:\nTax benefits apply to non-residents unless explicitly disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=17,17(1),15C ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 801 of 1972, decision dated: 17-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui. Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nISMAIL YOUSUF SAEDAT AND OTHBM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 51 = 1984 SLD 51 = 1984 PTD 234 = (1985) 51 TAX 83 = 1985 PTCL 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Default in Tax Payment – Effect of Instalment Orders and Doctrine of Merger\nDetails:\nThe Department filed an application under section 66(11) of the Income-tax Act challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision to cancel a penalty of Rs. 1,788 imposed under section 46(1) of the Act.\nThe penalty related to a tax demand of Rs. 11,928 for the assessment year 1958-59, which the respondent failed to pay by the due date. The Income-tax Officer, without awaiting a pending application for instalments made to the Commissioner on 8-2-1961, imposed a penalty of 15% on 16-2-1961.\nHowever, the Commissioner, by an order dated 9-3-1961, granted the respondent permission to pay in instalments. The respondent appealed, asserting that the penalty was unjustified as he had sought instalment relief prior to imposition and could not be treated as a defaulter.\nThe Department argued the penalty was justified. The respondent relied on established case law to argue:\nThe doctrine of merger applied — once the appellate authority ruled, the original order merged into it.\nThe Commissioner's grant of instalments altered the timeline, so the assessee could not be held in default on the original due date.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court, per Justice Saleem Akhtar, upheld the Tribunal’s cancellation of the penalty. It held that:\nWhere the Commissioner grants instalments, the original time schedule stands modified.\nTherefore, no default occurs under the original schedule, and penalty cannot be imposed.\nAdditionally, the initial imposition of 15% penalty was itself excessive, as 5% should have been applied in the first instance.\nThe reference was answered in the affirmative, confirming the Tribunal's cancellation of the penalty.\nCitations:\nBewani Textile Mills v. Income-tax Officer, 1967 PTD 622\nAzam Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1980 PTD 126\nDoctrine of Merger", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference. No. 740 of 1972, decision dated: 13-10-1983, hearing date: 28-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z.C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Raider. I\n. N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COINIMISS10NER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nSADRUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 52 = 1984 SLD 52 = 1984 PTD 235 = (1980) 41 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Computation of Total Income\nKey Points:\n•\nTotal income computation must include all allowable deductions and exemptions.\n•\nHeld: Arbitrary denial of deductions is contrary to law.\nConclusion:\nDeductions must be incorporated when calculating total income.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. N.M. Raiji (1949) 17 I.T.R. 180.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15A,16,17 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 63, 64, 65 of 1969, decision dated: 1st February, 1978, hearing DATE : 11-01-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Applicant Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nR. C. CHAPMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 53 = 1984 SLD 53 = 1984 PTD 239 = (1982) 45 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Findings Without Evidence\nKey Points:\n•\nThe I.T.O. rejected accounts without material evidence or methodical basis.\n•\nHeld: Findings must be supported by material evidence.\nConclusion:\nAccount rejections and assessments require substantiated findings.\nCitations:\nPunjab Trading Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1965) 2 Tax. 81.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 105 of 1972, decision dated: 22-05-1979. dates of hearing: 7th, 8th and 9-05-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAK ALI KAZI AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Masood Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMADI TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST) KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 54 = 1984 SLD 54 = 1984 PTD 248 = (1985) 51 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reconstitution of Firms\nKey Points:\n•\nThe firm was reconstituted by admitting new partners, not forming a new entity.\n•\nHeld: The reconstituted firm qualified for registration renewal.\nConclusion:\nReconstitution of a firm does not preclude registration renewal.\nCitations:\n1980 P.T.D. 331.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 713 of 1972, decision dated: 6-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SHAKOOR ALI MUHAMMAD, HYDERABAD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 55 = 1984 SLD 55 = 1984 PTD 250 = (1985) 51 TAX 66 = 1985 PTCL 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Bonus Paid to Shareholder-Employee under Section 10(2)(x), Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a private limited company, claimed deduction of Rs. 4,500 paid as bonus to its Managing Director, who also held 185 out of 1,000 shares in the company. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim on the ground that since the Managing Director was a shareholder, the bonus could be considered a disguised distribution of profit, invoking the bar in the second limb of Section 10(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the ITO’s view and rejected the reliance placed on the Loyal Motor Service Co. v. CIT [(1946) 14 ITR 647], choosing instead to follow its own previous decision.\nThe High Court was called upon under Section 66(1) of the Act to decide whether such bonus payment was allowable as a deduction.\nHeld:\nThe High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that the bonus payment to the Managing Director was a deductible expenditure under Section 10(2)(x). It ruled that:\nA Managing Director can also be an employee of a company under a separate contractual relationship.\nThe bar in the second part of Section 10(2)(x) only applies when the same amount paid as bonus would have otherwise been received as dividend or profit.\nMerely being a shareholder does not bar a person from receiving deductible bonus, especially when similar payments were made to other employees and no evidence showed the bonus was a subterfuge.\nThe term “such sum” in the second part of the clause refers to the quantum of the bonus, not merely to its nature.\nInterpreting the provision otherwise would contradict the intent of tax law and broader policy objectives, such as promoting employee shareholding.\nTax laws must be strictly construed in favor of the assessee unless clearly otherwise provided.\nCitations:\nLoyal Motor Service Co. v. CIT, Bombay [(1946) 14 ITR 647]\nCIT v. Manilal Kamdar [(1947) 14 ITR 606]\nAIR 1947 Bom. 15\nAssessment Year: 1967–68", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(x) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 810 of 1972, decision dated: 12-01-1984, hearing date: 09-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JUSTICE ALLY MADAD SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: J. H. Rahimtoola\nRespondent(s) by: Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "M/S HIGHLAND MANUFACTURERS (PAK.) LTD.\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 56 = 1984 SLD 56 = 1984 PTD 255 = (1984) 49 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Due Contributions in Salaries\nKey Points:\n•\nThe word due indicates a fixed and settled obligation, not contingent on future events.\n•\nContributions by an employer to a trust fund for employees are not immediately due if contingent on specified conditions that did not occur during the charge year.\n•\nHeld: Contributions cannot be taxed as part of salaries unless they become due and payable during the charge year. Employers cannot be treated as defaulters for failing to declare such contingent contributions.\nConclusion:\nContingent contributions to trust funds are not taxable as salaries until they become due.\nCitations:\nA.J. Hartshorn v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi 1984 P.T.D. 53.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,18(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 19, 8 to 18 and 20 to 41 of 1977, decision dated: 20th October,1983, hearing DATE : 14-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Klan. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, SALARY CIRCLE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 57 = 1984 SLD 57 = 1984 PTD 267 = (1985) 51 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fresh Notices and Assessment of Firms\nKey Points:\n•\nThe High Court granted leave to consider interpretations of Sections 34(2)(A) and 5(5).\n•\nHeld: The Income Tax Officer could issue fresh notices under amended provisions even after 8 years. Section 5(5) includes entities such as associations, firms, and companies within its scope for assessment.\nConclusion:\nFresh notices under amended provisions are valid, and associations or firms can be assessed under Section 5.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(2)(A),5(5),3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1981, decision dated: 26-07-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAZLE MUNIM, C, J., BADARUL HAIDER CHOUDHRY, SHAHABUDDIN AHMD ANED A. T. M. MASUD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Sajjadul Haq, Advocate on-Record (in both Appeals). S. M. Hussain, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aftab Hussain, Advocate et. Record (in both Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, CHIT ZONE\nvs\nMESSRS M. ISMAIL AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 58 = 1984 SLD 58 = 1984 PTD 271 = (1985) 51 TAX 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "New Objections in High Court References\nKey Points:\n•\nAssessees cannot raise new points in High Court references if they were not raised before the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nHeld: Losses under Section 24 must be set off within the conditions outlined, with a limited right to carry forward losses under Section 24(2).\nConclusion:\nNew points cannot be introduced in High Court without notice, and loss set-off rights are limited under statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66A,6,24,24(1)(2)(3) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 15 of 1973, decision dated: 8-12-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR-UL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Salah-ud-Din. Sh. Gul Pir Bakhsh", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMESSRS DADABHOY SILK MILLS LTD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 59 = 1984 SLD 59 = 1984 PTD 276 = (1984) 50 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts Under Section 13\nKey Points:\n•\nThe I.T.O. rejected the trading account due to low gross profits and the inability to correlate expenses with business secured.\n•\nHeld: Without evidence of manipulated accounts or irregularities, rejection under Section 13 is unjustified. Additions by the I.T.O. lacked material basis.\nConclusion:\nRejection of accounts requires evidence of manipulation or material irregularities.\nCitations:\nP.L.D. 1979 S.C. 949.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66A ", + "Case #": "Income tax Applications Nos. 663 and 664 of 1972, decision dated: 28-09-1982, hearing DATE : 14-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Shaft Ryder", + "Party Name:": "THE PRINTERS COMBINE (MERCANTILE) LTD, NAZIMABAD, KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax KARACHI, WEST KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 60 = 1984 SLD 60 = 1984 PTD 280 = (1984) 49 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Renewal of Partnership Registration\nKey Points:\n•\nA firm’s registration renewal was denied due to technical flaws in the application (signed by more partners than required).\n•\nHeld: The defect was a technical misunderstanding, and the firm was entitled to renewal.\nConclusion:\nTechnical flaws in registration applications should not impede justice if the partnership is genuine.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 87,of.1973, decision dated: 11-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Waheed Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL LATIF JUSAB\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 61 = 1984 SLD 61 = 1984 PTD 282 = (1984) 50 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions for Charitable Foundations\nKey Points:\n•\nFoundations registered under Section 26 of the Companies Act and approved under Section 15-D of the Income Tax Act are eligible for tax exemptions if their dominant objects are charitable or religious.\n•\nBusiness activities are taxable unless incidental to charitable objectives.\n•\nHeld: Charitable purposes remain valid even if incidental benefits arise for individuals. Income set aside for charitable purposes qualifies for exemptions.\nConclusion:\nFoundations with dominant charitable objectives are eligible for tax exemptions, even if incidental non-charitable activities occur.\nCitations:\nBai Hirbai Ruhim Aloo Paroo v. Commissioner of Income Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=26 Income Tax Act, 1922=15,4(3),15D,13 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Application No. 766 of 1972, decision dated: 15th,February, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider Ali", + "Party Name:": "AMIN MOHIUDDIN FOUNDATION LTD.\nvs\nTax COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (EAST)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 62 = 1984 SLD 62 = 1984 PTD 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\nKey Points:\n•\nFindings based on evidence and accepted by the Tribunal were upheld by the High Court as no legal question arose.\n•\nHeld: Reference was dismissed as it lacked substantive legal issues.\nConclusion:\nTribunal findings supported by evidence are final unless a substantial legal question is raised.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 2 of 1981, decision dated: 7-06-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND ABAID ULLAH KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HASSAN\nvs\nTIE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 63 = 1984 SLD 63 = 1984 PTD 304 = (1984) 50 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jewellers' Surcharge\nKey Points:\n•\nJewellers' surcharge is levied on income exceeding exemption thresholds and applies to the entire assessed income from the manufacture and sale of jewellery.\n•\nHeld: Previous judgments denying surcharge applicability were overruled.\nConclusion:\nJewellers' surcharge applies to the entire assessed income if the threshold is exceeded.\nCitations:\nI.T.As. Nos. 2730, 2731, and 2732 of 1981-82 overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,10(b),FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1637 and 1634 of 1983-84, decision dated: 8-05-1984, hearing DATE : 22-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Anjum, AC/DR and Mujahid Akbar, AC/DR. M. E. Naeem, I. T. P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 64 = 1984 SLD 64 = 1984 PTD 308 = (1984) 50 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Registration\nKey Points:\n•\nA partnership firm’s registration cannot be denied merely because partners failed to satisfactorily explain their capital investments or lacked business experience.\n•\nThe presence of lady partners or business operations managed by a general attorney does not impact the genuineness of the firm.\n•\nHeld: The firm, constituted under an instrument specifying the partners’ shares, is entitled to registration.\nConclusion:\nGenuineness of a partnership is not negated by partner profiles or business management by attorneys.\nCitations:\nP.L.D. 1981 Lah. 1; (1963) 7 Taxation (Trib.) 15.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68 Partnership Act, 1932=4 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 2119 of 1983-84, decision dated: 2-05-1984, hearing DATE : 24-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Muhammad Hafeez. Imtiaz Anjum A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 65 = 1984 SLD 65 = 1984 PTD 312 = (1984) 50 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 34-A\nKey Points:\n•\nMinority View: During pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner loses jurisdiction to revise the assessment.\n•\nMajority View: Appeals only merge with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s order on points raised in the appeal. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retains revisional powers for aspects not addressed in the appeal.\nConclusion:\nRevisional jurisdiction persists unless specifically addressed in an appellate order.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34A,33,31 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 428/PB of 1976-77, decision dated: 5-07-1981, hearing DATE : 19-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN PER MIAN ABDUL KBALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER [M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBERABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN (CONTRA)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Muhammad Shafi, I. T. P. S. M. Arif, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 66 = 1984 SLD 66 = 1984 PTD 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Import Licenses\nKey Points:\n•\nTax deductions on import licenses must be credited to the person in whose name the license is issued, regardless of who uses the imported material.\n•\nMinority View: Tax deduction should be credited to the person utilizing the material if income is taxed in their name.\nConclusion:\nTax deductions at source are credited to the license holder as per statutory language, barring equitable considerations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18(3Cc),18(5) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3776/LB/1981-82, heard on 22-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT--MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi. Khalid Mehmood, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 67 = 1984 SLD 67 = 1984 PTD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income from Leased Commercial Assets\nKey Points:\n•\nLeasing a flour mill does not change the nature of the asset as a commercial one.\n•\nIncome derived from leasing a commercial asset is business income and allows for the set-off of past business losses.\n•\nHeld: Consistent treatment across years is required for income classification.\nConclusion:\nLeased commercial assets generate business income, allowing the set-off of previous losses.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,12(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2365-A of 1979-80, decision dated: 21st April, 1984, hearing DATE : 17-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": ".Zafar Shah, G. A.. Imtiaz Anjum, A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 68 = 1984 SLD 68 = 1984 PTCL 360 = 1984 PTD 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment and Penalty\nKey Points:\n•\nNo penalty for concealment applies without evidence of deliberate fraud or negligence.\n•\nConcealment requires proof of intention to hide income, separate from reopening assessments.\nConclusion:\nPenalty for concealment requires concrete evidence of deliberate omission.\nCitations:\nC.I.T. v. A.A., 1970 I.T.R. 696.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=8(1A),8(3) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 1761 of 1982-83, decision dated: 29-04-1984, hearing DATE : 11-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Arshad Ahmad. \nImtiaz Anjum, A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 69 = 1984 SLD 69 = 1984 PTD 337 = (1984) 50 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contributions and High Court Powers\nKey Points:\n•\nHigh Court can reframe questions during arguments without prejudice to parties.\n•\nContributions to a foreign pension fund are not part of salaries but reimbursements for future liabilities, thus not disallowed as expenses.\nConclusion:\nContributions to foreign pension funds are allowable business expenses if they do not constitute salary.\nCitations:\nP.L.D. 1957 Kar. 167.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1),10(4)(a),7 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 116, 117 and 118 of 1974, decision dated: 4-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HARDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. A. Dreshani for Applicant. M. A. A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI (CENTRAL ZONE)\nvs\nMESSRS PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 70 = 1984 SLD 70 = 1984 PTD 341 = (1984) 50 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Interest on Borrowings\nKey Points:\n•\nInterest on borrowings for investing in a newly-formed company, derived from general consolidated funds of the parent company, is deductible.\n•\nThe business purpose of the borrowing validates its deductibility under Section 10(2)(iii).\nConclusion:\nInterest on capital borrowed for business investment is deductible.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Gammon (Pak.) Limited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 600 of 1972 and I. T. Rs. 1972, decision dated: 2-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider Ali. Mansoorul Arfin", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMESSRS N. FATEH ALI & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 71 = 1984 SLD 71 = 1984 PTD 347 = (1984) 50 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme\nKey Points:\n•\nReturns under the self-assessment scheme cannot be rejected arbitrarily; material evidence is required to substantiate such rejection.\n•\nDiscrepancies in declared profits must be justified with supporting data.\nConclusion:\nSelf-assessment scheme returns are binding unless proven faulty with specific evidence.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Abdullah Habib.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(1),66(1) Income Tax Rules, 1922=46 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 161 of 1973, decision dated: 2-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Noor Muhammad for Applicant. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS AMEER BUX BADARUDDIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 72 = 1984 SLD 72 = 1984 PTD 355 = (1984) 50 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Natural Justice\nKey Points:\n•\nAccounts cannot be rejected solely on low gross profits unless systemic flaws or falsities are proven.\n•\nAny reliance on comparative gross profits must be substantiated with disclosed data.\nConclusion:\nRejection of accounts requires material evidence of manipulation or systematic errors.\nCitations:\nMessrs S.M. Yousuf & Sons v. C.I.T.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,13,37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 86 of 1974, decision dated: 2-04-1984, hearing DATE : 20-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS CORONET PAINTS & CHEMICALS LTD.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 73 = 1984 SLD 73 = 1984 PTD 364 = (1984) 50 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Perquisites\nKey Points:\n•\nResidential telephone bills within prescribed limits are allowable as revenue expenditure and exempt from employee taxation.\n•\nPayments for copyrights are capital expenditures, whereas royalties are revenue expenditures.\nConclusion:\nPerquisites within statutory limits and royalties are deductible revenue expenses.\nCitations:\nHira Lal Phoolchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(4)(a)(d),18,7 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos. 101 and 109 of 1974, decision dated: 4-04-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider. A. A. Sharif\nMESSRS OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, KARACHI", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 74 = 1984 SLD 74 = 1984 PTD 368 = (1984) 50 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Loss of Employment\nKey Points:\n•\nSeparation Allowance: Payments made by employers as compensation for loss of employment, whether voluntary or mandatory, are considered capital receipts.\n•\nTax Implications: Separation allowances negotiated as settlements under labor laws and not for past services are exempt from income tax.\nConclusion:\nCompensation paid as a solatium for employment termination is a capital receipt, not taxable.\nCitations:\nP. D. Khosla (1945) 13 ITR 436; Duff v. Barlow (1942) 10 ITR 157.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,7(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 527 of 1972, decision dated: 17-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasarullah Awan for Applicant. Demo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM. A. TOOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 75 = 1984 SLD 75 = 1984 PTD 390 = (1984) 50 TAX 196 = 1984 PTCL 392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Income and Borrowed Capital\nKey Points:\n•\nDividend Exemption: Income from dividends earned on shares of companies under Section 15-BB is exempt from tax.\n•\nInterest on Borrowed Capital: Firms can lend borrowed capital at lower interest rates to partners without disallowance of interest paid to banks.\nConclusion:\nDividend income is exempt if aligned with Section 15-BB; interest on borrowings remains deductible even if lent at lower rates.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Karachi v. Yaseen Ali Akbar H. Ibrahim 1982 PTD 250.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),10(2)(3),15BB,17,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 709 of 1972, decision dated: 2-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqi for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS ADAMJEE SONS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 76 = 1984 SLD 76 = 1984 PTD 394 = (1984) 50 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Rebate for Non-Resident Assessees\nKey Points:\n•\nNon-resident assessees are entitled to investment rebates under Sections 15-AA and 15-H.\n•\nConflicts in statutory provisions must be harmonized, with latter provisions prevailing.\nConclusion:\nNon-resident assessees benefit from investment rebates under Section 15-H, aligned with Finance Act rules.\nCitations:\n1979 PTD 484; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Ed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=17,15AA,15H,16,2(5) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 41 of 1973, decision dated: 22-12-1983, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Nasim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMOSSA SULEMAN MADHA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 77 = 1984 SLD 77 = 1984 PTD 405 = (1984) 50 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stock Depreciation and Business Expenditures\nKey Points:\n•\nStock Valuation: Depreciation claims based on sound accounting principles are allowable.\n•\nBusiness Expenses: Payments like indemnities and welfare contributions are deductible if aligned with business objectives.\nConclusion:\nStock depreciation based on reliable accounting is deductible, as are ordinary business expenses.\nCitations:\nPandit Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1954) 26 ITR 159.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,10(4)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Applications Nos. 715 and 716 of 1972, decision dated: 16-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI SHAH PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Shaikh Haider Ali for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS COGEFAR ASTALDI SIDMAIL, JOINT VENTURE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 78 = 1984 SLD 78 = 1984 PTD 415 = (1984) 50 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday and Revenue Nature of Income\nKey Points:\n•\nTax Holiday Limitation: Profits from activities unrelated to industrial undertakings do not qualify for tax holiday benefits.\n•\nRevenue Receipts: Commission and fees from sub-contracted work are taxable as business income.\nConclusion:\nTax holiday benefits apply only to industrial profits; commissions are taxable revenue.\nCitations:\nEmpire Jute Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1980) 4 SCC 25.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15BB,4,10 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application (Income tax) No. 201 of 1973, decision dated: 1st February, 1984. dates of hearing: 30th January and 1st February, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hasan Inamullah for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MUSTAFA PRESTRESSED R. C. C. PIPE WORKS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, CIRCLE II, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 79 = 1984 SLD 79 = 1984 PTD 419 = (1984) 49 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income in Mercantile Accounting\nKey Points:\n•\nIncome accrues when a legal right arises, irrespective of its receipt or entry in books.\n•\nRefunds or liabilities relate back to the year of accrual, not the year of realization.\nConclusion:\nAccrued income is taxable in the year it arises, regardless of realization delays.\nCitations:\nKarachi Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 1967 PTD 276.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,13 Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 554 of 1972, decision dated: 7-09-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naim Pasha. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HAMDARD THREAD HOUSE, KARACHI \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 80 = 1984 SLD 80 = 1984 PTD 426 = (1985) 51 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Joint Ventures and Capital Appropriations\nKey Points:\n•\nAmounts credited in joint venture accounts retain their original nature, unaffected by unilateral adjustments.\n•\nAppropriations not supported by payer consent or judicial adjudication cannot alter the nature of the funds.\nConclusion:\nUnilateral reclassification of joint venture credits cannot change their nature.\nCitations:\nHotel Metropole Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1973) PTD 371.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6C),6 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Application No. 779 of 1972, decision dated: 29-02-1984. dates of hearing: 27th and 29-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS INDUS VALLEY CONSTRUCTION CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 81 = 1984 SLD 81 = 1984 PTD 431 = (1984) 50 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday Period and Notifications\nKey Points:\n•\nTax Holiday Extension: Specific notifications govern the duration of tax holidays, overriding generic provisions.\n•\nJurisdiction: The appellate authority can interpret relevant provisions to determine tax holiday applicability.\nConclusion:\nSpecific tax holiday durations take precedence over general rules.\nCitations:\nCapital of the Republic (Determination) Ordinance, 1965.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,15(4A)(b)(iv),66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=211(1)(2)(7) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 68 and 69 of 1973, decision dated: 16-02-1984, hearing DATE : 13-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Applicant. Sheikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "INTERNATIONAL BEVERAGES LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 82 = 1984 SLD 82 = 1984 PTD 438 = (1984) 50 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nAssessments initiated under appellate directions are not constrained by the general time limits.\n•\nNotices issued as per appellate directives are valid, even for prior periods.\nConclusion:\nTime-barred claims can proceed under appellate directives within statutory allowances.\nCitations:\nGobindara Gulu Moudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax Hyderabad (1958) 34 ITR 807.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(2),66(1),3,4 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Applications` Nos. 167, 185 and 197 of 1973, decision dated: 16-04-1984. dates of hearing: 9th and 11-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALLY MADAD SHAH AND MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Wahid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "MRS. KAISER JEHAN BEGUM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 86 = 1982 SLD 86 = 1982 PTD 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure\nKey Points:\n•\nContributions for public infrastructure are deductible if they directly facilitate business operations.\n•\nExpenditures unrelated to business operations are disallowed.\nConclusion:\nBusiness expenses must demonstrate direct relevance to business activities for deductibility.\nCitations:\nLakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. v. C.I.T. 82 ITR 376.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 298 (T) of 1973, decision dated: 26-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS L. B. SUGAR FACTORY & OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., PILIBHIT\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U. P., LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 87 = 1982 SLD 87 = 1982 PTD 126 = (1981) 44 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Tax Liability for Agents\nKey Points:\n•\nAmbiguity in the phrase unless he is himself liable to pay any income tax and super tax thereon as an agent in Section 18(3B) of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nPotential to impact numerous cases.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal granted to resolve ambiguity under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18(313)(7) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 386 of 1975, decision dated: 13-12-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Qayyum Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD., BHALWAL \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 88 = 1982 SLD 88 = 1982 PTD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Duty on Laundry Soap\nKey Points:\n•\nScope of the notification on any other kind of soap interpreted to exclude manufacturing processes.\n•\nLaundry soap manufacturers using manual processes exempted from excise duty.\nConclusion:\nExcise duty demand deemed illegal; refunds ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=12 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 595 of 1965, decision dated: 1st November, 1981. dates of hearing: 18th October and 1st November, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Zahid Hussain for Petitioner. Syed iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney General", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS NEW PUNJAB SOAP FACTORY\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 89 = 1982 SLD 89 = 1982 PTD 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cinema Taxation\nKey Points:\n•\nTax imposed as a cinema show tax applies irrespective of shows held.\n•\nSubstantively a tax on cinema, valid under Entry No. 1, Schedule Second of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance.\nConclusion:\nTax upheld as valid under legislative competence.\nCitation:\nMuhammad Nur Ullah v. Municipal Corporation, Karachi PLD 1960 SC 24.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 885 of 1981, decision dated: 24th February 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Munir Ahmad for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "REX CINEMA, BUREWALA\nvs\nMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BUREWALA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 77 = 1983 SLD 77 = 1983 CLC 1153 = 1983 PTCL 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutionality of Capital Gains Tax on Transfer of Leasehold Rights and Superstructure\nDetails:\nNoor Elahi and four other petitioners challenged the legality of capital gains tax assessments imposed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Jhelum, following the sale of leasehold rights and superstructures of Raja Building in Jhelum Cantonment. Each petitioner sold their undivided share of the property through five registered sale deeds. The property comprised leasehold land (leased from the federal government) and superstructures fully owned by the petitioners. The authorities imposed capital gains tax under section 16 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1963. The petitioners argued that the sale involved only leasehold rights (a right to enjoy, not ownership) and thus was not a transfer of immovable property liable to capital gains tax. They further questioned the legislative competence of the provincial legislature to impose such a tax.\nHeld:\nThe Court dismissed the petition and held that:\nThe superstructures were clearly immovable property and their sale constituted transfer of ownership, attracting capital gains tax under section 16 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1963.\nEven leasehold rights constitute a transfer of an interest in immovable property.\nThe definition of property under Article 260 of the Constitution includes rights and interests in property.\nTransfer of leasehold rights is a “transfer of immovable property” for the purposes of capital gains tax.\nThus, the petitioners were rightly assessed for capital gains tax.\nCitations:\nFederation of Pakistan v. United Sugar Mills Ltd. (PLD 1977 SC 397)\nAzad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Kashmir Timber Corporation (PLD 1979 SC (AJ & K) 139)\nTraders and Miners Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1955 Pat 113)\nRamchandra Annappa v. Subraya Timmaya (AIR 1954 Bom 127)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=260 Transfer of Property Act, 1882=3,5,53A,105 West Pakistan Finance Act, 1962=16 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 106 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd May, 1983, hearing DATE : 8-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners. \nShahid Iqbal, Asstt. A.G. for the State", + "Party Name:": "NOOR ELAHI AND 4 OTHERS\nvs\nEXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, JHELUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 52 = 1985 SLD 52 = 1985 CLC 1102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Harmonization of Statutory Provisions\nKey Points:\n•\nInterpretation must harmonize conflicting provisions, avoiding redundancy.\n•\nSupreme Court’s jurisdiction under Section 42 of the AJ & K Constitution clarified.\nConclusion:\nLeave granted to consider the High Court’s adherence to income tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66A(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=175(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=137 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 6 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd January, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, C, J. AND SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Rafique Mahmood, A.G. and Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MUZAFFARABAD\nvs\nMessrs UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 109 = 1987 SLD 109 = 1987 CLC 2366 = (1987) 56 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay Orders and Constitutional Limitations\nKey Points:\n•\nStay orders under Article 199(4-A) cannot extend beyond six months.\n•\nCourts cannot override mandatory constitutional provisions through equitable principles.\nConclusion:\nPeriod of stay under Article 199(4-A) is strictly limited to six months.\nCitation:\nHassan Mahmood v. Federal Land Commission 1985 CLC 2665.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4A),199(4B),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1178 of 198, in Constitutional Petition No.1038 of 1986, decision dated: 11-06-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND S.A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Imam Ali Kazi Dy. A.G. and Shaikh Hyders", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SIDDIQUE TRUST\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 496 = 1993 SLD 496 = (1993) 67 TAX 340 = (1991) 190 ITR 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Carryforward on Revised Returns\nKey Points:\n•\nLoss claims allowed in revised returns filed within statutory time limits.\n•\nJudicial precedents emphasize fair interpretation favoring taxpayers.\nConclusion:\nTribunal correctly allowed loss carryforward.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),139(3),72,73,74,80 ", + "Case #": "SJ CASE NO. 2 OF 1983, SEPTEMBER 20, 1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.C. MOHAPATRA AND K.C, JAGADEB ROY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.C. Roy for the Applicant. P.K. Mishra for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nUtkal Flour Mills" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 553 = 1992 SLD 553 = (1992) 66 TAX 271 = (1992) 193 ITR 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions on Donations\nKey Points:\n•\nDonations by sugar manufacturing companies fully deductible under Section 88.\n•\nAllocation to agricultural sections was unwarranted.\nConclusion:\nEntire donation amount eligible for deduction.\nCitation:\nCIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),88 Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 1977, MARCH 15, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T.D. SUGLA AND D.R. DHANUKA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.E. Dastur and P.J. Pardiwala for the Applicant. Dr. V. Balasubramanian, S.H. Kapadia and K.C. Sidhwa for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 461 = 1992 SLD 461 = (1992) 66 TAX 294 = (1992) 193 ITR 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Disallowance for Employee Perquisites\nKey Points:\n•\nSection 40A(5) overrides conflicting provisions due to a non-obstante clause.\n•\nValuation of perquisites under Rule 3 applies only to salary computation, not business income.\nConclusion:\nSection 40A(5) governs; Rule 3 inapplicable for business income.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),40A(5),17 Income Tax Rules, 1962=3 ", + "Case #": "SJ CASE NO. 32 OF 1985, AUGUST 12,1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.C. MOHAPATRA AND S.K. MOHANTY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bibek Mohanty, G.N. Padhi, A.N. Patnaik, B. Ch. Mohanty and M.K. Mohanty for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nElectro Steel Castings Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 203 = 1994 SLD 203 = 1994 CLC 2244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Electricity Tariffs in AJ & K\nKey Points:\n•\nGovernment lacks authority to prescribe electricity rates, which fall under AJ & K Council jurisdiction.\n•\nCharges like fuel adjustment surcharge and income tax on electricity bills deemed unlawful.\nConclusion:\nElectricity tariffs and surcharges invalid under existing legal framework.\nCitation:\nPLD 1990 Lahore 330.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=21,31,56,ThirdSched. Electricity Act, 1910=3,5 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 4 and 11 of 1994, decision dated: 30-06-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, CJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Noorul Amin and Riaz Alam for Petitioners. Muhammad Akram Mughal, A.A.G. No. 1. Ghulam Abbas No. 2 (in Petition No. 4 of 1994). Tariq Aziz and Shamaoon, Executive Engineer & S.D.O. with Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "NAFEES BAKERS and anothers\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 123 = 1996 SLD 123 = 1996 CLC 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Imported Goods\nKey Points:\n•\nImport tax demands require proper verification and assessment.\n•\nAdditional advance income tax cannot be imposed retroactively without proper statutory authority.\nConclusion:\nAuthorities were justified in demanding enhanced advance tax post-Finance Act, 1995.\nCitations:\nMolasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1905.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 283 to 288, 296, 321 to 324, 326, 327 and 344 of 1995, decision dated: 11-12-1995, hearing DATE : 29-11-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, C, J. AND IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ul-Haq Memon and Raja Qureshi for Petitioner (in C.P. Nos. 283 to 288 and 296 of 1995). Zahid Alvi and Shakeel Ahmad for Petitioner (in C.P. Nos. 321 to 324 and 326 of 1995). Raja Qureshi and Siraj-ul-Haq Memon for Petitioner (.n C.P. No. 327 of 1995). Zahid Alvi and H. Shakil Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 344 of 1995). Raja Rub Nawaz, D.A.G. and Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALHAMZA SHIP BREAKING COMPANY and OTHERS\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance & Economic Affairs (Revenue Division), Islamabad and Ethers" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 639 = 1999 SLD 639 = 1999 YLR 950 = (2000) 81 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration and Constitutional Petitions\nKey Points:\n•\nPresence of arbitration clause in agreement renders constitutional petitions for contractual disputes non-maintainable.\n•\nPetitioners, having alternative remedies (e.g., arbitration or civil suits), cannot enforce contractual obligations via constitutional petitions.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; constitutional jurisdiction not applicable in the presence of an arbitration clause.\nCitations:\n1994 SCMR 1484; 1990 CLC 1639; PLD 1971 SC 376.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7A) Arbitration Act, 1940=8,22 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2789 of 1998, decision dated: 22-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Arshad Latif and Khalid Alvi for Petitioners. Ch. Sagheer Ahmad, Standing Counsels Nos.3 to 5. Khadim Nadeem Malik, Addl. A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANSAR and 2 OTHERS\nvs\nADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, KABIRWALA, DISTRICT KHANEWAL and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2505 = 2007 SLD 2505 = (2007) 291 ITR 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Wealth Escaping Taxation\nKey Points:\n•\nAudit objections do not constitute information under Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-Tax Act for reopening assessments.\n•\nAssessments cannot be reopened if the assessee has disclosed all material facts but valuation discrepancies arise due to alternative methods.\nConclusion:\nReopening of assessment invalid; appeal by revenue dismissed.\nCitations:\nIndian Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996; Lokendra Singh Rathore v. WTO [1985] 153 ITR 466.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUBHASH SAMVATSAR AND A.P. SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2506 = 2007 SLD 2506 = (2007) 291 ITR 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)\nKey Points:\n•\nProvision for bad and doubtful debts in profit and loss account is an ascertained liability and excluded from book profits under Section 115JA.\nConclusion:\nProvision for bad debts cannot be added back to book profits for MAT calculations.\nCitation:\nAppollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MADAN B. LOKUR AND V.B. GUPTA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2507 = 2007 SLD 2507 = (2007) 292 ITR 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debts and Business Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nBad Debts:\no\nWriting off debts as bad is sufficient for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) if done honestly and based on factual events.\n2.\nBusiness Expenditure:\no\nAdvertisement expenses incurred exclusively for business purposes are deductible, even if they yield future benefits.\nConclusion:\nTribunal's decision to allow claims for bad debts and advertisement expenses upheld.\nCitation:\nCIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. [2006] 282 ITR 379.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P.D. DINAKARAN AND MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 554 = 2000 SLD 554 = 2000 CLC 1615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Priority of Income Tax Over Decree Holders\nKey Points:\n•\nIncome Tax Department must establish its claim through assessment proceedings to assert priority over decree holders.\n•\nNazir ordered to disburse amounts to decree holders before addressing the department’s claim.\nConclusion:\nPriority claim of Income Tax Department rejected due to lack of evidence of liability.\nCitation:\nSaeed Abu Mian v. Haji Abdul Ghani PLD 1974 Kar. 39.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=73,82 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92 Fatal Accidents Act, 1855=1 ", + "Case #": "Execution No.30 of 1997, decision dated: 24-09-1999. dates of hearing: 9th and 24-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Hussain Shah Rashdi and Nasir Maqsood for the Decree-holders. Nasrullah Awan for the Income-tax Department. Munir-ur-Rehman, Addl. A.G. alongwith Gul Muhammad Soomro, Legal Adviser, K.T.C", + "Party Name:": "NAZIR and OTHERS\nvs\nK. T. C." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 686 = 2001 SLD 686 = 2001 CLC 1751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Preemption Rights\nKey Points:\n•\nSuperior right of preemption determined based on ownership and relation to the vendor.\n•\nCivil Court retains jurisdiction when tenancy rights are not actively pursued.\nConclusion:\nTrial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff restored.\nCitation:\nMuhammad Ramzan v. Noor Muhammad PLD 1987 Lah. 268.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913=4,15,21 ", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeals Nos. 910 and 1036 of 1978, heard on 7-06-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Athar Rehman Khan. Kh. Muhammad Akrams", + "Party Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMAD\nvs\nGHULAM HUSSAIN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 276 = 2003 SLD 276 = 2003 CLC 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Election Nomination and Qualifications\nKey Points:\n•\nReturning Officer must verify possession of a valid degree; objections on alleged forgery require detailed evidence and can be addressed post-election through a petition.\n•\nNon-disclosure of income sources for assets is a matter for the Income Tax Ordinance, not Election Tribunals.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; objections to be resolved through proper forums.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) Representation of the People Act, 1976=14(5A),99(1)(cc) Conduct of General Elections Order (7 of 2002)=8A ", + "Case #": "Election Appeals Nos.103/A and 159/A of 2002, heard on 11-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI AND ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa\nWaseem Sajjad candidate\nShahid Waheed for the Board", + "Party Name:": "Election Appeals Nos.103/A and 159/A of 2002, heard on 11th September, 2002\nCh. NISAR ALI KHAN\nvs\nGHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 83 = 1984 SLD 83 = 1984 MLD 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Ownership and Possession\nKey Points:\n•\nEvidence of tax payments and agreements establishes ownership over disputed property.\n•\nPossession remains the determining factor when claims are based on structures, not land ownership.\nConclusion:\nPlaintiff’s ownership and possession rights upheld; no decree for possession necessary.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9,O.XXXIX,rr.1&2 Contract Act, 1872=2(e) Specific Relief Act, 1877=42 ", + "Case #": "Suit No.83 of 1978, decision dated: 10-01-1984. dates of hearing: 24th, 29th and 30-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ansar Hussain for Plaintiff. Zafar Alam Khan for Defendant", + "Party Name:": "Mst. MUSHKUN NISA alias SABIHA QUDDUSI--Plaintiff\nvs\nISLAM UDDIN--Defendant" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 84 = 1984 SLD 84 = 1984 MLD 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains Tax on Real Estate Transactions\nKey Points:\n•\nProfits from property sales are subject to provincial capital gains tax under the Finance Act, 1963, not income tax.\n•\nBusiness activity in real estate does not exempt gains from capital gains tax liability.\nConclusion:\nPetitioners liable for capital gains tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4A),6,12 West Pakistan Finance Act, 1962=16 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-805 of 1977, decision dated: 10-11-1983. dates of hearing: 2nd, 8th and 10-11-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Razzak Siddiqui for Petitioner. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-Generals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZIMRAN ENTERPRISES\nvs\nThe SPECIAL DIRECTOR/ COLLECTOR, EXCISE & TAXATION, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 85 = 1984 SLD 85 = 1984 MLD 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Institution Exemption\nKey Points:\n•\nAssociations with objectives serving public utility qualify as charitable institutions, exempting their income from tax.\n•\nTribunal’s declaration of association’s property as for charitable purposes affirmed.\nConclusion:\nIncome tax exemption upheld.\nCitation:\nCIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [1981] 130 ITR 186.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,4(3)(i)(ii),15(d) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 3 of 1974, decision dated: 16-06-1984. dates of hearing: 21st and 23rd November, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Farooqi. Iqbal Naim Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI \nvs\nMessrs WEST PAKISTAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 86 = 1984 SLD 86 = 1984 MLD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Competency of Appeal\nKey Points:\n•\nObjection to competency of appeal not raised at the outset cannot invalidate proceedings retroactively.\n•\nCase remanded to Tribunal to address the appeal on merits.\nConclusion:\nOriginal appeal deemed pending; remanded for decision.\nLet me know if additional refinement is needed!", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 632 of 1972, decision dated: 8-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Kazi for Applicant. Waheed Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FARSIGHT TRADING Co.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 53 = 1985 SLD 53 = 1985 MLD 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure and Preliminary Decrees\nKey Points:\n1.\nPreliminary decrees cannot be contested during final decree proceedings but may be appealed independently.\n2.\nAssessment of income by a court-appointed commissioner based on an Income Tax Officer's certificate is valid.\n3.\nGrant of interest as prayed in the suit is justified.\nConclusion:\nPreliminary decree findings are final unless appealed separately; interest and assessments upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9,O.XXVI,r.ll ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 259 of 1967, decision dated: 27-02-1985, hearing DATE : 7-02-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Hassan Zafar for Plaintiffs. Muzaffar Hassan for Defendant No. 1(b)", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI and 7 others--Plaintiffs\nvs\nSAKAR KHAN00 BAI through Legal Heirs and 3 others----Defendants" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 54 = 1985 SLD 54 = 1985 MLD 1596 = 1985 PTCL 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax and Criminal Procedure\nKey Points:\n1.\nIncome Tax:\no\nProsecution failed to prove concealment of income; revised returns filed under M.L.R. 32 protected the accused.\n2.\nCriminal Warrants:\no\nHigh Court directives specify the appropriate use of bailable warrants to ensure compliance with procedural law.\nConclusion:\nAccused acquitted due to insufficient evidence; guidance issued on correcCriminal Liability under Section 51(2) and Section 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 — Concealment of Income\nDetails:\nThe appellant, Madam Zeba, was convicted by the Special Judge, Excise and Taxation, Lahore on 22-12-1977 under Sections 51(2) and 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The prosecution alleged she concealed income in her return for the assessment year 1968-69. The defence claimed that Rs.10,000, forming part of the disputed income, was received before July 1, 1968, and therefore did not pertain to the relevant assessment year. Furthermore, she had filed a revised return under Martial Law Regulation (MLR) 32, disclosing the complete income voluntarily.\nThe trial court accepted the prosecution version, relying on the testimonies of two Income Tax Officers. However, the defence presented Abdul Qadir Khan, who corroborated that the payment was made prior to July 1968. The High Court found no infirmity in the defence testimony and emphasized that the revised return had been submitted under MLR 32, which provided amnesty for earlier concealments.\nHeld:\nThe Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. It held:\nThe prosecution failed to establish that the disputed income pertained to the assessment year 1968-69.\nThe revised return filed under MLR 32 disclosed the concealed income, and therefore, no penal action was warranted.\nFiling of a revised return under MLR 32 immunized the assessee from criminal liability for prior concealment.\nAdditionally, the Court criticized the misuse of warrant forms by the High Court Office, observing that the form commonly used ( H.C.J.D./B. 41 ) was intended for appeals against acquittal under Section 417, Cr.P.C., and was improperly used in other cases, effectively converting bailable warrants into non-bailable ones. The Court emphasized adherence to the proper forms under Sections 75 and 76, Cr.P.C., and Schedule V, to prevent unlawful arrest and detention under bailable warrants.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=75,76,Sched.V ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.168 of 1978, decision dated: 25-06-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahzad Jahangir\nShabbir Lali for the State", + "Party Name:": "Madam ZEBA (FILM ARTIST)\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 138 = 1988 SLD 138 = 1988 MLD 1533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Companies and Preferential Payments\nKey Points:\n1.\nIncome Tax Department cannot claim priority for tax liabilities not assessed before the winding-up order.\n2.\nDistribution of assets must follow provisions of the Companies Act over general laws like the Civil Procedure Code.\nConclusion:\nIncome Tax Department treated as an ordinary claimant; special statutes take precedence in asset distribution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=8 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=73 Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=230,162 ", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 17 of 1976, decision dated: 6-08-1988, hearing DATE : 26-04-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Amanullah, Qazi Zamir Ashraf for Petitioner. MA. Taqi, Raja Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, and Muhammad Yaqoob Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MA.S. STEELS LTD. \nvs\nTHE STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 200 = 1989 SLD 200 = 1989 MLD 3029", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exchange Deeds and Tax Liability\nKey Points:\n•\nAuthorities cannot issue No-Objection Certificates for property exchange deeds if one party has unresolved tax liabilities.\nConclusion:\nNOC issuance denied due to respondent’s unpaid tax obligations.\nCitation:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Haji Ashfaq Ahmed Khan PLD 1973 SC 406.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property (Pakistan) Ordinance (IV of 1947)=3 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. S-121 of 1979, decision dated: 14-02-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M.G. Dastgir for Petitioners. Abdul Sattars Nos. 1 to 3. Waheed Farooqui No. 6. Nasrullah Awan holding brief for Shaikh Haider No. 8. Rashid A. Akhunds Nos. 10 to 22", + "Party Name:": "Haji ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN and 6 OTHERS\nvs\nTHE CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, KARACHI and 21 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 152 = 1990 SLD 152 = 1990 MLD 869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Land Revenue and Tax Recovery\nKey Points:\n1.\nLand revenue demands must follow proper determination and notification procedures.\n2.\nLocal councils cannot recover sums as arrears without prior lawful determination.\nConclusion:\nRecovery demands invalid without due process; clarifications provided for local councils’ obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7A), Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979)=64(2) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)=81 ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-625 of 1985, decision dated: 3rd November, 1989, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.B. Bhutto for Petitioner. Faiz Mohammad Abbasi, A. A. Mohammadly, A.A.G. and Shaikh Haider,s", + "Party Name:": "PIR MUHAMMAD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1609 = 2002 SLD 1609 = (2002) 258 ITR 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Tax Recovery Pending Appeal\nKey Points:\n1.\nTribunal must evaluate undue hardship and prima facie merits when imposing conditions for stay orders.\n2.\nTribunal directed to expedite appeal hearings without further deposits.\nConclusion:\nImpugned Tribunal order set aside; appeal to proceed without additional conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=133A,9(1)(vii),201(1A),195,162,254,253 ", + "Case #": "CWP NO. 3560 OF 2002 CM NOS. 6151, 6523 AND 9412 OF 2002 OCTOBER 10, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.S. Aggarwal and Prakash Kumar for the Petitioner. R.C. Pandey and Ajay Jha for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JCT Ltd\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1167 = 1986 SLD 1167 = (1986) 54 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax and Valuation of Property\nKey Points:\n•\nErrors in gazette publication dates do not invalidate legislative amendments.\n•\nProperty owned by companies engaged in leasing falls under taxable wealth.\nConclusion:\nAmendments upheld; property valuations under Wealth Tax Act applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(e)(ii),3,7,2(s) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "Const. Petition No. 644 of 1981 (also 170 of 1982 & 62 of 1984) decided on 24-1-1985, hearing DATE : 24-1-1984.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for the Petitioner. A. A. Dareshani & Shohail Muzaffar, Advocate, for the Respendent", + "Party Name:": "EBRAHIM BROTHERS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nWEALTH TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE III, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 242 = 1992 SLD 242 = 1992 MLD 1730", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions for Federal Government Entities\nKey Points:\n1.\nFederal government-owned entities are exempt from local taxes, including octroi.\n2.\nCourts can pierce corporate veils to examine the real nature of transactions for exemptions.\nConclusion:\nExemptions granted for government entities; corporate veil doctrine applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979)=60 Associated Cement (Vesting) Act, 1975=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-1033 of 1988, decision dated: 14-01-1992, hearing DATE : 25-11-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Sarwana for Petitioner. Khalid M. lshaque and A.A. Mohammadally, A.A. G.s", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED CEMENT (STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED)\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF SINDH, through the Secretary, Local Government and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 218 = 1993 SLD 218 = 1993 MLD 2066", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Contractors' Locus Standi in Octroi Taxation Disputes\nKey Points:\n•\nContractors, acting as tax collection agents, lack standing to challenge tax resolutions affecting their financial interests.\n•\nTax imposition remains between the government and the public.\nConclusion:\nContractors’ petition dismissed; appellate authority’s order upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 630 of 1993, heard on 5-05-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Ahmad Awan for Petitioners. Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Addl. A.G. Mirza Aziz Akbar Baigs", + "Party Name:": "INAYATULLAH & CO through Managing Partner and anothers\nvs\nSECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 325 = 1997 SLD 325 = 1997 MLD 1929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Income Tax Practitioners\nKey Points:\n1.\nAdvocates must meet specific conditions to qualify as income tax practitioners.\n2.\nCentral Board of Revenue (CBR) is authorized to set rules for practitioner registration.\nConclusion:\nCBR’s rules upheld; general advocacy rights distinct from eligibility as income tax practitioners.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=157,165 Income Tax Rules, 1982=205 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=207 Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973=22(2)B ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.789 of 1996, decision dated: 25-11-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN NAZIR AKTHAR AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Tanvir Bashir Ansari for Petitioners. Muhammad Bashir Kiani, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Mir AHMAD ALI and anothers\nvs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND 46 WEALTH TAX, NORTHERN REGION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 535 = 1998 SLD 535 = 1998 MLD 2038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dual Role, Writ Jurisdiction, and Procedural Issues\nKey Points:\n1.\nA dual appointment as Income Tax Officer and Deputy Collector does not preclude assignment of tax-related tasks even if one role is inactive.\n2.\nIssues of fact or mixed questions of law and fact must be properly pleaded; vague allegations are insufficient.\n3.\nFactual questions in tax disputes should be resolved through appellate mechanisms, not writ jurisdiction.\n4.\nCross-objections are not permitted under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court erred in invalidating the officer’s assignment; writ jurisdiction cannot resolve factual disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,65 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.22 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1987, decision dated: 1st November, 1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Basharat Ahmed Shaikh, Advocates. Muhammad Afzal and Manzoor Hussain, Advocatess", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COLLECTOR, EXCISE & TAXATION and others\nvs\nABDUL HAMID and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 640 = 1999 SLD 640 = 1999 MLD 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Toll Collection and Accountability\nKey Points:\n•\nContractors collecting tolls on behalf of the government must issue proper receipts and maintain accounts.\n•\nAuthorities must ensure compliance to avoid misuse and ensure transparency.\nConclusion:\nContractors directed to maintain accounts and issue receipts for toll collection.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=144 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5715 of 1997, decision dated: 8-09-1997, hearing DATE : 23rd July, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHARIF HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Ashraf, No. 2", + "Party Name:": "HAQIQAT-ULLAH\nvs\nDISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 641 = 1999 SLD 641 = 1999 MLD 1802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Corruption Cases\nKey Points:\n•\nAccused in a position of trust and power demanded bribes for income tax leniency.\n•\nDespite not causing material loss to the treasury, the accused's actions warranted exceptional treatment.\nConclusion:\nBail denied due to the seriousness of the allegations and misuse of authority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=161 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947=5(2) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.278/B of 1998, decision dated: 15-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Farooq Baidar for Petitioner. Tahir Haidar Wasti, A.A.G. for the State. Malik Muhammad Farrukh Mahmood for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULEMAN SAEED QURESHI\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 642 = 1999 SLD 642 = 1999 MLD 2587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rent Control and Delayed Payments\nKey Points:\n1.\nTenant failed to deposit rent on time and deducted income tax without proof of notification.\n2.\nTenants, including government entities, are treated the same as private individuals in rent disputes.\nConclusion:\nTenant's defense struck off; eviction ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963=17,17(8),17(9),24 ", + "Case #": "First Rent Appeal No.289 of 1994, decision dated: 20-01-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMID ALI MIRZA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaiq Usmani. S.M. Alams", + "Party Name:": "PORT QASIM AUTHORITY BIN QASIM, KARACHI\nvs\nMst. ZOHRA LATIF and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 476 = 2002 SLD 476 = 2002 MLD 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment from Waiting Lists\nKey Points:\n•\nSupreme Court had disapproved the use of waiting lists for appointments.\n•\nPetitioner’s claim for appointment based on waiting list was invalid post-Supreme Court ruling.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; waiting list policy upheld as unenforceable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17358 of 1993, heard on 26-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zamir Hussain for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI ZAIDI\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 277 = 2003 SLD 277 = 2003 MLD 1772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Succession and Partnership Dissolution\nKey Points:\n•\nAppellant failed to prove partnership continuity post-dissolution.\n•\nRegistrar of Firms confirmed the appellant’s retirement from the partnership.\nConclusion:\nLetter of Administration upheld in respondents’ favor.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Succession Act, 1925=384 ", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.325 of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant in person. Luqman-ul-Haque", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COMMERCIAL TEXTILE PRINTERS\nvs\nMUHAMMAD YASIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 278 = 2003 SLD 278 = 2003 MLD 1791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rent Control and Authority of Landlord\nKey Points:\n1.\nUnauthorized agents cannot file eviction petitions.\n2.\nRent Controller cannot adjudicate cases involving their own department.\nConclusion:\nEviction orders set aside due to procedural impropriety.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963=3,3(11),17 ", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Orders Nos.79 and 80 of 2002, decision dated: 27-06-2003, hearing DATE : 18-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Kabir Khan. Syed Muhammad Ilyas", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S. BROTHERS through S. Muhtamim Shah\nvs\nASSISTANT REVENUE SUPERINTENDENT, CANTT. BOARD, MARDAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 164 = 2007 SLD 164 = 2007 MLD 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Corruption and Accountability\nKey Points:\n1.\nMere possession of disproportionate assets is not an offense unless the accused fails to account for them.\n2.\nProsecution must prove assets exceed known lawful income.\nConclusion:\nAccused acquitted due to lack of evidence and failure of prosecution to establish key elements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "National Accountability Ordinance, 1999=9,9(a)(v),14(c),10 ", + "Case #": "Accountability Appeal No. 60 of 2002, decision dated: 22-02-2007, hearing DATE : 24-01-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI AND MUNIB AHMED KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Azizullah K. Shaikh. Shafaat Nabi Khan Sherwani D.P.G.A. NAB", + "Party Name:": "HAKIM ALI ZARDARI\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 135 = 2011 SLD 135 = 2011 MLD 1748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tenant Ejectment\nKey Points:\n•\nTenant failed to pay rent and conservancy charges.\n•\nLandlords provided evidence of bona fide need for the premises.\nConclusion:\nEjectment petition allowed; tenant's defense rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15,15(2) ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.S-66 of 2009, decision dated: 1st June, 2011. dates of hearing: 9th March and 9-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Mumtaz Shaikh for Petitioners. Asim Iqbal No. 1", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. FEROZ AFAQ AHMED and OTHERS\nvs\nH. M. ISHAQ M. YAQOOB and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 1 = 1975 SLD 1 = 1975 PCRLJ 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Quashment of Criminal Proceedings in Income Tax Cases\nKey Points:\n•\nTribunal’s decision to reopen assessment undermined the basis of prosecution for alleged concealment of income.\nConclusion:\nCriminal proceedings quashed; fresh complaint permissible if new evidence arises.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 1973, decision dated: 29th, October 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AGHA ALI HYDER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. M. Shah for Applicant. A. R. Kazi for the State", + "Party Name:": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 1973, decided on 29th October 1974\nHaji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND anothers\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 2 = 1975 SLD 2 = 1975 PCRLJ 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Conscious Concealment of Income\nKey Points:\n•\nTribunal absolved the accused of concealment, nullifying the foundation for prosecution.\n•\nCriminal proceedings deemed an abuse of legal process.\nConclusion:\nCriminal proceedings quashed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 345, 399 to 402 of 1974, decision dated: 7th November 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AGHA ALI HYDER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. M. Shah for Applicant. A. R. Kazis Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "ZAFAR AHMAD KHAN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 6 = 1976 SLD 6 = 1976 PCRLJ 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue Concealment; Criminal Proceedings Stay\nKey Points:\n1.\nNature of Business:\no\nAssessee-company conducted two separate businesses: (a) purchasing raw cotton, manufacturing it into yarn, and (b) purchasing yarn, bleaching it, and selling it post-processing.\n2.\nAllegation:\no\nThe company filed returns only for the yarn manufacturing business while claiming exemption for bleaching and processing activities, which led to a criminal complaint for deliberate concealment of income.\n3.\nProceedings Stay:\no\nThe legality of the exemption under S.15-BB, Income-tax Act, 1922 was under consideration by the Appellate Tribunal.\no\nCriminal proceedings were stayed pending the Tribunal’s decision.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,52,15BB ", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 1974, decision dated: 18th June 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. A. CHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "H. A. Rahmani for Applicant. A. R. Kazi for the State", + "Party Name:": "MASOOD SULTAN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 1 = 1977 SLD 1 = 1977 PCRLJ 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Based on Tribunal's Order\nKey Points:\n1.\nBackground:\no\nCriminal proceedings were initiated under Ss. 51 & 52, Income-tax Act, 1922, based on an assessment order.\n2.\nTribunal's Ruling:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for re-assessment.\n3.\nJudgment:\no\nThe High Court ruled that the criminal proceedings were unwarranted and quashed them under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., since the foundation of the case (the assessment order) was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,52 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 652 of 1974, decision dated: 2-11-1975. dates of hearing : 27th and 28th August 1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohd. Maqsood. Syed Ansar Hussain No. 1. Nemo for the State", + "Party Name:": "Sh. FAZAL ELAHI \nvs\nASSISTANT Income Tax OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 1 = 1979 SLD 1 = 1979 PCRLJ 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment of Income and Criminal Liability\nKey Points:\n1.\nAllegation:\no\nThe assessee maintained no proper books, inaccurately declared expenditure, and understated income.\n2.\nAssessment Quashed:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal found the assessment was based on estimates and lacked substantive evidence.\n3.\nRuling:\no\nCriminal proceedings were quashed under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., as liability could not be established based on speculative assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561A ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 624 of 1977, decision dated: 3rd December 1978, hearing DATE : 2nd December 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muzaffar Hussain Shah. S. Murtaza Hussain for A.G. No. 1 A. Latif Khan for Manzoor Ahmed Khan. No. 2", + "Party Name:": "YACUB and 2 others\nvs\nTHE STATE AND another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 1 = 1981 SLD 1 = 1981 PCRLJ 1105 = (1982) 45 TAX 52 = 1981 PTD 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Plea of Guilty in Tax Cases\nKey Points:\n1.\nDefective Charge:\no\nThe complaint lacked clarity about the alleged concealed income.\n2.\nRuling on Conviction:\no\nConviction under S. 51(2), Income-tax Act was set aside due to a lack of evidence.\no\nHowever, for false verification under S. 52, the plea of guilty was upheld, and no appeal was allowed under S. 412, Cr.P.C..", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51(2).52 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=412 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1975, heard on 24-10-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hayat Junejo. Nemo for the State", + "Party Name:": "NAZAR MUHAMMAD\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 78 = 1983 SLD 78 = 1983 PCRLJ 946 = (1983) 47 TAX 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Effect of Tribunal Decisions on Criminal Proceedings\nKey Points:\n1.\nAssessment Order Set Aside:\no\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax had remanded the cases for fresh assessment.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nConviction under S. 51(2), Income-tax Act, 1922 was overturned.\no\nBenefit of doubt was granted to the accused, and they were acquitted.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1976, decision dated: 16-01-1983, hearing DATE : 11-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ismail Hamirani. Ali Baksh Laghari for the State", + "Party Name:": "MOINUDDIN QURESHI\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 133 = 1986 SLD 133 = 1986 PCRLJ 790 = (1986) 53 TAX 86 = 1986 PTCL 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment of Income – Criminal Liability under Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe appellant, Mst. Diba Khanum, was charged and convicted under Sections 51(2) and 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 by the Special Judge (Taxation), Lahore. She was accused of:\nConcealing income of Rs. 10,000 received for acting in a film during the assessment year 1972–73, and\nFurnishing inaccurate particulars in her return and making false verification statements.\nThe prosecution relied on evidence from the Income Tax Officer (PW-1), the film producer Syed Shamas-ul-Alim (PW-3), and documentary evidence including the producer’s tax return showing payment to the appellant. The appellant admitted receiving Rs.10,000 but claimed it was an advance received in 1970, not in 1972–73. However, she failed to declare the income in either year.\nHer conviction was challenged on several grounds, including:\nAlleged defect in the framing of the charge,\nAcceptance of her tax appeal by the appellate tribunal, which she argued nullified the criminal charges.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the appeal on merits, holding that:\nThe offence was complete upon concealment and submission of inaccurate particulars, regardless of the tax appeal outcome.\nThe acceptance of her tax appeal did not erase the criminal act committed under sections 51(2) and 52.\nAny error in the charge was immaterial, since no prejudice was caused and the appellant had full opportunity to defend.\nHowever, considering mitigating circumstances:\nThe appellant was a woman,\nHad undergone protracted litigation,\nHad paid the due tax, and\nSeven years had elapsed,\nthe Court altered the sentence from 3 months' simple imprisonment on each count to a fine of Rs. 1,000 per count, with 1-month default imprisonment on each.\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed on merits,\nSentence modified: Imprisonment converted to Rs. 2,000 fine (Rs. 1,000 per count), with default imprisonment of one month each.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51(2),51,52 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 281-C of 1978, decision dated: 11-12-1985. dates of hearing: 10th and 11-12-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Masud. Shabbir Ali for the State", + "Party Name:": "Mst. DEEBA KHANUM\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 201 = 1989 SLD 201 = 1989 PLC 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disparity in Pay Between Income-tax Officers (ITOs) and Assistant ITOs\nKey Points:\n1.\nQualifications and Hierarchy:\no\nITOs and Assistant ITOs had different qualifications and were ranked distinctly.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nDespite their inclusion under the definition of Income-tax Officers in the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, the disparity in pay and rank was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(25),3,5 Service Tribunals Act, 1973=4 ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 193(R), 195(R) and 195-A(R) of 1956, decision dated: 10-01-1989. dates of hearing: 19th and 20-09-19583", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED, ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN AND MISBAH ULLAH KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "K.M.A. Samadanis. Hafii S.A. Rahmans", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM SARWAR CHAUDHRY and 2 others\nvs\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 269 = 2006 SLD 269 = 2006 PLC 1311 = (2007) 95 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Income Tax in Tribal Areas\nKey Points:\n1.\nTerritorial Exclusion:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, was not extended to tribal areas under Art. 247(3), Constitution.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nGovernment servants, regardless of their posting location, were liable to pay income tax on salaries paid by the government.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.100 with C.M. No.138 of 2001, Civil Revisions Nos.593 of 1998, 485 to 488 of 2000, 387 and 389 of 2001, decision dated: 26-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Said Rahman Khan for Petitioner\nEid Muhammad Khattaks", + "Party Name:": "EMPLOYEES ACTION COMMITTEE\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 643 = 1999 SLD 643 = 1999 YLR 950 = (2000) 81 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Clause and Maintainability of Constitutional Petitions\nKey Points:\n1.\nArbitration Clause:\no\nConstitutional petitions challenging contractual liabilities were dismissed as alternate remedies existed under the Arbitration Act.\n2.\nAdvance Tax Validity:\no\nS. 50(7-A), Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, was upheld as constitutionally valid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,270A Arbitration Act, 1940=8,20 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2789 of 1998, decision dated: 22-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Arshad Latif and Khalid Alvi for Petitioners. Ch. Sagheer Ahmad, Standing Counsels Nos.3 to 5. Khadim Nadeem Malik, Addl. A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANSAR and 2 OTHERS\nvs\nADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, KABIRWALA, DISTRICT KHANEWAL and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 279 = 2003 SLD 279 = 2003 YLR 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Maintainability of Suit Without Proper Parties\nKey Points:\n1.\nDeficiency in Filing:\no\nFailure to implead “Pakistan” as a defendant rendered the suit defective under S. 79, C.P.C..\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe plaint was rejected as barred by S. 162, Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=162 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=174 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=79 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54 ", + "Case #": "Suit No.1649 of 1999, decision dated: 16-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Plaintiff and his counsel called absent. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendant No. 1. Muhammad Farid for Defendant No. 2", + "Party Name:": "TAHIR A. KHAN\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 270 = 2006 SLD 270 = 2006 YLR 1523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrator’s Misconduct and Scope of Award\nKey Points:\n1.\nMisconduct:\no\nArbitrators ignoring material documents or misapplying statutory provisions were guilty of misconduct.\n2.\nInterest and Taxes:\no\nArbitrators could award interest on just grounds, but deductions contrary to S. 50(4), Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, were disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4)(a) Arbitration Act, 1940=26A,30(a),41,29,30 ", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 294 of 1998, decision dated: 30-07-2004, hearing DATE : 6-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED, JAMSHED ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Ms. Samia Khalid and Ch. Muhammad Faridul Hassan. Syed Najam ul Hassan Kazmi No. 1", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IBRAHIM FIBRES LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nHAMEED MASOOD (PVT.) LIMITED through Director and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 192 = 2008 SLD 192 = 2008 YLR 2666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Customs and Tax Cases\nKey Points:\n1.\nMisdeclaration Allegation:\no\nAll taxes were paid, making the case a matter of further inquiry.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nBail was granted as the prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. did not apply.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148 Customs Act, 1969=156(1),(9),(14),(14A),(81),(82),(90),16,32,32A,157,178,207,209 Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,36 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497(2),498 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4271-B, 4419-B, 5021-B and 5022-B of 2008, decision dated: 17-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. BILAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4271-B of 2008)\nShahzada Mazhar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4419-B and 5022-B of 2008)\nAzam Nazeer Tarar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5.021-B of 2008)\nKhawar Ikram Bhatti, Legal Advisor to Customs Department assisted by Muhammad Rauf Farooqi S.I.O. and Muhammad Nasrullah, Investigating Officer Customs Department with record", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM SIDDIQUI\nvs\nTHE STATE through Director-General Intelligence and InvestigatioNFBR, Regional Office, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 116 = 2012 SLD 116 = 2012 YLR 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Protective Bail in Tax Cases\nKey Points:\n1.\nProtective Bail Granted:\no\nThe High Court granted a 15-day protective bail to allow the accused to surrender before the trial court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148 Customs Act, 1969=32,79,155,156 Sales Tax Act, 1990=33 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497(2),498 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1091 of 2011, decision dated: 12-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi and Irfan Aziz for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAMAL\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 271 = 2006 SLD 271 = 2006 CLD 1539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Lease and Buy-Back Arrangements\nKey Points:\n1.\nNature of Transaction:\no\nSuch transactions were not sales under S. 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and thus not taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,80(c) Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980=2(ab),(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.479 of 2000, decision dated: 4-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yusuf Umar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs RAFHAN MAIZ PRODUCT COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 136 = 2011 SLD 136 = 2011 CLD 1284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Modaraba Certificates\nKey Points:\n1.\nModaraba Status:\no\nModarabas were considered companies under the Income-tax Ordinance.\no\nCapital gains from Modaraba certificates were tax-exempt under Cl. 116, Second Schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(12),2(16)(cc) Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980=14,15,36 ", + "Case #": "ITRA No. 45 of 1996, decision dated: 13-06-2011, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqui for Applicant. Ms. Lubna Pervez", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T.\nvs\nB.R.R. INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 137 = 2011 SLD 137 = 2011 CLD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Insurance Companies\nKey Points:\n1.\nSpecial Provisions:\no\nInsurance business profits were computed under special provisions of the Fourth Schedule, which overrode general provisions.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nInsurance companies were treated as a single unit, and deductions for exempt income were disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=3,3,67,99,100A&FourthSched.Rr.5,6A&9 Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,26,FourthSched Insurance Ordinance, 2000=3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.As. Nos. 158 to 160 of 2010, decision dated: 6-06-2011, hearing DATE : 15-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant/Appellant. Sirajul Haq Memon and Arshad Siraj Memon", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL)/\nvs\nMessrs EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 117 = 2012 SLD 117 = 2012 PTD 1732", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxpayer Status and Withholding Obligations\nKey Points:\n1.\nDispute Over Status:\no\nThe taxpayer was incorrectly classified as an Association of Persons (AOP).\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Tribunal declared the taxpayer an individual, exempting them from withholding obligations under S. 153(7), Income-tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,153(7)(h)(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.749/LB of 2012, decision dated: 28-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmad Sh.. Mrs. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "ISLAMABAD STEEL FURNACE, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 118 = 2012 SLD 118 = (2012) 106 TAX 109 = 2013 PTCL 1 = 2012 PTD 1815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Selection for Audit under Income Tax, Sales Tax, and Federal Excise Acts\nKey Points:\n1.\nLegislative History and Purpose:\no\nS. 177(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Outlines the power of the Commissioner to select a taxpayer for audit. The purpose is to survey tax compliance and assess the tax system.\no\nAudit selection must follow objective criteria and should not serve as a fishing expedition. \n2.\nConstitutional Challenge:\no\nProviso to S. 177(1): Permitting discretionary selection by Commissioners was deemed unconstitutional for lacking objective guidelines.\no\nAudit selection under S. 214C must be through the Federal Board of Revenue's (FBR) computer ballot system, ensuring fairness and neutrality.\n3.\nRuling:\no\nAudit selection powers under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Federal Excise Act, 2005 were read down to align with constitutional principles. Impugned notices were set aside as unconstitutional.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120(1)(b),177,177(1),214C Federal Excise Act, 2005=46(1),42B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Sales Tax Act, 1990=25(20,72B ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.393 of 2012, heard on 10-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt, Rana Muhammad Afzal, M. M. Akram, M. Iqbal Hashmi, Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi, Muhammad Naeem Shah, Mian Masood Ahmad, Javed Iqbal Qazi, Usman Javed Qazi, Ch. Anwaar-ul-Haq-I, Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Muhammad Siddique Rana, Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Shaharyar Kasuri, Sajid Ijaz Hotiana, Jan Muhammad Chaudhry, Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Muhammad Farooq Sheikh, Rana Munir Hussain, Muhammad Shahid Mukhtar Chandia, Tariq Saleem Sheikh, Abdul Waheed Habib, Muhammad Younas Khalid, Mian Mahmood Rashid, Muhammad Aleem Irshad, Sami Ullah Zia, Mudassar Shuja-ud-Din, Asghar Ahmed Kharl, Muhammad Ijaz Ali Bhatti, Habib-ur-Rehman, H. M. Majid Siddiqi, Malik Ahsan Mehmood, Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Qureshi, Muhammad Mohsin Virk, Muhammad Arif Mallhi, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Shahzad Mahmood Butt, Sohail Ibne Siraj, Muhammad Younas Khalid, Ch. Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Goraya, Zahid Ateeq Ch., Zurgham Lukhesar, Muhammad Nadeem, Muhammad Nauman Yahya, Barrister Khurram Raza, Saleem Iqbal Rathore, Agha Sarfraz Ahmad, Suhail Raza, Shahbaz Siddique, Ahsan Khan Yusufi, Nawazish Ali, Muhammad Naeem Munawar, Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotya, Hashim Aslam Butt, Ch. Muhammad Arshad, Agha Sarfraz Ahmed, Muhammad Ejaz, Ghulam Murtaza, Rasheed Ahmed Sheikh, Munawar us Salam, Mirza Anwar Baig, Malik Abdul Qadir Jsra, Ahmed Naseer Sheikh, Shahid Usman, Shakeel Ahmad Basra, M. Shahid Umar Khan, Muhammad Waseem Ch, Sayyid Ali Imran Rizvi, Ghazanfar Farookh, Shahzad Mahmood Butt, Muhammad Anwar Bhatti, Ch. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan, Muhammad Azhar Siddique, Syed Naeem-ud-Din Shah, Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh, Ch. Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Shahid Baig, Naeem Khan, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Ahsan Virk, Rana Muhammad Aslam, Syed Irfan Haider, Mohsin Afzaal Hashmi, M. Farooq Khokhar, Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Abdul Qaddus Mughal, Muhammad Mansha Sukhera, Zia Shahid Waseer and Mian Faheem Bashir, Advocates for Petitioners\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Ch. Pervaiz Iqbal Gondal (Standing Counsel), Ehsan-ur-Rehman Sheikh, Monam Sultan, Raja Sikandar Khan, Muhammad Asif Hashimi, Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Ms. Kausar Parveen, Mian Yousaf Umar, Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Saeed-ur-Rahman Dogar, Mian Asghar Ali Gurdaspuri, Muhammad Yahya Johar, M. Yusuf Akram, Zaheer-ul-Hassan Zahoor, Khadim Hussain Zahid, Sohail Zahid Butt, Amjad Hussain Malik, Agha Muhammad Akmal Khan and Tariq Manzoor Sial, Advocates, Muhammad Aqil Usman, Member Legal FBR, Dr. Tariq Masood, Additional Commissioner, FBR (HQ), Karachi, Yousif Hyder Shaikh, Additional Commissioner FBR (HQ) Karachis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHENONE STORES LTD. through Executive Director (Finance Accounts)\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 119 = 2012 SLD 119 = 2012 PTD 1750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Gift and Amendment of Assessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nTaxpayer received a cash gift from his wife (a taxpayer) and purchased property. The Assessing Officer added this as unexplained income under S. 111(1)(b).\n2.\nRuling:\no\nThe cash gift was time-barred and validly documented. The amendment order under S. 122(1) was annulled, as it lacked legal justification.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nGifts supported by wealth statements and affidavits cannot be arbitrarily discarded.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(1),122(5)(i),111(1)(b),120,115(4),114,68 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.143/LB of 2012, decision dated: 12-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmad Sh.,. Mrs. Samia Ijaz, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IRSHAD CHEEMA\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 120 = 2012 SLD 120 = 2012 PTD 1739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Gift and Amendment of Assessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nTaxpayer received a cash gift from his wife (a taxpayer) and purchased property. The Assessing Officer added this as unexplained income under S. 111(1)(b).\n2.\nRuling:\no\nThe cash gift was time-barred and validly documented. The amendment order under S. 122(1) was annulled, as it lacked legal justification.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nGifts supported by wealth statements and affidavits cannot be arbitrarily discarded.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),120,210 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1673/LB and 1674/LB of 2011, decision dated: 25-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh and Zulfeqar Khan. Yasir Pirzada, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "DEPILEX (PVT.) LIMITED, D.H.A., LAHORE\nvs\nACIR, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2 = 2013 SLD 2 = (2013) 107 TAX 157 = 2012 PTD 1783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Payment Charges and Deduction\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nTaxpayer claimed deductions for late payment charges as business expenses, which were disallowed as fines under S. 21(g).\n2.\nRuling:\no\nLate payment charges under contractual obligations are not fines for violating any law and are deductible as business expenses.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nContractual charges do not fall under the mischief of S. 21(g).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,21(g),20,122(5A) Contract Act, 1872=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.321/IB of 2011, decision dated: 19-06-2012, hearing DATE : 24-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND QURBAN ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid Ibrahim, FCA and Mirza Taqi-ud-Din, Ahmad, A.R.s Muhammad. Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "TELENOR PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, L.T.U., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 121 = 2012 SLD 121 = 2012 PTD 1775", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income and Fishing Inquiries\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nTaxation Officer treated bank credits as unexplained income without corroborative evidence.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nAddition was deleted as the officer's actions were based on presumptions. Fishing inquiries under S. 122(5) are not permissible.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nBurden lies on the tax department to prove the nexus of transactions with business receipts.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1)(a),122(5)(9),120 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.845/IB of 2011, decision dated: 27-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Khan, D.R. for Applicant. Muhammad Hafeez, ITP", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs HASEEB ESTATE BUILDERS, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 2 = 1981 SLD 2 = 1981 PTD 1 = (1981) 43 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reliability of Books of Account\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nBooks of account were rejected for inconsistencies.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nIncome Tax authorities are competent to reject books even without specific faults if overall reliability is questionable.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nTaxpayers must maintain credible and consistent accounts.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 208 of 1973, decision dated: 16-11-1980, hearing DATE : 11-11-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Melik Muhammad Qayyum and A. H. Najafi. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Mian ALDUL QAYYUM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 3 = 1981 SLD 3 = 1981 PTD 1 = (1981) 43 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Ice-Cream\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nAssessee initially filed returns for ice-cream sales but later denied tax liability.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nImposition of penalty for non-payment of sales tax was upheld.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nFiling revised returns does not absolve initial tax liability.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=12,12(4),3,7,8 ", + "Case #": "S. T. As. No. 16/KB to 39/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 5th July 1980, hearing DATE : 27th May 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Z N. Pasha. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 4 = 1981 SLD 4 = 1981 PTD 3 = (1981) 43 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading in Shares and Taxable Income\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nAssessee contended that share trading was incidental and not taxable as business income.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nGains from shares were not taxable as trading income in this context.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nAssessment must consider the overall context of the taxpayer’s activities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,.2(4),4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 49 of 1968, decision dated: 7-05-1980, hearing DATE : 17-10-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND B. G. N, KAKI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "YOUSUF HAKIMUDDIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 5 = 1981 SLD 5 = 1981 PTD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax on Retained Life Interest\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nDonor retained life interest in gifted property.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nSuch gifts are considered in praesenti (immediate) and are taxable under gift tax laws.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nLife interest does not negate the liability for gift tax.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,2(.vii),(xxii),(xxiv) ", + "Case #": "Gift Tax Case No. 1 of 1971, decision dated: .3rd December, 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. OBUL REDDI, C, J. AND PUNNAYYA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "W. V. V. Sundara Rao for Applicant. P. Rama Rao", + "Party Name:": "PANDAH SATTI RAJU AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, A. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 6 = 1981 SLD 6 = 1981 PTD 8 = (1980) 41 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Repatriation of Foreign Assets\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nDelay in repatriating declared foreign assets.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nState Bank cannot extend statutory deadlines. Failure to comply is not excusable.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nCompliance with statutory timelines is mandatory.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "W. T. A. No. 19/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 12th March 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha. S. M. Sibtain, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 7 = 1981 SLD 7 = 1981 PTD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax on Education-Related Property\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nProperty gifted for children’s education.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nGift tax computation should consider the corpus, not income derived during education.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nOnly the corpus value is taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,2(xii),5(1),6 ", + "Case #": "Income-Tax Reference No. 42 of 1975, decision dated: 17-03-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. P. GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, ACTG. C, J. AND T. CHANDRASHEKHARE MENON, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. A. Francis and P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner. P. C. Chacko and P. Krishnamoorthy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, KERALAI\nvs\nP. V. JOHN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 8 = 1981 SLD 8 = 1981 PTD 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Private Company Shares\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nShares restricted by Articles of the private company.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nValuation should be based on the balance sheet, not market value.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nRestrictions on alienation affect share valuation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=38,39 ", + "Case #": "E. D. A. No. 5/KB of 1978-79", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND GHULAM MURTAZA, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Saleem, I. T. P.. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 9 = 1981 SLD 9 = 1981 PTD 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust and Tax Exemption\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nTrust income spent outside taxable territories.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nIncome is not exempt unless the decision to spend locally is irrevocable.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nTrust objectives must align with exemption conditions.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5(1)(i) ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 18 of 1974, decision dated: 15-04-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHINNAPPA REDDY AND, JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Rao for the Commissioner. Y. V. Anjaneyulu and V. V. Subba Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "Case Referred No. 18 of 1974, decided on 15th April, 1975\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, A. P\nvs\nTRUSTEES OF H. E. H. THE NIZAMS RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 10 = 1981 SLD 10 = 1981 PTD 13 = (1980) 42 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nAssessing Officer failed to obtain prior approval for adding deemed income.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nAddition without approval is invalid.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nStatutory requirements for deemed income must be strictly followed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(2E) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1138/KB of 197879, decision dated: 8th, April, 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Gangat, C. A.. S. M. Sibtain, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 11 = 1981 SLD 11 = 1981 PTD 15 = (1980) 42 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition Without Opportunity\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nAssessee was penalized without adequate time to respond.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nPenalty is invalid if the opportunity to be heard is not reasonable.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nAssessee’s statutory rights must be respected.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28,28(31,28(6) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3037 of 1977-78, decision dated: 26th July 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Per Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Member---\nAli Hassan. Aftab Ahmad and Ashfaq Ahmad, D. Rs.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 12 = 1981 SLD 12 = 1981 PTD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax on Transferred Property\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nPartner transferred property to a firm.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nProperty cannot be assessed in the hands of the individual partner.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nFirm ownership is distinct from individual ownership for tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=14 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 700 of 1973, decision dated: 8-04-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Gulati, S. Kumar and J. C. Pandey for the Assessee. Deokinandan and Ashok Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K. D. PANDEY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 13 = 1981 SLD 13 = 1981 PTD 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Reassessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nMistakes in the record constituted information for reassessment.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nOfficer must have reasonable grounds to believe assessment escaped.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nReassessment requires valid information. ", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=17,17(1)(6) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 1 of 1974, decision dated: 6-04-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. OBUL REDDI, C, J. AND M. P. THAKKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. N. Desai with R. P. Bhatt of R. P. Bhatt & Co. (Solicitors) for the Commissioner. J. M. Thakore, Advocate-General with B. R. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARATIII\nvs\nSmt. ARUNDHATI BALKRISHNA TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 14 = 1981 SLD 14 = 1981 PTD 22 = (1980) 42 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Service of Notices\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nNotices served improperly led to ex parte assessment and penalty.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nService was invalid; orders were canceled.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nService of notices must strictly comply with procedural law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(4),23(2),46(1),63 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,rr.17,20 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1200/KB and 1201/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 1st, July, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT, A. A. ZUBERI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Naseem. Shaukat Zaldf D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 15 = 1981 SLD 15 = 1981 PTD 27 = (1981) 43 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nTribunal did not address a contention.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nNon-consideration does not give rise to a question of law.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nAppeals must be based on substantial questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A Contract Act, 1872=73 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 86 of 1980, decision dated: 30th September 1980, hearing DATE : 24-09-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada for Petitioner. M. A. Hameed for Defendant", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI\nvs\nTHE NATIONAL SPORTS TRUST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 16 = 1981 SLD 16 = 1981 PTD 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Director’s Employment Status\nKey Points:\n1.\nRuling:\no\nA person can be a full-time director for more than one company.\n2.\nConclusion:\no\nEmployment definitions depend on individual roles and contributions.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No. 100 of 1974, decision dated: 8-06-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. GOVINDAN NAIR, C, J. AND K. BHASKARAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nagendran, N. N. D. Pillai and K. Anandavalli for the Assessee. P. A. Francis and P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "C. V. MATHUKUTTY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 17 = 1981 SLD 17 = 1981 PTD 32 = (1980) 42 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Director’s Employment Status\nKey Points:\n1.\nRuling:\no\nA person can be a full-time director for more than one company.\n2.\nConclusion:\no\nEmployment definitions depend on individual roles and contributions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=R-39,39(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 1446/KB and 1448/KB of 1973-74", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, A. A. ZUBERI AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha. Ahmed Niaz, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 18 = 1981 SLD 18 = 1981 PTD 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Replacement Costs as Business Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nCase Details:\no\nReplacement of a truck engine.\n2.\nRuling:\no\nConsidered business expenditure for current repairs.\n3.\nConclusion:\no\nRepairs related to business assets are deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2) Income Tax Act, 1961=31,37 ", + "Case #": "Income Reference No.31 of 1973, decision dated: 5-09-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B, J. DIVAN, C, J. AND B. K. MEHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. H. Kaji with R. P. Bhatt of Bhaishanker Kanga & Girdharilal for the Addl. Commissioner. K. C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT\nvs\nDESAI BROS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 19 = 1981 SLD 19 = 1981 PTD 33 = (1980) 42 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Correction of mistakes\nThe Income-tax Officer allowed a rebate based on the assumption that the appellant was processing food items, specifically spices. Later, it was found that spices do not qualify as food under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1974. The Officer rectified this mistake, which was deemed an obvious error apparent from the records. This rectification was upheld as a valid order. [(1965) 56 ITR 114 ref.]\n(b) Interpretation of taxing statutes\nUnder the Finance Act, 1974, the terms vegetable and food were strictly construed. Spices, though plant-based, were held to be aromatic or pungent substances used for flavoring and not classified as vegetables or food. Therefore, they did not qualify for the rebate under Clause 4(iv) of the Finance Act. [(1958) 34 ITR 143 ref.]", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 999/KB, 1000/KB and 1224/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 17th, February, 1980, hearing DATE : 30th, January, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR AU, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mazhar Jafri. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 20 = 1981 SLD 20 = 1981 PTD 37 = (1981) 43 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Taxation of foreign income\nThe taxpayer, a foreigner residing in Pakistan, earned income in a foreign country that was taxed there. This income, which resulted in a carried-forward loss due to unabsorbed depreciation, was not taxed in Pakistan. It was held that Section 49-D of the Income-tax Act does not apply in such circumstances.\n(b) Special depreciation on machinery\nThe taxpayer’s claim for special depreciation under Section 10(2)(v-a) of the Income-tax Act was rejected. The machinery in question was not installed within the specific dates mentioned in the statute's explanation, rendering the claim invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=49,10(2)(vi)(b),24,49D,10(2)(va) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 404/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 27th July 1980, hearing DATE : 13th, May 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR .ALT, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "F. Hashmi, C. A.. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 21 = 1981 SLD 21 = 1981 PTD 40 = (1980) 42 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of agriculture and nursery \nThe court elaborated that agriculture involves processes like tilling, cultivation, and watering, and includes activities like horticulture and forestry. A nursery where plants are grown from seeds or transplanted involves similar agricultural operations and qualifies as agricultural activity. [(1932) ITR 466 ref.]\n(b) Agricultural income from nursery\nIncome derived from nursery operations was held to be agricultural income under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act and was exempt from income tax. [(1960) 2 Taxation 221 ref.]", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(viii),2(1),23(4),4(3)(viii),2(1) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,r.20 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1310 of 1976-77, decision dated: 12-06-1980, hearing DATE : 9th, February, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalifa Salah-ud-Din and S. M. Raza Naqvi. Ashfaque Ahmed, A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 22 = 1981 SLD 22 = 1981 PTD 43 = (1981) 43 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Denial of rebate for sugarcane processing\nThe term processing was interpreted narrowly, meaning treatment that does not alter the identity of goods. Refining sugarcane into crystallized sugar does not fall within this definition. As such, the rebate was denied. [(PLD 1966 SC 828 rel.)]\n(b) Advance tax liability\nEven in the absence of a formal assessment for the latest previous year, liability to pay advance tax can be based on the assessment made under Section 23-B of the Income-tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A,.18A(1),23B ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 87 of 1973, decision dated: 12-10-1980. dates of hearing: 14th and 15-04-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mahmood Mirza, A. H. Najafi and Muhammad Saeed Butt. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS AND DISTILLERY LTD., LAHORE\nvs \nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 23 = 1981 SLD 23 = 1981 PTD 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unpaid entertainment duty as liability\nAmounts collected as entertainment duty by the taxpayer (a cinema operator) but not paid to the provincial government were recorded as liabilities in the balance sheet. Such amounts were held not to be trading receipts and were thus not taxable. [(PLD 1976 Kar. 712 ref.)]", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. II-A/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 30th, March, 1980, hearing DATE : 29-01-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALL, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha and Muhammad Naseem for Applicant. Shaukat Zaidi, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 24 = 1981 SLD 24 = 1981 PTD 49 = (1981) 43 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of dividend income\nThe taxpayer, a preference shareholder, claimed the distributed amount as interest on borrowed capital. The court held that preference shareholder income is classified as dividend income under Section 10(2)(iii) and is taxable. [(PLD 1959 SC Pak ref.)]", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(iii) Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=30 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 199 of 1977, decision dated: 13-04-1980. dates of hearing: 28th and 30-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussain, M. Mahmood Mirza and A.H. Najafi for Applicant. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 25 = 1981 SLD 25 = 1981 PTD 49 = (1981) 43 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed income declaration\nThe taxpayer declared undisclosed income under Section 3-C of the Income-tax Act. The department attempted to reject the declaration and assess the income under regular provisions. The court held that once declared, the department cannot reopen assessments covered by the declaration. The Income-tax Officer’s actions were deemed without jurisdiction. [(1962) 44 ITR 66 ref.]", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(3),3C ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 49/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 27-03-1980, hearing DATE : 1st March, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAIN MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Zaidi, D. R.. Siraj-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 26 = 1981 SLD 26 = 1981 PTD 53 = (1981) 43 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer\nThe Officer’s determination of whether an item is taxable falls within his jurisdiction, even if the decision is erroneous. The court clarified that such an error does not deprive the Officer of jurisdiction. [(PLD 1974 SC 139 rel.)]\n(b) Premature constitutional petition\nThe taxpayer filed a constitutional petition without exhausting the appellate remedies available under the Income-tax Act. The court dismissed the petition as premature and directed the taxpayer to seek redress through proper channels. [(1968 SCMR 997 ref.)]", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(6),9,129 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1043, D-1044 and D-1450 of 1980, decision dated: 17-12-1980, hearing DATE : 15-12-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. F. Rahman alongwith Naimur Rahman for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmed Khans", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS JULIAN HOSHANG DINSHAW TRUST\nvs\nINCOME TAX, OFFICER, CIRCLE XVIII, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 27 = 1981 SLD 27 = 1981 PTD 54 = (1981) 43 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from tax and statutory interpretation\n(a) Exemption under Sales Tax Act, 1951\n•\nFacts: The case examined whether soap, exempt from sales tax, could fall under the category of partly manufactured goods under Section 2(12). The raw materials used in the manufacturing of soap had already been taxed.\n•\nLegal Principles: Section 7 exempts payability but not chargeability. Subject to tax in Section 2(12) refers strictly to payment of tax.\n•\nFindings: Soap, as a finished product, does not qualify as “partly manufactured goods” under Section 2(12), and Section 27 is inapplicable.\n•\nReferences Distinguished:\no\nC.S.T. v. H. Muhammad Hussain & Co., 1974 PTD 20: Distinguished as dealing with different interpretations of taxability.\no\nMessrs Shafiq Corporation v. C.S.T., 1974, 29 Taxation 103: Contextually irrelevant due to differing subject matter.\n•\nImplications: This case narrows the scope of exemptions for “partly manufactured goods” under the Act.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nKey Issue: Whether legislators’ or ministers’ opinions, including budget speeches, are relevant for interpreting statutory provisions.\n•\nFindings: Such opinions were deemed irrelevant. Statutory interpretation must rely on the text and legislative intent, not external opinions.\n•\nKey Reference:\no\nHamdard Dawakhana v. C.I.T., PLD 1980 SC 84, supported this principle, emphasizing reliance on statutory text rather than subjective interpretations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,2(12),(18),3,7 ", + "Case #": "S. T. As. Nos. 21 to 24 of 1978-79, decision dated: 18-06-1980, hearing DATE : 10-12-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Humayun Akhtar D. R.. Muhammad Ali Khan and Ziaullah Kayanis", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 28 = 1981 SLD 28 = 1981 PTD 59 = (1982) 45 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of a false return and its legal consequences\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer filed a Nil sales tax return, knowing it to be false. Conviction and sentencing were upheld despite quashing of related assessment proceedings on technical grounds.\n•\nLegal Principles: Criminal liability remains unaffected by procedural flaws in assessment proceedings. Filing a false return constitutes a standalone offense.\n•\nFindings: The accused’s explanation for filing a Nil return lacked merit, and the conviction was upheld.\n•\nRelevant Law:\no\nCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Section 410 governs appeals in criminal cases.\n•\nImplications: This case highlights that technical irregularities in assessment proceedings do not shield taxpayers from criminal liability for fraudulent submissions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=24,25 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=410 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 1974, decision dated: 16-12-1980. dates of hearing : 29th March and 5-04-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHAUS ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Qadri. Murtaza Hussain for A.G. for the State", + "Party Name:": "Malik MUSTAFA\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 29 = 1981 SLD 29 = 1981 PTD 60 = (1981) 43 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition and interpretation of minor under Income-tax Act, 1922\n•\nFacts: The question arose whether the term minor child in Section 16(3)(a)(ii) includes grandchildren.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe rule expressio unius exclusio alterius excludes grandchildren from the definition of minor child. \no\nFiscal statutes are interpreted in favor of the taxpayer when ambiguity exists.\n•\nFindings: The court held that minor child refers only to sons or daughters.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.I.T. v. Khatija Begum, PLD 1965 SC 472: Supported limited interpretations.\no\nSunder Das v. Collector of Gujrat, ILR 3 Lah. 349: Reinforced applying taxpayer-favorable interpretations.\n•\nImplications: This ruling prevents the extension of provisions to unintended beneficiaries.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 3686 of 1979-80, decision dated: 9-09-1980, hearing DATE : 23th July 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 30 = 1981 SLD 30 = 1981 PTD 62 = (1980) 42 TAX 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reconstitution of Firms and Registration\n•\nFacts: A firm initially registered with two partners was reconstituted with the addition of a third partner. The tax authorities contended this constituted a new partnership.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nReconstitution does not create a new partnership if the firm's essence remains unchanged.\no\nSection 26-A of the Income-tax Act governs firm registration and renewal.\n•\nFindings: The court ruled the reconstitution as valid, entitling the firm to renewal of registration.\n•\nKey Reference:\no\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Muhammad Ryas & Co. supported this distinction.\n•\nImplications: This provides clarity on firm registration post-reconstitution and safeguards continuity.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A,26A(5),66 Partnership Act, 1932=63 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 39 of 1973, decision dated: 16-03-1980, hearing DATE : 10th March 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARIMULLAH DURRANI AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amirzada Khan. Asstt. A. G.. Abdur Rehman Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nAHMAD SHAM & BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 31 = 1981 SLD 31 = 1981 PTD 62 = (1981) 43 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and registration of firms\n(a) Appeals\n•\nIssue: Raising new contentions requiring factual appraisal at the appellate level.\n•\nFindings: Such pleas are inadmissible unless justified by valid reasons for earlier omission.\n(b) Cancellation of Registration\n•\nIssue: Whether the Income-tax Officer could cancel a registration granted erroneously due to procedural errors.\n•\nFindings: Section 26-A(4) does not empower officers to cancel registrations if the firm’s genuineness is not in doubt.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,33,26A(3),(4) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 446 to 448 of 1978-79, decision dated: 16th September 1980, hearing DATE : 23rd February, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MIAN KHALIQ AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Arif, D. R.. Manzoor Elahee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 32 = 1981 SLD 32 = 1981 PTD 64 = (1981) 43 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for dairy farming income\n•\nFacts: Income from selling milk derived from stall-fed milch animals was claimed as exempt agricultural income.\n•\nLegal Principles: Agricultural income includes activities integral to farming or dairying.\n•\nFindings: The court ruled such income exempt under Section 4(3)(xx).\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.I.T., West Bengal v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 1957, 321 ITR 466 supported the exemption’s scope.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(xx) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 3944, 3945, 3958 to 3960 of 1979-80, decision dated: 6-10-1980, hearing DATE : 16-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ghulam Muhammad. Farooq Malik, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 33 = 1981 SLD 33 = 1981 PTD 66 = (1980) 42 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Thal Development Authority’s tax exemption\n•\nFacts: Whether Thal Development Authority qualified as a local authority exempt from income tax.\n•\nLegal Principles: Local authorities with statutory powers, including tax levies, are exempt.\n•\nFindings: The authority was deemed a local authority, rendering demand notices invalid.\n•\nKey Citation:\no\nDeputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan v. Ataul Haq, PLD 1965 SC 201.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(9),3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 258 to 274 of 1976,decided on 27-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate with Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 34 = 1981 SLD 34 = 1981 PTD 67 = (1981) 43 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income Declarations\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer declared undisclosed income under Section 3-C, barring reassessment.\n•\nLegal Principles: Section 34 cannot override Section 3-C declarations.\n•\nFindings: Reassessments were held invalid.\n•\nCitation:\no\n1979, 39 Taxation 35 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,3C,34,Sched ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 478/KB and 479/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 5-07-1980, hearing DATE : 4-06-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Shaban. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 35 = 1980 SLD 35 = 1981 PTD 69 = (1985) 51 TAX 235 = (1980) 42 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability of Deceased Mutawalli\n•\nFacts: The tax liability of a deceased Mutawalli was under dispute. Petitioners, neither legal representatives nor executors of the deceased, were questioned about their liability to settle outstanding dues.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether non-representatives or non-administrators of a deceased individual could be held liable for the tax obligations of the deceased under Section 24-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nOutcome: Leave to appeal was granted to resolve this legal question.\n•\nRelevance: This case emphasizes the legal framework for defining liability in succession for tax purposes under the Income-tax Act and the Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)­ ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 843 and 844 of 1976, decision dated: 16-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik M. Qayyum, Advocate and Sh. A. Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Sh. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate, Sh. Riazul Haq, Advocate and Iftikhar-ud-Din, Advocate- on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Sh. MUHAMMAD ZAKI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFCER\nC. P. S. L. A. No. 844 of 1976\nSh. RAHIMUDDIN, ETC\nvs\nINCOMETEX OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 36 = 1981 SLD 36 = 1981 PTD 71 = (1980) 42 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Use of Foreign Case Law in Tax Disputes\n•\nFacts: Whether decisions could rely exclusively on English foreign case law and if the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, align (in pari materia) with the provisions of the Foreign Income-tax Act.\n•\nLegal Principles: The extent to which foreign legal principles or case law influence domestic taxation cases was explored.\n•\nOutcome: Leave to appeal was granted to evaluate these issues.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAllahabad Glass Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1962 PTD 327, referenced the necessity for comparative legal analysis in similar contexts.\n•\nImplications: This highlights the judiciary's approach to cross-jurisdictional legal doctrines in tax law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2),(iv),(v),(xvi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 218 and 219 of 1976, decision dated: 25-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD SHARIF & COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 37 = 1981 SLD 37 = 1981 PTD 71 = (1981) 43 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 10(2)(xvi) read with State Bank of Pakistan Act (XXXIII of 1956), S. 36-Business expenditure-Assessee, a Banking Company, failing to maintain a balance of not less than 5%, of demand liabilities and 2 % of its time liabilities--Penalty imposed by State Bank for such infraction of mandatory provisions of law-Held, not in nature of expenditure incurred on ground of commercial expediency nor can be said to be incidental to assessee's business-Such penalty cannot be construed as business expenditure and allowed as a deduc­tion within purview of S. 10(2)(xvi).\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. (1972) 85 I T R 489; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Punjab Oil Expeller Co. (1979)­40 Taxation 55; Haji Aziz Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Bombay City II (1961) 41 I T R 350 ; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mathura Pursad Hardware (1966) 13 Taxation 279 ; Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (1967) 64 1 T R 330 ; (1957) 32 I T R 138 and Commissioner of Land Revenue v. Warnes & Co. Ltd. (1919) 2 K B 444 ref.\n \nAta Hussain Khan Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1970) 21 Tax­ation 1; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gammon (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi (1966) 14 Taxation 304; (1962) 2 Taxation 377 (Trib.) and Commissioner of Income­tax v. Prafulla Kumar Mallick (1969) 73 I T R 119 not relevant.\n \n(b) Words and phrases-\n \n\"\"Penalty\"\"-Meaning.\n \nWharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edn. ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=36 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 409/KB and 410 KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 13th December 1980, hearing DATE : 7th June 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Ahmed Khan, Legal Adviser and S. A. Khan, D. R.. M. A. Noorani", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 38 = 1981 SLD 38 = 1981 PTD 72 = (1980) 42 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Constitutional Validity\n•\nFacts: Whether additional tax imposed for delayed payments constitutes a levy on income and whether it exceeds the Federal Government's constitutional authority.\n•\nLegal Issues: Examined Articles 185 and 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and Items 43(c) & 49 of the Federal Legislative List.\n•\nOutcome: Leave to appeal was granted for further deliberation.\n•\nCitations:\no\nM. Shakeel Saigol v. Income-tax Officer, PLD 1976 Lah. 616.\no\nZeenat Textile Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, PLD 1969 Dacca 673.\n•\nImplications: This case clarifies the scope of additional taxes under constitutional and legislative frameworks.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,2(14),18A,45 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185,199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 372 and 375 of 1976, decision dated: 12-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "KHALID & COMPANY, LAHORE\nvs\nTHE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER\nC. P. S. L. A. No. 375 of 1976\nCOMBINED INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nTHE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 39 = 1981 SLD 39 = 1981 PTD 74 = (1980) 41 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment and Alternate Remedies\n(a) Invalidity of Re-assessment Proceedings\n•\nFacts: The Income-tax Officer initiated re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 without new evidence or omissions by the taxpayer.\n•\nLegal Principles: Re-assessment based on the same material as the original assessment is invalid.\n•\nOutcome: Notice under Section 148 was quashed.\n•\nCitations:\no\nIncome-tax Officer v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur, 1974, 97 ITR 239 (SC).\n(b) Alternate Remedies\n•\nFindings: Appeals and references under the Income-tax Act are not considered alternate remedies if they do not specifically address the disputed notices.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCalcutta Discount Co. v. Income-tax Officer, 1961, 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148,147 ", + "Case #": "Original Jurisdiction Case No. 246 of 1975,.decided on 17th May 1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND N. K. DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. M. Patnaik, S. C. Lal and A. Agarwalla for Petitioner. A. B. Misras", + "Party Name:": "DR. H. K. MAHTAB\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 40 = 1981 SLD 40 = 1981 PTD 84 = (1981) 43 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Minor Partner\n•\nFacts: A minor was treated as a partner in a firm without explicit mention of being admitted only to the benefits of the partnership.\n•\nLegal Principles: Under the Partnership Act, minors can only be admitted for benefits, not as full partners liable for losses.\n•\nFindings: The firm's registration was invalid due to the improper inclusion of a minor.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.I.T. v. Dwarkadas Khetan & Co., 1961, 41 ITR 528 (SC).\n•\nImplications: This case delineates the rights of minors in partnership structures.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=184 Partnership Act, 1932=30 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases References Nos. 121 and 122 of 1974, decision dated: 9-06-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): E. S. VENKATARAMAIAH AND M. K. SRINIVASA IYENGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. R. Rajasekharamurthy for Applicant. K. Srinivasan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJAGADISH JAKATI & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 41 = 1981 SLD 41 = 1981 PTD 90 = (1981) 43 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delayed Wealth Tax Returns\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer filed returns late, and penalties were imposed. The law was amended during the delay to increase penalty rates.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the amended penalty rates applied retroactively.\n•\nFindings: The law in force at the time of default applied, not the amended rates.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.W.T. v. Ram Narain Agrawal, 1977, 106 ITR 965 (All.).\n•\nImplications: This case reinforces the principle against retroactive penal provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=18(1)(a),27 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 242 of 1976, decision dated: 20-02-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. L. OZA AND G. G. SOHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. M. Mathur for Applicant. K. A. Chitale", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, M. P\nvs\nSmt. MANJULADEVI MUCHHAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 42 = 1981 SLD 42 = 1981 PTD 91 = (1981) 43 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Escaping Assessment\n•\nFacts: Assessment proceedings were initiated without definite information or prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nLegal Principles: Section 34(1) requires such approvals for proceedings to be valid.\n•\nFindings: Proceedings were declared coram non judice and nullified.\n•\nImplications: Ensures checks and balances in re-assessment initiation.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2383 to 2389 and 2632 to 2634 of 1979-80, decision dated: 16th December,1980. dates of hearing : 13th and 14-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R.. I. N. Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 43 = 1981 SLD 43 = 1981 PTD 93 = (1981) 43 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Company’s Tax Liability in India\n•\nFacts: A UK-based company sold goods in India through a wholly-owned subsidiary and contested liability under the Wealth Tax Act.\n•\nLegal Issues: Determining whether the company had a place of business in India and was subject to wealth tax.\n•\nFindings: The company was conducting business through its agent in India and fell within the scope of the Act.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.I.T. v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., 1973, 91 ITR 8 (SC).\no\nGrainger & Son v. Gough, 1896, 3 TC 462 (HL).\n•\nImplications: Establishes parameters for foreign companies' taxability based on business presence.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=2 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 93 of 1978, decision dated: 29-03-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DIPAK KUMAR SEN AND C. K BENERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. P. Jinwalla with P. K. Pal and Miss M. Seal for Petitioner. S. Sen and A. Sengupta", + "Party Name:": "IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGALIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 44 = 1981 SLD 44 = 1981 PTD 97 = (1981) 43 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income Declaration\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer’s declaration of undisclosed income coincided with an ongoing appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nLegal Principles: Declarations under Section 3-C remain valid even during pending appeals.\n•\nFindings: The appellate decision was held within jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations: Central Board of Revenue’s Circular, No. 63 (221) IT-IV/76, dated 14-7-1976.\n•\nImplications: Strengthens taxpayers’ rights during overlapping appellate and declaration processes.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3C,FifthSched.,23 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 68/KB and 669/KB of 1976-77", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Sibtain, D. R.. Muhammad Shafi Alim, Accountant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 45 = 1981 SLD 45 = 1981 PTD 99 = (1981) 43 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Assets Transferred by Gift\n•\nFacts: The assessee transferred assets to his wife through Hiba-bil-Ewaz (a gift with consideration) without formal registration. The revenue sought to include income from the gifted property in the assessee's income.\n•\nLegal Principles: Under Section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act, assets transferred as a gift are valid without registration if the transfer fulfills the criteria for Hiba-bil-Ewaz. The adequacy of consideration is irrelevant for its validity.\n•\nJudgment: Income from the gifted property cannot be included in the assessee's income.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBashir Ahmad v. Zebeda Khatoon 126 AO 186.\no\nAbdul Hamid v. Abdul Ghani, 1934, 148 IC 801.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3), ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1412 of 1972-73, decision dated: 20th November 1980, hearing DATE : 26th October 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. E. Naeem, I. T. P.. Humayun Akhtar, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 46 = 1981 SLD 46 = 1981 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income and Pending Appeals\n•\nFacts: The assessee filed a declaration of undisclosed income while an appeal was pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The revenue argued that the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether non-withdrawal of an appeal voids appellate proceedings under Section 3(c) of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nJudgment: Appellate proceedings remain valid. The Central Board of Revenue’s circular cannot override substantive legal rights unless explicitly legislated.\n•\nKey Takeaway: Procedural non-compliance does not bar substantive rights unless expressly provided by law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3(c) Finance Act, 1976=FifthSched ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 68(KB) and 669(KB) of 1976-77", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Sibtain, D. R.. Muhammad Shafi Alim Accountant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 47 = 1981 SLD 47 = 1981 PTD 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift (Hiba-bil-Ewaz) and Income Attribution\n•\nFacts: An assessee transferred a property to his wife as a gift in lieu of dower. The revenue contended the assessee retained ownership of the property.\n•\nLegal Principles: A valid gift requires offer, acceptance, and possession. In rented properties, actual possession is not mandatory if symbolic possession is transferred.\n•\nJudgment: The property was validly gifted to the wife. Income from the property could not be attributed to the assessee.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBashir Ahmad v. Zebeda Khatoon 126 AO 186.\no\nAllah Jawai v. Allah Ditta, PLD 1975 Lah. 1399.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1412 of 1972-73 decided on 20-11-1980, hearing DATE : 26-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. E. Naeem, I. T. P.. Humayun Akhtar, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 48 = 1981 SLD 48 = 1981 PTD 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment Without Definite Information\n•\nFacts: The Income-tax Officer initiated re-assessment without definite information or prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether such re-assessment proceedings were valid under Section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nJudgment: Re-assessment proceedings were declared null and void as they lacked requisite approvals and definite information.\n•\nKey Takeaway: Proper authorization and evidence are mandatory for initiating re-assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2383 to 2389 and 2632 to 2634 of 1979-80. 16-12-1980. dates of hearing :13th and 14-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R. for the Department. I. N. Pasha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 49 = 1981 SLD 49 = 1981 PTD 112 = (1981) 43 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Royalty Payments as Capital Expenditure\n•\nFacts: The assessee entered into an agreement with a foreign firm for know-how and paid royalties. The revenue treated the payment as capital expenditure.\n•\nLegal Principles: Payments resulting in enduring benefits or ownership of assets are capital in nature and not deductible as revenue expenses.\n•\nJudgment: The royalty payment constituted capital expenditure and was disallowed as a deduction.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBombay Steam Navigation Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1965, 56 ITR 52 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-Tax Reference No. 130 of 1974, decision dated: 12th July 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATISH CHANDRA, C, J. AND K. C. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. B. Upadhya. A. Gupta", + "Party Name:": "RAM KUMAR PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 50 = 1981 SLD 50 = 1981 PTD 114 = (1981) 43 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Adventure in Trade\n•\nFacts: An assessee engaged in frequent plot transactions. The revenue categorized the surplus from these transactions as income from trade.\n•\nLegal Principles: Frequent transactions with an intention to earn profits constitute trading activities, even if initial transactions were not for profit.\n•\nJudgment: The surplus was taxable as income from trade.\n•\nCitations:\no\nJanki Rams Bahadur Ram v. C. I. T., 1965, 57 ITR 21 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 115 of 1970, decision dated: 7th February 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND DESAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. P. Mehta with S. J. Mehta and N. Y. Mehta for the Assessee. R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit and Miss S. G. Shah for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. BHANUMATI A. SANGHAVI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITYIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 51 = 1981 SLD 51 = 1981 PTD 117 = (1981) 44 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Loans as Undisclosed Income\n•\nFacts: The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of certain loans during assessment.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether unexplained loans could be treated as income from undisclosed sources.\n•\nJudgment: The Income-tax Officer was justified in treating such loans as income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(2),34 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 984/KB to 986/KB and 923/KB to 925/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 27-01-1981, hearing DATE : 18-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R. Mahmood A. Hashmy Mahmood A. Hashmy Abrar Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 52 = 1981 SLD 52 = 1981 PTD 119 = (1981) 43 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nFacts: The Tribunal found discrepancies in books maintained by the producer and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether findings from penalty proceedings could be binding.\n•\nJudgment: The penalty was invalid as the assessee was denied due process.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, 1970, 76 ITR 696.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 52 of 1970, decision dated: 26th February 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pundit and Miss S. G. Shah for Applicant. S. E. Dastur instructed by Malvi Ranchhoddas & Co.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax BOMBAY CITYI\nvs\nBALRAJ SAHANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 53 = 1981 SLD 53 = 1981 PTD 121 = (1981) 44 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of CBR Instructions and Amendments\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInstructions by the Central Board of Revenue are binding on officers but must align with statutory provisions.\no\nAmendments to procedural provisions are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=5,5C,10(4)(bb),18 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1369; 1370, 1371, 1417 and 1418 of 1979-80, decision dated: 17-05-1981, hearing DATE : 11-03-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashfaque Ahmad A. C., D. R.. M. R. Farooqi, I. T. P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 54 = 1981 SLD 54 = 1981 PTD 124 = (1981) 43 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refixation of Dower\n•\nLegal Issue: Questions about the necessity of witnesses for refixation of dower under Muslim law were considered significant for public interest.\n•\nOutcome: Leave to appeal granted for authoritative adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(iii),66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 722 of 1976, decision dated: 24-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASSAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Mian AZIZ S. SHEIKH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 55 = 1981 SLD 55 = 1981 PTD 125 = (1981) 43 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment on Arbitrary Formulas\n•\nFacts: The Income-tax Officer adopted a formula for assessing an ice factory that was inconsistent with previous assessments.\n•\nJudgment: Arbitrary formulas were rejected, and the consistent formula was reinstated.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2),23 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 249 of 1973, decision dated: 15-12-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND AAMER RAZA A. KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Heq for the Referring Authority A Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nBADAR ICE FACTORY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 56 = 1981 SLD 56 = 1981 PTD 129 = (1982) 45 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Setting-off Loss\n•\nLegal Principle: Losses from non-speculative businesses can be set off against gains from any non-speculative business, even if unrelated.\n•\nCitations:\no\nProduce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1971, 24 Taxation 1.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 220 of 1971, decided on. 29-03-1981, hearing DATE : 9-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. S. H. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahar Qader Bakhsh. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "Rais GHAZI MUHAMMAD KHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 57 = 1981 SLD 57 = 1981 PTD 137 = (1981) 43 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Tribunal's Discretion\n•\nLegal Principle: Setting aside penalties is within the Tribunal’s discretion and must consider all relevant circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 581 of 1976, decision dated: 9th March 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate, S. Riazul Haq, Advocate and Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nZAMIR & SONS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 58 = 1981 SLD 58 = 1981 PTD 138 = (1981) 43 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Date of Accrual of Income\n•\nFacts: Waiver of advances occurred in a subsequent assessment year.\n•\nJudgment: Income was assessable in the year of waiver, not earlier.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Referred Case No. 30 of 1975,decided on 12th July 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): E. S. VENKATARAMAIAH AND M. K. SRINIVASA IYENGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. R. Rajasekharmurthy for Applicant. K. P. Kumar for King & Partridge", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.\nvs\nMYSORE TOBACCO Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 59 = 1981 SLD 59 = 1981 PTD 139 = (1981) 43 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments Without Proper Hearing\n•\nLegal Issue: Examination of a company director without allowing the company to present its case does not satisfy the requirement for a fair hearing.\n•\nJudgment: The notice for reopening the assessment was quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148,153 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 111 of 1974, decision dated: 2nd March 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. M. KANTAWALA, C, J. AND S. K. DESAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pundit. V. H. Patel with S..J. Mehta instructed by I. M. Munim, Patil and Mehta", + "Party Name:": "C. A. GULANIKAR, Income Tax OFFICER\nvs\nRAMNARAIN SONS (PRIVATE) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 60 = 1981 SLD 60 = 1981 PTD 143 = (1981) 43 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Power to Reframe Questions\n•\nLegal Principle: The Tribunal can reframe questions to address all relevant aspects of a legal issue for reference to higher courts.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=10 ", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Case No. 52-54 of 1977, decision dated: 22-02-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. P. SEN, ACTG. C, J., AND RAMJILAL GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. K. Mal Lodha for Applicant. N. M. Runka", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nH. H. BIRAD KANWARJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 61 = 1981 SLD 61 = 1981 PTD 143 = (1981) 44 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Genuineness of Partnership\n•\nFacts: Partnership among stamp vendors holding individual licenses was contested.\n•\nJudgment: The partnership was genuine and eligible for registration.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2291 of 1979-80, decision dated: 26th May 1981, hearing DATE : 9-03-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ilyas Zafar. Humayun Akhtar, A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 62 = 1981 SLD 62 = 1981 PTD 148 = (1981) 43 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax for Non-Payment of Advance Tax\n•\nLegal Principle: Additional tax for non-payment of advance tax is valid under the Income-tax Act’s charging provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,2(4),3,18A(8) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1978, decision dated: 5-06-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KEMALUDDIN HUSSAIN, C, J., RUHUL ISLAM, K. M. SUBHAN AND BADARUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul RabII, Advocate-on-Record. Mozammel Raq Bhuiyan, Advocate instructed by S. S. Hoda, Advocate-on-Record No. 1. K. A. Bakar, Attorney General (A.W. Bhulyan, Assistant Attorney General with him) and Abdus Sobhan, Additional Attorney General (B. B. Chowdhury, Assistant Attorney General with him) instructed by R. Hossain, Advocate-on-Record No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "NIRANJAN DEY\nvs\nM. I. HAQ, Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE B, CHITTAGONG AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 63 = 1981 SLD 63 = 1981 PTD 148 = (1981) 44 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Additional Tax\n•\nLegal Principle: Additional tax and penalty are separate and can coexist under specific provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,59,62,63,88,91,91(1),(3),2(43) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 475/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 12-04-1981, hearing DATE : 30-03-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND A. Z. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan. Abrar Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 64 = 1981 SLD 64 = 1981 PTD 150 = (1981) 43 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Previous Year \n•\nLegal Principle: Assessments for periods exceeding 12 months are permissible only when not barred by limitation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(11),3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1978, decision dated: 10-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. K. M.A. MUNIM, RUHUL ISLAM AND SHAHABUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. R. Ali, Advocate, instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record. Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate instructed by Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "JAMAL SOAP FACTORY, NARAYANGANJ\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 65 = 1981 SLD 65 = 1981 PTD 154 = (1981) 44 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Liability – Excise Duty Unpaid for Three Years\n•\nFacts: The assessee failed to pay excise duty levied on goods manufactured for sale. The unpaid amount was allowed as a deduction in the year of liability but remained unpaid for three years. The revenue sought to add it back to taxable income under Section 10(2-A).\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether unpaid excise duty for a prolonged period can be added back to the assessee’s income under Section 10(2-A).\n•\nJudgment: The excise duty liability was rightly added back under Section 10(2-A) for the year under appeal. However, if the liability is paid in subsequent years, the assessee can claim a deduction from profits for the relevant year.\n•\nKey Takeaway: Unpaid trading liabilities for extended periods are subject to addition back to taxable income until settled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2A) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 9/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 8-11-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND M. KARIM, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haque. S. M. Sibtain, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 66 = 1981 SLD 66 = 1981 PTD 155 = (1981) 43 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Salary Waiver and Accrual\n•\nFacts: The assessee was entitled to a salary based on a resolution by the company’s Board of Directors. The assessee waived the salary but only after its accrual. The revenue treated the salary as taxable income.\n•\nLegal Principle: Salary accrues once enforceable under the terms of employment. Waiver after accrual does not absolve tax liability.\n•\nJudgment: The salary was taxable as it had accrued and was enforceable before waiver. The Tribunal's decision was upheld.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Bachubhai Nagindas Shah, 1976, 104 ITR 551 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 122 of 1975, decision dated: 13-02-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. R. Ramamani of Subbaraya Ayyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for Applicant. J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram", + "Party Name:": "M. K. ABDUL RAHIMAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 67 = 1981 SLD 67 = 1981 PTD 157 = (1981) 43 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Managing Director’s Salary Waiver\n•\nFacts: A Managing Director claimed to have waived his salary for certain months. The waiver was formalized through company resolutions passed after the relevant accounting year.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the waiver of salary made after accrual absolves tax liability.\n•\nJudgment: The waiver lacked a pre-existing agreement and was unilateral. The Managing Director was liable to be taxed on the full salary entitlement.\n•\nCitations:\no\nK. R. Kothandaraman v. C. I. T., 1966, 62 ITR 348 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=15 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 426 of 1971, decision dated: 22nd-September, 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND V. SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for Applicant. S. Padmanabhan and S. Y. Subramaniam", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nV. R. RAJARATNAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 68 = 1981 SLD 68 = 1981 PTD 159 = (1981) 44 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Diversion by State Cement Corporation\n•\nFacts: The State Cement Corporation retained a portion of income derived from the export of cement manufactured by the assessee as payment for services rendered.\n•\nLegal Principle: Income diverted before it reaches the assessee is not taxable in their hands.\n•\nJudgment: The retained income was considered diverted at source and not taxable in the hands of the assessee.\n•\nCitations:\no\n(1961) 41 ITR 367 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1313/ KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 5-03-1981, hearing DATE : 8-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R.. S. M. Tunauli, I. T. P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 69 = 1981 SLD 69 = 1981 PTD 161 = (1981) 44 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Operating Expenses and Machinery Sale Profits\n(a) Operating Expenses:\n•\nFacts: The assessee claimed operating expenses without awareness of parallel case norms. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner adjusted expenses based on industry standards.\n•\nJudgment: The adjustment was upheld as reasonable.\n(b) Profit from Sale of Machinery:\n•\nFacts: Revenue added profits from the sale of machinery as taxable income.\n•\nLegal Principle: Profits arising from the difference between the original cost and written-down value of machinery are taxable regardless of business continuity.\n•\nJudgment: The addition was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vii),3,4,6 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. Nos, 683 and 684 of 1979-80, decision dated: 9-05-1981, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamshad Ali Zaidi, I. T. P.. Sikandar Kaleem, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 70 = 1981 SLD 70 = 1981 PTD 166 = (1981) 43 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waqf Income Tax Exemption\n•\nFacts: The Waqf deed allocated two-thirds of its income for charitable or religious purposes, but the revenue assessed unexpended income as taxable.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether unexpended income of a Waqf is taxable if it has been allocated for religious or charitable purposes in the deed.\n•\nJudgment: The unexpended income was exempt from tax as it was allocated for charitable purposes under the Waqf deed.\n•\nCitations:\no\nDirector of Taxation & Excise v. Mehdi Ali Khan Panni, 1979, 7 BTD 90.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3X.4, ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3 and 4 of 1978, decision dated: 11-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KEMALUDDIN HUSSAIN, C, J., F. K. M.A. MUNIM, RUHUL ISLAM AND SHAHBUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHITTAGONG ZONE, CHITTAGONG\nvs\nSAIFUDDIN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MUTAWALLI WAKF ESTATE OF REAZUDDIN AHMED SIDDIQUI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 36 = 1957 SLD 36 = 1957 PLD 1060", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Executive Officer’s Resignation\n•\nFacts: A Deputy Commissioner suspended a resolution by a municipal committee accepting the resignation of its Executive Officer.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to interfere with the municipal committee’s decision.\n•\nJudgment: The suspension was ultra vires. The resignation did not require government approval under the Punjab Municipal Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931=3,10 Punjab Municipal Act, 1911=45 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 83C of 1957 decided on 24th October 1957. Petition under Article 170 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of respondent No. 1 dated the 13th July 1957", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. A. RAHMAN, C, J. AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Shaukat Ali for Petitioner (Syed Sharif Husain) Sh. Khurshid Ahmad No. 1 (D. C. Lahore etc.) Sardar Muhammad Iqbal No. 2", + "Party Name:": "Syed SHARIF HUSSAIN, President Municipal Committee, Kasur\nVs \n(1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND (2) Sardar NAIMULLAH KHAN, Executive Officer. Municipal Committee Kasur" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1706 = 2000 SLD 1706 = 2000 PLD 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Nuisance Cases\n(a) Civil Court Jurisdiction:\n•\nLegal Principle: Disputes over civil rights must be adjudicated by civil courts, and their decisions prevail over Magistrates' orders under Section 133, Cr.P.C.\n(b) Constitutional Petition:\n•\nFacts: The obstruction was long-standing and involved disputed facts unsuitable for constitutional petition.\n•\nJudgment: The case was directed to the civil court for resolution.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAzam Khan v. The State, 1989 PCr.LJ 2286.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=133(2),139A(2),133 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21584 of 1997, decision dated: 6-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHRY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Abdul Majeed for Petitioners. Nazir Ahmed Qureshi No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD and 2 OTHERS\nVs\nKHIZAR HAYAT and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 72 = 1981 SLD 72 = 1981 PTD 169 = (1981) 44 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Tax Holidays\n(a) Advance Tax Liability:\n•\nFacts: Petitioners argued that retrospective removal of tax holidays could not create advance tax liability for earlier periods.\n•\nJudgment: Petitioners were not liable for additional tax as no advance tax liability existed at the relevant time.\n(b) Constitutional Remedy:\n•\nLegal Principle: High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 199 to address orders made without lawful authority, even when alternative remedies exist.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18 Finance Act, 1972=18A(8) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 768 of 1978, decision dated: 15-02-1981, hearing DATE : 5-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND Z. C. VALLIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. Iqbal Kazis", + "Party Name:": "HUSEIN SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 73 = 1981 SLD 73 = 1981 PTD 174 = (1981) 44 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reconstitution of Firm Without Dissolution\n•\nFacts: A firm was reconstituted without formal dissolution, excluding one partner (mother) without consent.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether such reconstitution was valid.\n•\nJudgment: The reconstitution was improper; refusal to renew registration was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 Partnership Act, 1932=42 ", + "Case #": "I . T. A. No. 3148 of 1971-72, decision dated: 22-02-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Shaban. M. Khalique Siddiqui, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 74 = 1981 SLD 74 = 1981 PTD 179 = (1981) 44 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition and Appeals\n(a) Effect of Appeals on Penalty:\n•\nLegal Principle: Appellate orders supersede original penalty orders.\n•\nJudgment: Penalties based on superseded orders were invalid.\n(b) Natural Justice:\n•\nLegal Principle: Penalty orders without prior show-cause notices violate natural justice.\n•\nJudgment: Such penalties were canceled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,46(1),46(4 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1198/ KB and 1199/KB of 1975-76, decision dated: 13-08-1977, hearing DATE : 3rd June, 1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ebrahim S. H. Dhadwala, F. C. A.. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 75 = 1981 SLD 75 = 1981 PTD 180 = (1982) 45 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Collusive Transactions\n•\nFacts: Revenue rejected an agreement with a related party (son) as collusive.\n•\nLegal Principle: Agreements may be disregarded if substantial evidence suggests collusion.\n•\nJudgment: Income was reassessed by rejecting the agreement.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 53 of 1974, derided on 15-06-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. H. Najfi. Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "Mian GHULAM MURTAZA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 76 = 1981 SLD 76 = 1981 PTD 181 = (1981) 44 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off of Refunds Against Tax Liability\n•\nLegal Principle: Section 49-E mandates allowing refunds to offset tax liabilities if the refund claim is timely.\n•\nJudgment: Tax authorities must permit such set-offs.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A,28(lB)(b),49 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2072 of 1979-80, decision dated: 6-06-1981, hearing DATE : 16 April, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M H. Khokhar, I.T. P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 77 = 1981 SLD 77 = 1981 PTD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Partnerships with Undefined Shares\n•\nFacts: A partnership deed failed to specify partner shares.\n•\nJudgment: Registration was denied as the deed was non-compliant with Section 26-A.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A Partnership Act, 1932=13(b) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 205 and T. R. No. 156 of 1973 decided on 2-12-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND AAMER RAZA A. KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hag", + "Party Name:": "Ch. SHER AHMAD KHAN & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 78 = 1981 SLD 78 = 1981 PTD 188 = (1981) 44 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notice and Assessment\n(a) Service of Notice:\n•\nLegal Principle: Defective service is valid if the assessee acts on the notice.\n•\nJudgment: Service was deemed effective.\n(b) Sales Estimation:\n•\nJudgment: Sales estimates were reduced due to lack of justification for deviation from past records.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,r.12 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1455 to 1457 and 3554 of 1979-80, decision dated: 6th June 1981, hearing DATE : 29-04-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "K. G. Mehboob, I. T. P.. Ashfaq Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 79 = 1981 SLD 79 = 1981 PTD 192 = (1981) 43 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Non-Resident Agents\n•\nFacts: Revenue treated the petitioner as an agent for a non-resident company without evidence.\n•\nJudgment: The assessment was quashed for lack of lawful authority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1979, decision dated: 12-03-1980, hearing DATE : 26-11-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Qadeer Shaikh for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "ABDUR REHMAN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 80 = 1981 SLD 80 = 1981 PTD 195 = (1981) 43 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court on Factual Findings\n•\nJudgment: Tribunal’s factual findings, such as ownership of fixed deposits, do not raise legal questions for High Court reference.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. 114 and 115 of 1974, decision dated: 21st December, 1980, hearing DATE : 15-12-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND AAMER RAZA A. KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Qayyum for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haque", + "Party Name:": "Sh. MUHAMMAD DIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 81 = 1981 SLD 81 = 1981 PTD 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Addition to Income Without Evidence\n•\nFacts: Income-tax Officer added receipts based on insufficient addresses in records.\n•\nJudgment: Additions based on mere presumptions were disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=37 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 30 of 1978-79, decision dated: 9-07-1980, hearing DATE : 2-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KARIM AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Taj Din. Sikandar Kaleem, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 82 = 1981 SLD 82 = 1981 PTD 197 = (1982) 45 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment in Estate Duty Cases\n(a) Accountable Person:\n•\nLegal Principle: Inheritors are accountable under Section 53.\n(b) Fraud and Suppression:\n•\nJudgment: No time limit exists for reassessment in cases involving fraud or suppression.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=53,4,61,63,70,61(l) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-526 of 1979, decision dated: 15th February. 1981. dates of hearing: 14th and 15-01-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND Z. C. VALLIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naimur Rehman for Petitioner. Iqbal Kazis", + "Party Name:": "MASTER ABDUL AZIZ GHAFOOR KHAN\nvs\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 83 = 1981 SLD 83 = 1981 PTD 197 = (1981) 44 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure – Nature of ‘Current Repairs’\n•\nFacts: The assessee incurred expenditure on extensive repairs to a showroom, including replacement of the ceiling, which was claimed as business expenditure under current repairs under Section 10(2)(v). The Income-tax Officer treated the expenditure as capital in nature and added it back.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the volume and extent of repairs disqualify the expenditure from being treated as current repairs. \n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal held that the nature of repairs determines their classification, not the volume of expenditure. The replacement of the ceiling and other extensive repairs were necessary for business use and fell within the ambit of current repairs. The addition made by the Income-tax Officer was unjustified.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1968 P T D 523\no\n(1973) 97 I T R 24", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(v) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 286/KB of 1979-80, decision dated: 29-03-1981, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 84 = 1981 SLD 84 = 1981 PTD 200 = (1982) 45 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Duty – Cash-in-Hand and Valuation of Shares\n(a) Cash-in-Hand:\n•\nFacts: The deceased withdrew Rs. 500 from his savings account shortly before his death. The revenue presumed this amount was cash-in-hand at the time of death.\n•\nJudgment: The presumption of cash-in-hand based solely on the withdrawal was held to be unjust, and the addition was removed.\n(b) Valuation of Shares:\n•\nFacts: The deceased owned shares in a private company later taken over by the Federal Government. The revenue used the balance sheet and subsequent compensation paid by the government to value the shares.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether unpublished financial data or subsequent compensation could be used for valuation.\n•\nJudgment: The Controller of Estate Duty acted within his discretion by considering all available material. The valuation based on the company's total assets (break-up value) was upheld. The market value approach was inapplicable in this context.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1974 P T D 119\no\nController of Estate Duty v. J. Krishna Murthi (1974) 96 I T R 87", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=38,39,42,4 ", + "Case #": "E. D. A. No. 34 of 1978-79, decision dated: 28tb January, 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, A. A. ZUBERI AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja Khan. Sikandar Kaleem", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 86 = 1981 SLD 86 = 1981 PTD 210 = (1982) 45 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Mandatory Notice for Income-Tax Assessments\n(a) Mandatory Nature of Section 23(2):\n•\nFacts: The Income-tax Officer doubted the accuracy of the assessee’s return but failed to issue a statutory notice before proceeding with an assessment.\n•\nJudgment: Section 23(2) mandates a notice to allow the assessee to present evidence or appear in person. The assessment without notice violated this provision and was unsustainable.\n(b) Ex Parte Proceedings:\n•\nJudgment: Proceedings conducted without the assessee due to non-service of notice cannot be equated to an ex parte decree. The Income-tax Officer’s failure to record compliance made the assessment invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 31 of 1973, decision dated: 6-07-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND KARRAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSAKHI CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 87 = 1981 SLD 87 = 1981 PTD 213 = (1982) 45 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Books of Accounts\n•\nFacts: The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's books without identifying specific flaws, relying on circumstantial evidence suggesting inaccuracies.\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal held that books cannot be rejected solely on circumstantial evidence without identifying specific defects or unreliability in entries.\n•\nCitations:\no\nS. M. Yousaf v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1974 P T D 45", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 211 of 1973, decision dated: 8-11-1980, hearing DATE : 25-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood Mirza for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 88 = 1981 SLD 88 = 1981 PTD 221 = (1981) 44 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off and Carry Forward of Loss\n•\nFacts: The assessee sought to carry forward unabsorbed losses from earlier years beyond the eight-year limit prescribed by the amended Section 24(2).\n•\nJudgment: Losses from 1950-51 could not be carried forward beyond eight years under the amended provision applicable for 1960-61. The High Court's affirmation was upheld.\n•\nCitations:\no\nReliance Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. C. I.-T. (1972) 86 I T R 371", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2366 of 1972, decision dated: 10th October 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. L. UNTWALIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate (S. R. Agarwal, Anip Sachthey, Parveen Kumar and Miss Bina Gupta, Advocate with him). T. A. Ramchandran and Miss A. Subbashinis", + "Party Name:": "RELIANCE JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 89 = 1981 SLD 89 = 1981 PTD 223 = (1981) 44 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculation Loss and Apportionment\n•\nFacts: A registered firm sought to set off speculative losses apportioned to its partners under Section 73.\n•\nJudgment: The loss was apportioned to individual partners for set-off. Only the petitioner partner was entitled to carry forward the loss for future set-off.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC. I. T. v. Dhanji Shamji (1974) 97 I T R 173", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=73 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2716 to 2718 of 1972, decision dated: 4-05-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. L. UNTWALIA, R. S. PATHAK AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. L. Nain, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Saroja Gopalakrishnan, Advocate with him). P. A. Francis, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar and Miss A. Subhashint, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "M. O. DEVASSIA & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 90 = 1981 SLD 90 = 1981 PTD 226 = (1981) 44 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital – Business Purpose\n•\nFacts: The assessee incurred interest on a bank overdraft used for donating to an educational institution and sought deduction under Section 10(2)(iii).\n•\nJudgment: The overdraft was not for business purposes, and the interest was disallowed as a deductible expense.\n•\nCitations:\no\nMadhav Pd. Jatia v. C.I.T. (1973) 87 I T R 298", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(tit),(xv),12(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1831 to 1833 of 1972, decision dated: 17-04-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S, C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocate with him). V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate (Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with hire)", + "Party Name:": "MADHAV PRASAD JATIA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 91 = 1981 SLD 91 = 1981 PTD 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Section 18(3-B)\n•\nFacts: A legal question arose on interpreting liable himself to pay any income-tax and super-tax thereon as an agent. \n•\nJudgment: Leave to appeal was granted due to the potential impact on multiple cases and differing judicial opinions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18(3B) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)­ ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 386 of 1975, decision dated: 13-12-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Qayyum Malik, Advocate, Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "NOON SUGAR MILIS LTD., BHALWAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 92 = 1981 SLD 92 = 1981 PTD 237 = (1981) 44 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Party Opinion as Information\n•\nLegal Principle: An internal audit party’s opinion on a point of law does not constitute information for reassessment.\n•\nJudgment: Reassessments based solely on audit opinions were invalid.\n•\nCitations:\no\nR. K. Malhotra I.-T. O. v. Kasturbhai (1977) 109 I T R 537", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Cases No. 1 to 4 of 1973, decision dated: 31st August 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D .TULZAPURKAR AND P. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. S. Desai Senior Advocate (Mrs. A. K. Verma, A. N. Hcksar and J. B. Dadachanji Advocate with him). T. A. Ramachandran and Miss A. Subhashini Advocates. Dr. Devi Pal, Senior Advocate (Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates with hits) for the Intervener", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OP INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 93 = 1981 SLD 93 = 1981 PTD 245 = (1981) 44 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Limitation\n•\nFacts: The appellate authority’s statement that the Assessing Officer may reassess co-owners’ income was treated as a directive.\n•\nJudgment: Such observations were discretionary, not binding. Limitation applied to reassessment proceedings.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC. I. T. v. Rajinder Nath (1972) 85 I T R 296", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1864 to 1869 of 1972, decision dated: 13-08-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (A. D. Mathur, Advocate with him). T. A. Ramachandran and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "RAJINDER NATH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 94 = 1981 SLD 94 = 1981 PTD 249 = (1981) 44 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Receipt – Sale of Trees\n•\nFacts: The assessee sold trees of spontaneous growth on agricultural land and claimed the proceeds as capital receipts.\n•\nJudgment: The sale proceeds were capital receipts as the trees were not for regeneration or business purposes.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAmbat Echukutty Menon v. C. I. T. (1973) 87 I T R 129", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2242 to 2247 of 1972, decision dated: 6-09-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. L. UNTWALIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. A. Francis, Senior Advocate (G. A. Shah and Miss A. Sukitashini, Advocate with him). S. T. Desal, Senior Advocate (Min S. Valdyalingam, J. B. Dadachanji, Mrs. A. K. Verma and Monjel Kumar, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA\nvs\nAMBAT ECHUKUTTY MENON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 95 = 1981 SLD 95 = 1981 PTD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure – Remuneration to Financial Partner\n•\nFacts: The assessee paid remuneration to a financing company and sought deduction under Section 10(2)(xv).\n•\nJudgment: The payment was for legitimate business purposes and deductible. The provisions of Section 384 of the Companies Act were not violated.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAlagappa Textiles (Cochin) Ltd. v. C. I-T (1974) 93 I T R 406", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "(On Appeal from the judgment and order dated 16th November 1971)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. S. Desal, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar and Miss Subhxhint, Advocates with him). S. T. De.al, Senior Advocate (N. Sudhakaran and P. K, Pillai, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA\nvs\nALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 96 = 1981 SLD 96 = 1981 PTD 276 = (1981) 44 TAX 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Derivative Title and Estate Duty\n•\nFacts: The petitioner argued they were not an accountable person under Section 4 due to no direct inheritance from the grandfather.\n•\nJudgment: Leave to appeal was granted to address whether derivative title suffices for accountability under the Estate Duty Act.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=4,53 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-65 of 1981, decision dated: 20-05-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C, J., ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Vakil Ahmad Kidwal, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MASTER ABDUL AZIZ GHAFOOR KHAN\nvs\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 2 = 1980 SLD 2 = 1980 PTD 1 = (1980) 41 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Horse Betting – Casual and Non-Recurring Nature\n•\nFacts: The assessee, a regular punter, derived income from horse betting amounting to Rs. 35,000 in one year and Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 44,000 in subsequent years. The assessee claimed this income as casual and non-recurring under Section 4(3)(vii).\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether horse betting income can be classified as casual and non-recurring under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal held that horse betting, unlike lottery winnings, is not solely a game of chance but involves planning, method, and intelligence. The regularity and frequency of winnings from a series of bets demonstrate that the income is not casual or non-recurring. Even if horse betting is not considered a business, it constitutes an adventure in trade resulting in regular income, thus not covered under Section 4(3)(vii).\n•\nCitations:\no\nJanab A. Syed Jalal Sahib v. C.I.T., Madras (1960) 2 Taxation 569 (dissented).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 8 of 1967, decision dated: 19-05-1972. dates of hearing: 4th and 5-05-1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND IMDADALLY H. AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. S. A. Nusrat", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HAIDER ALI RAJAB ALI & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 3 = 1980 SLD 3 = 1980 PTD 1 = (1980) 41 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 24(1), (2) read with Ss. 2(6-A), 3, 4 & 10(2)(vi)-Set-off of loss­ Profits earned under one head of business in preceding year-Can be set off against loss under another head-Business loss-Held, can be set off against dividend income of succeeding year under S. 24(1)­[(1962) 44 1 T R 710 (S C); (1964) 51 1 T R 742 ; (1960) 39 1 T R 131; (1957) 31 I T R 427 not applicable.\n \n(1962) 44 I T R 710 (S C) ; (1964) 51 I T R 742; (1960) 39 I T R 131 and (1957) 31 I T R 427 not applicable.\n \nAnglo-French Textile Companies Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1953) 23 I T R 82 (S C) ; Seth Jamna Das Daga and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax 41 I T R 630 and C. I. T. v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (Pvt.) Limited (1966) 59 I T R 555 (S C) ref.\n \n(b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)-\n \n----S. 24(1), (2) read, with S. 10(2) (vi)-Set-off-Unabsorbed depr6ci­ation of preceding year becomes depreciation allowance of succeeding year-Such depreciation allowance, held, entitled to be set off under S. 24(1) and not S. 24(2).\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Ravi Industries (1963) 49 I T R 145 rel.\n \n(c) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---\n \n---S. 24(31--Set-off-Income-tax Officer required to notify to assessee by order in writing amount of loss as computed by him for purpose of S. 24(3).\n \nC. I. T. v. Tirlokchand Kalyanmal (1960) 39 Taxation 139 rel.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Specific provision in taxing statutes-General principle of equity, justice and good conscience cannot be invoked for interpreting such provision.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(1),(2),2(6A),3,4,10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 671/KB and 672/KB of 1975-76, decision dated: 14-03-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, A. A. ZUBERI AND M KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "G. R. Ghayyur, D. R.. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 4 = 1980 SLD 4 = 1980 PTD 7 = (1980) 41 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Estate Duty Act (X of 1950)----S. 9-Assessment of estate duty-Valuation of shares of private companies-Controller of Estate Duty-Under obligation to proceed on basis of balance-sheet of private company shares wherein held by deceased-Held : S. 39 does not empower Controller to make his own estimates of total assets of company for working out value of shares of private companies held by deceased.\n \n(b) Estate Duty Act (X of 1950)---\n \n-----Ss. 38 & 39-Private Company-Valuation of shares-Assessment of estate duty-Provisions of S. 38 regarding estimation of principal value of any property according to price property likely to fetch in open market at time of deceased's death-Not applicable to shares of private company restricted by its articles as to alienation of shares-­Valuation of such shares not to be made on basis of market value of property if their value ascertainable by reference to value of total assets of company.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=9,38,39 ", + "Case #": "E. D. A. No. 5/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 8-05-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleem, I. T. P.. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 5 = 1980 SLD 5 = 1980 PTD 10 = (1980) 41 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Horse Betting – Casual and Non-Recurring Nature\n•\nFacts: The assessee, a regular punter, derived income from horse betting amounting to Rs. 35,000 in one year and Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 44,000 in subsequent years. The assessee claimed this income as casual and non-recurring under Section 4(3)(vii).\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether horse betting income can be classified as casual and non-recurring under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal held that horse betting, unlike lottery winnings, is not solely a game of chance but involves planning, method, and intelligence. The regularity and frequency of winnings from a series of bets demonstrate that the income is not casual or non-recurring. Even if horse betting is not considered a business, it constitutes an adventure in trade resulting in regular income, thus not covered under Section 4(3)(vii).\n•\nCitations:\no\nJanab A. Syed Jalal Sahib v. C.I.T., Madras (1960) 2 Taxation 569 (dissented).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3316 of 1977-78. decided on 31st July, 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Anjaum Qadeer, I. T. P.. Sanaullah Naik, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 6 = 1980 SLD 6 = 1980 PTD 13 = (1980) 41 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Film Artist’s Income and Penalty Imposition\n(a) Income Assessment of Film Artist:\n•\nFacts: The assessee, a film artist, produced certificates of income from producers. The certificates lacked reference numbers, acknowledgments, and verification by the issuers.\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal rejected the certificates as unreliable and insufficient evidence due to a lack of corroboration. The burden of proof was not met by the assessee.\n•\nCitations:\no\nShahid Hameed v. Income-tax Officer, Lahore P L D 1976 Lah. 1626 (distinguished).\n(b) Penalty for Non-Payment of Tax:\n•\nFacts: The assessee defaulted on tax payment, and the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty without granting an opportunity for a hearing.\n•\nJudgment: The penalty order was declared void ab initio for violating the principle of natural justice by failing to provide the assessee a chance to be heard.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,46(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 204, 205, 244 and 245 of 1976-77, decision dated: 23rd December, 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Z. H. Rizvi. Aftab Ahmad and Khalid Mahmood, D. Rs.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 7 = 1980 SLD 7 = 1980 PTD 17 = (1980) 41 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment in Government Securities – Tax Treatment\n•\nFacts: A registered firm invested in government securities and sought clarity on taxable income and super-tax rebate under Sections 15-AA and 15-D(3).\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal held that the concept of taxable income is not applicable to registered firms in the same sense as individuals. The firm's total income is taxed with super-tax rebate provided for investments under Section 15-AA.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15AA,15D(3),16 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 4887/KB of 1973-74, decision dated: 26-05-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT, M. KARIM AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "G. M. Gangat, C. A.. G. R. Ghayyur, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 8 = 1980 SLD 8 = 1980 PTD 19 = (1980) 41 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Finance ordinance, 1977 (II of 1978)----Part III--Expressions capitalisation and working capital require­ments-Meaning and scope-Expressions neither defined in Income-tax Act, 1922, nor in Finance Ordinance, 1977, nor Central Board of Revenue empowered to lay down principles in such behalf-\"\"Income retained for the purpose of capitalisation\"\" -Represents, as generally understood in business circles, profits of company not distributed to shareholders but set apart with intent to convert same into \"\"paid-up share capital\"\"-\"\"Working capital\"\" in general terms represents amount available for day to day expenses of running business or excess of current assets over current liabilities-\"\"Working capital\"\" and \"\"working capital requirement\"\"-Two different concepts-Determination of question whether a clam for \"\"working capital requirement\"\" reasonable, fair or genuine-Depends upon facts and circumstances of each case­ Test being not thus made, not possible to accept any account as representing working capital requirements claimed by assessee or to totally reject such claim in a sweeping manner without any valid basis.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 815-KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 5-03-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ebrahim, C. A.. Feroze Shah D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 9 = 1980 SLD 9 = 1980 PTD 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Losses Under Income-Tax Act\n•\nFacts: The assessee sought to adjust losses from one business head against income from the same head under Section 24(1).\n•\nJudgment: The adjustment was held allowable under Section 10 rather than Section 24. The second proviso to Section 24(1) was deemed inapplicable in such cases.\n•\nCitations:\no\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Haji Ferozuddin P L D 1967 Kar. 812 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(1),10,16(1)(6) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 19 of 1968, decision dated: 16-11-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NOORUL ARFIN ARID Z. A. CHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nusrat. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS IQBAL ENGINEERING WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 10 = 1980 SLD 10 = 1980 PTD 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dissolved Firm – Applicability of Section 44\n•\nFacts: The case dealt with a dissolved firm's assessment and service of notice under Sections 44 and 63.\n•\nJudgment: A dissolved firm is deemed in existence for assessment purposes. Both Sections 44 and 63 were held applicable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nSh. Muhammad Iftikhar-ul-Haq v. Income-tax Officer, Bahawalpur P L D 1966 S C 524 (rel).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44,63 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1968, decision dated: 2nd November,1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NOORUL ARFIN AND Z. A. CHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nusrat", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSINGHORO COTTON COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 11 = 1980 SLD 11 = 1980 PTD 26 = (1980) 41 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition and Recovery Proceedings\n•\nFacts: Penalty was imposed on the assessee for defaulting on tax payment, and recovery proceedings were initiated based on the assessment order.\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal set aside the penalty order and wiped out recovery proceedings as they were based on an erroneous assessment order. Defaults in tax payment could not survive once the underlying order was invalidated.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBawany Violin Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1967 P T D 622 (fol).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 56 of 1970, decision dated: 18-07-1978, hearing DATE : 22-03-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFFAR, HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS AZAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 12 = 1980 SLD 12 = 1980 PTD 28 = (1980) 41 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Revision of Income-tax Assessment\n(a) Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer:\n•\nFacts: The Tribunal determined that a specific Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction over the matter. The assessment for a prior year was also completed by the same Officer.\n•\nJudgment: The objection to jurisdiction was dismissed as the Tribunal’s order had attained finality and bound both the assessee and the Department.\n(b) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's Revision Powers:\n•\nFacts: The assessee argued that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) lacked jurisdiction to revise an order where proceedings were dropped by another Income-tax Officer.\n•\nJudgment: The IAC’s powers under Section 34-A extend to revising any proceeding under the Act, including orders dropping proceedings if they are prejudicial to revenue interests.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(3),34A ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2616 and 2617 of 1977-78, decision dated: 28-05-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz Chaudhury, C. A.. Aftab Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 13 = 1980 SLD 13 = 1980 PTD 30 = (1980) 41 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Penal Interest\n(a) Advance Tax and Mercantile System:\n•\nFacts: The petitioner argued that tax on commission was payable within 15 days of receipt and not accrual, even under the mercantile system of accounting.\n•\nJudgment: The contention was upheld. Subsection (4) of Section 18-A addresses the actual date of receipt for deferred tax payments.\n(b) Definition of Adjust :\n•\nJudgment: Adjustment refers to balancing accounts and settling amounts due after proper computation.\n(c) Imposition of Penal Interest:\n•\nJudgment: The mere crediting of commission to the balance sheet does not amount to adjustment without mutual settlement. The imposition of penal interest was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(4) ", + "Case #": "Petition No. 673 of 1969, decision dated: 22-04-1979, hearing DATE : 9th April 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN. MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad Khans", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS ALHILAL AGENCIES LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE XI, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 14 = 1980 SLD 14 = 1980 PTD 30 = (1980) 41 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Escaped Assessment\n(a) Subletting Arrangements:\n•\nFacts: The assessee claimed subletting portions of work to others, but no evidence supported this claim. The entire arrangement was found fake and designed to evade taxes.\n•\nJudgment: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner revised the erroneous assessment based on valid grounds, fulfilling all conditions under Section 34-A.\n(b) Interpretation of Erroneous :\n•\nJudgment: Any order contrary to law is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1159/KB to 1161/KB of 1976-77, decision dated: 30-05-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saeed Butt and Jamil Hussain. Ashfaq Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 15 = 1980 SLD 15 = 1980 PTD 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court for Questions of Law\n•\nFacts: The assessee raised a question of law, but the Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 66(1).\n•\nJudgment: The Tribunal was directed to refer the question of law to the High Court for its opinion.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 351 of 1963, decision dated: 25-01-1967, hearing DATE : 24-01-1967", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED AND ILLAHI BAKHSH KHAMISANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. B. Ahmed for Applicant. S. A. Nusrat", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS UNIVERSAL METAL INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 16 = 1980 SLD 16 = 1980 PTD 35 = (1980) 41 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Computation of Income\n(a) Assessing Officer’s Opinion:\n•\nFacts: The Income-tax Officer rejected the accounts based on material evidence.\n•\nJudgment: The Officer’s opinion, based on material, is given due weight unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious.\n(b) Rejection of Accounts as a Question of Law:\n•\nJudgment: The rejection of accounts based on factual findings is not a question of law for the High Court.\n(c) Basis of Income Computation:\n•\nJudgment: Assessee’s past performance and history are more reliable for computation than unrelated parallel cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 213 and T. R. No. 201 of 1973, decision dated: 7-10-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. S. H. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MEGNA INDUSTRIES LTD., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 17 = 1980 SLD 17 = 1980 PTD 36 = (1979) 40 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Charitable Trusts\n•\nFacts: A foundation registered under the Societies Registration Act applied for income tax exemption based on its charitable objects.\n•\nJudgment: The foundation’s income and donations were held exempt under Sections 4(3)(i) and 4(3)(ii) as the trust was bound by law to use its funds for public welfare perpetually.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(i),(ii), ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1046/KB to 1050/KB of 1977-78, decision dated: 18-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. R. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sibtain, D. R.. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 18 = 1980 SLD 18 = 1980 PTD 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax on Business Reorganization\n(a) Goodwill as a Gift:\n•\nFacts: The assessee transferred goodwill and other assets of a proprietary business to a partnership with daughters.\n•\nJudgment: Goodwill was not separately taxable as a gift since the Department only considered it as part of the assets transferred.\n(b) Exemption under Section 5(1)(xiv):\n•\nJudgment: The gift of Rs. 25,000 each to the daughters did not meet the criteria of being in the course of carrying on the business. It was intended for the daughters’ benefit and not related to business operations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2293 of 1968, decision dated: 20-09-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. P. Malhotra, Senior Advocate (R. N. Sachthey and D. B. Sharma, Advocates with him). S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocate and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of J. B. Dadachanji & Co. with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, KERALA\nvs\nP. GHEEVARGHESE, TRAVANCORE TIMBERS AND PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 19 = 1980 SLD 19 = 1980 PTD 41 = (1979) 40 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 34-A read with Ss. 18-A(2), (3), (6) & 35-No estimate submitted under provisions of S. 18-A(2) or 18-A(3)-Provisions of S. 13-A(6), held, not attracted and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner devoid of jurisdiction under S. 34-A to interfere with orders passed pursuant to such principle.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34A,18A(2),(3),(6),35 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1077/KB of 1977-78, decision dated: 14-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Z. H. Jafri. Qudratullah, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 20 = 1980 SLD 20 = 1980 PTD 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax and Estate Duty\n(a) Cumulative Conditions for Exemption:\n•\nFacts: Gifts were deemed property passing under Section 9 unless they met conditions of bona fide execution, a five-year time limit, and gift tax payment.\n•\nJudgment: All conditions must be satisfied for exemption.\n(b) Sections 10 and 11:\n•\nJudgment: Bona fide gifts may still be deemed property passing if they fall under the provisions of Sections 10 and 11. Relief under Section 11 allows credit for taxes paid under the Gift Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=9,10,11 Gift Tax Act, 1958=5(1)(vi),5(2) ", + "Case #": "E. D. A. No. 3/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: ;24-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mino N. Bhanjee, F. C. A.. S. M. Sibtain, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 21 = 1980 SLD 21 = 1980 PTD 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeal\n(a) Non-Payment of Taxes:\n•\nJudgment: Appeals not meeting tax payment requirements can still be admitted and delay condoned if taxes are paid before the hearing.\n(b) Speculation Transactions:\n•\nJudgment: Transactions settled without delivery were treated as speculative losses, irrespective of nomenclature.\n(c) Bad Debts:\n•\nJudgment: Small trade debts written off were allowed as business expenses since legal action would cost more than recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22A,24(1),10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 262 and 397 of 1978-79, decision dated: 7-11-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehman Mir, C. A. and M. H. Khokhar, I. T. P.. Aftab Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 22 = 1980 SLD 22 = 1980 PTD 48 = (1980) 42 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Benami Transactions and Business Income\n(a) Benami Transactions:\n•\nFacts: Multiple factories operated by the assessee were disguised as separate entities for tax benefits.\n•\nJudgment: Evidence proved joint operation and benami arrangements, justifying the Tribunal’s decision.\n(b) Burden of Proof:\n•\nJudgment: A finding of fact regarding benami arrangements is not assailable unless the onus was misplaced or irrelevant evidence was used.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,66, Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=101 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 270 and T. R. No. 164 of 1974, decision dated: 9th July 1979. dates of hearing: 28th June.1978; 1st and 9th July 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Hashmi for Petitioners. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MAULVI BROTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 23 = 1980 SLD 23 = 1980 PTD 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Lack of Prosecution\n•\nFacts: Appeals filed by the Department against assessments were not pursued actively. Multiple adjournments were granted, yet no efforts were made by the appellant.\n•\nJudgment: Lack of interest by the appellant to prosecute the appeal suggests no genuine grievance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals.\n•\nReference: (1978) 37 Taxation 3 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1159/KB of 1975-76, decision dated: 24-04-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha and A. A. Gangat, C. A.. G. R. Ghayyur, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 24 = 1980 SLD 24 = 1980 PTD 52 = (1980) 41 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax as Allowance\n•\nFacts: The issue was whether wealth tax on property falls under the purview of annual charges as a permissible allowance under Section 9(1)(iv).\n•\nJudgment: Wealth tax is a permissible allowance as it qualifies as an annual charge levied by the Central Government.\n•\nDistinguished: C. I. T. v. Elphinston Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 139.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,9(1)(iv) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 969/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 21st April, 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Faruq Ali, F. C. A.. Faroz Shah, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 25 = 1980 SLD 25 = 1980 PTD 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speaking Order Requirement\n•\nFacts: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed an appeal without recording detailed reasons, stating only, There is no force in the arguments. \n•\nJudgment: The order lacked judicial reasoning, was arbitrary, and devoid of legal consequence. The case was remanded for de novo adjudication.\n•\nReferences: I. T. A. No. 2306/KB of 1972-73, PLD 1975 Lah. 44, PLD 1970 SC 173.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 667/KB, 668/KB and 669/KB of 1976-77, decision dated: 5-08-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Sidat Hyder Aslam & Co. C. As.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 26 = 1980 SLD 26 = 1980 PTD 56 = (1980) 41 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Stock Register and Repair Expenses\n•\nFacts: The assessee did not maintain a proper stock register, and the books of accounts were defective. Disallowance of repair expenses was challenged.\n•\nJudgment: The issue was primarily factual and did not raise a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 332 of 1972, decision dated: 19-06-1979. dates of hearing: 7th March and 19-06-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Irshad Hassan Khan for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BURHAN TRANSPORT SERVICE LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI REGION, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 27 = 1980 SLD 27 = 1980 PTD 57 = (1980) 42 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Rejection of Accounts\n•\nFinding of Fact: The rejection of accounts was based on unverifiability of cash sales and a lower gross profit rate.\n•\nHigh Court Jurisdiction: Findings of fact could not be disturbed by the High Court under Section 66.\n•\nReferences: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow (1955) 28 ITR 579, AIR 1944 Lah. 353.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,66,42 ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 24 and T. R. No. 41 of 1973, heard on 9-07-1979. dates of hearing: 10-06-1978 and 9-07-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Hashmi for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hag", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS AHMAD & AHMAD, MULTAN\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 28 = 1980 SLD 28 = 1980 PTD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Management Expenses (a) Allowable Expense:\n•\nFacts: Expenses exceeded limits under Rule 40 of Insurance Rules.\n•\nJudgment: Expenses incurred exclusively for business were allowable.\n(b) Binding Nature of Superior Court Decisions:\n•\nJudgment: Ignoring binding decisions of superior courts in favor of foreign rulings was deemed highly improper.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=201 Finance Act, 1976=3(6),34(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 549/KB, 550; K.B, 551-KB, 405/KB, 406/KB and 407/KB of 1976-77, decision dated: 26-04-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rustamjee, F. C. A.. S. A. Khan, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 29 = 1980 SLD 29 = 1980 PTD 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Repairs and Depreciation Allowance (a) Repairs and Expenditure:\n•\nFacts: A cinema house was leased and significantly repaired after a fire.\n•\nJudgment: Expenditure was categorized into three heads: capital, current repairs, and deferred revenue expenses.\n(b) Hire-Purchase Agreement:\n•\nJudgment: Depreciation on hire-purchased assets was allowed as the purchaser became the owner.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2),10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 867/KB of 1976-77, decision dated: 7-01-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafizur Rehman Kardar. Feroz Shah, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 30 = 1980 SLD 30 = 1980 PTD 61 = (1980) 42 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Deduction (a) Allowability:\n•\nJudgment: Wealth tax on income-generating assets was deductible, but not on non-income-generating assets.\n(b) Deduction Conditions:\n•\nJudgment: Expenses could be deducted only when profits were taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(1)(2)(xvi),12(1),12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 1745/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 16-02-1980, hearing DATE : 8th January 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Zaid, D. R.. Farooq Ali, F. C. A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 31 = 1980 SLD 31 = 1980 PTD 62 = (1980) 41 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Redemption Value of Preference Shares\n•\nJudgment: Redemption value of preference shares was not considered a dividend under Section 2(6-A)(d) and was not taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6A)(d) ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. 46 of 1971, decision dated: 21st November, 1979, hearing DATE : 14-11-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND B. G. N. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Applicants. Ali Athar and lqbal Naim Pashas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 32 = 1980 SLD 32 = 1980 PTD 64 = (1980) 41 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Undistributed Profits and Gains\n•\nJudgment: Shareholders receiving proportionate undistributed profits were entitled to exclude such income in subsequent assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23A(4) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 39 of 1973, decision dated: 10-11-1979, hearing DATE : 27-10-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. S. H. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haque. Raja Mohammad Akram", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nSALEEM SAIGOL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 33 = 1980 SLD 33 = 1980 PTD 65 = (1980) 42 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Expatriate Pension Fund\n•\nJudgment: Payments made from a non-resident pension fund were not taxable in Pakistan, and the appellant company was not required to deduct tax at source.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1),7,10(4)(c),18 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1080/KB, 1081/KB and 1082/KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 11th February 1980, hearing DATE : 19-01-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. M. Rustamjee. Shaukat Zaidi, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 34 = 1980 SLD 34 = 1980 PTD 68 = (1980) 42 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Dividend Income (a) Exemption Scope:\n•\nJudgment: Exemption applied to the whole dividend income without deducting expenses.\n(b) Proportionate Expenses:\n•\nJudgment: Allocation of administrative expenses to exempt dividend income was improper.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,10(2)(Iii-r.) ", + "Case #": "I. T .As. Nos. 1940/KB to 1943/KB of 1972-73, decision dated: 4-09-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND K. SALAHUDDIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "F. Hashmi, F C A. Ahmed Riaz, D R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 35 = 1980 SLD 35 = 1980 PTD 69 = (1982) 46 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unabsorbed Depreciation (a) Retention of Assets:\n•\nJudgment: Unabsorbed depreciation could not be carried forward if the related assets were no longer owned by the assessee.\n(b) Legislative Amendments:\n•\nJudgment: Changes in law reflect legislative intent and cannot be disregarded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi), ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 194 of 1972, decision dated: 13-01-1980. dates of hearing: 19th February and 9-12-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashraf Hashmi for Petitioner. Sit. Abdul Hag", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN LAYALLPURSAMUNDRI TRANSPORT Co. LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 36 = 1980 SLD 36 = 1980 PTD 73 = (1982) 46 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nJudgment: Mistakes apparent from the record could be rectified without elaborate inquiry, even if the Tribunal had pronounced a final decision.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(7) Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=15(1),21,22 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 17 of 1970, decision dated: 19-06-1979, hearing DATE : 20th December 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND MUSHTAQ ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE Co. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 37 = 1980 SLD 37 = 1980 PTD 74 = (1980) 42 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\n•\nJudgment: Expenditure on leased premises to prevent forfeiture of the lease was considered revenue expenditure necessary for maintaining the business.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,35 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 90-A to 90-E of 1975-76, decision dated: 13-06-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS\nABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS\nA. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M. E. Naeem, I. T. P.. \nAftab Ahmed, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 38 = 1980 SLD 38 = 1980 PTD 83 = (1980) 41 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\n•\nJudgment: Expenditure on leased premises to prevent forfeiture of the lease was considered revenue expenditure necessary for maintaining the business.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Case No. 205 of 1974, decision dated: 5-01-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND N. K. DAY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. B. M. Patnaik for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA\nvs\nJ. N. BHOWMICK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 39 = 1980 SLD 39 = 1980 PTD 85 = (1980) 42 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals, Limitation, and Collusion (a) Appeal Limitation:\n•\nJudgment: The appeal was filed within the limitation period based on the date the Commissioner received the order.\n(b) Export and Agent's Fraud:\n•\nJudgment: The principal was held liable for taxes on profits earned by its agent under Section 23(3).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,33(2),23(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 428/(Pb) of 1978-79, decision dated: 31st May, 1980. dates of hearing: 16th February and 15th-April, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PER MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Arif, D. R,. G. A. Jally", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 40 = 1980 SLD 40 = 1980 PTD 91 = (1980) 41 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Undisclosed Income\n•\nFacts: Income was added to the assessee's return on estimation due to rejected accounts. Penalty for concealment was levied, but the Tribunal found no willful neglect.\n•\nJudgment: Penalty was not maintainable. Inaccurate or false explanations do not prove concealment if the additions are based on estimates without specific undisclosed income. Tribunal’s findings showed no gross or willful neglect.\n•\nReference: C. I. T. v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 964 of 1972, decision dated: 25-09-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. L. GULATI AND GOPI NATH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan for Petitioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHATUR SINGH TARAGI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 41 = 1980 SLD 41 = 1980 PTD 92 = (1980) 41 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction and Meaning of Royalty (a) Definition of Royalty:\n•\nJudgment: Royalty is payment reserved for the use of rights like patents or intellectual property. It applies to proportional usage payments.\n•\nReference: Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edn.\n(b) Royalty Exclusion:\n•\nJudgment: Payments for services rendered, unless to a manufacturing company, are not royalty.\n(c) Double Taxation Agreement:\n•\nJudgment: Payments for services like factory administration, technical training, or product inspection do not constitute industrial or commercial profits under the Pakistan-USA tax treaty.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 223/KB to 226/KB of 1973-74, decision dated: 26th August 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, M. KARIM AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "F. Alam, F. C. A.. G. R. Ghayyour, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 42 = 1980 SLD 42 = 1980 PTD 93 = (1980) 41 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment and Change of Opinion\n•\nFacts: A firm formed by the assessee’s family received capital from gifts. Income of the wife and minor son was not clubbed for several years, and reassessment was initiated later without fresh facts.\n•\nJudgment: Reassessment proceedings were invalid as there was no new information or failure in original assessment. The proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion.\n•\nReferences: Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. C. I. T. (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC); Anandji Haridas & Co. v. Khushore (1968) 21 STC 326 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a)(iii),(iv)34(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1967, decision dated: 22-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TULZAPURKAR AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit instructed by V. B. Shastri (Attorney) for the Commissioner. R. J. Kolah instructed by Gograt & Co. (Attorneys) for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITYII\nvs\nT. C. DOLWANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 43 = 1980 SLD 43 = 1980 PTD 99 = (1980) 41 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Expunction of Tribunal Remarks (a) Tribunal’s Jurisdiction:\n•\nJudgment: Tribunals possess inherent powers to expunge remarks if irrelevant or extraneous to the case.\n(b) Conditions for Expunction:\n•\nJudgment: Offensive remarks must lack relevance to the issue. In this case, remarks about the affidavit were intrinsic to the findings and not liable to be expunged.\n(c) Limits of Inherent Powers:\n•\nJudgment: Tribunals cannot review their own findings unless permitted by law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "M. A. No. 7 of 1978-79, M. A. No. 8 of 1978-79 and R. A. Nos. 52 and 52-A of 1975-76, decision dated: 31st July 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT, GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid. Ali Raza Masood Qazalbash, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 44 = 1980 SLD 44 = 1980 PLD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes (a) Definition of Mistake Apparent from Records :\n•\nJudgment: Implies the authority must look into records to discover and rectify mistakes.\n(b) Scope of Section 35:\n•\nJudgment: Section 35 empowers authorities to rectify errors on their own motion or through applications.\n(c) Application of Section 35:\n•\nJudgment: Tribunal’s failure to consider a material affidavit was an apparent mistake warranting recall of its earlier decision.\n•\nReference: C. I. T. v. Wolf Ganz Marke (1975) 32 Taxation 176.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "M. As. Nos. 90-A to 90-E of 1975-76, decision dated: 13-06-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, A. A. ZUBERI AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "M. E; Naeem, I. L. P.. Aftab Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 45 = 1980 SLD 45 = 1980 PTD 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\n•\nFacts: Expenditure on purchasing types for a printing press in the first year of business was in question.\n•\nJudgment: The expenditure was deemed capital in nature as it was incurred for initiating a business.\n•\nReferences: Anglo-Persian Oil Co. Ltd. v. Dale (1932) 1 KB 124; Assam-Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. C. I. T. (1955) 27 ITR 34.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1963, decision dated: 19-08-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , J. M. SHELAT, C, J. AND BHAGWATI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "I. M. Nanavati. J. M. Thakore (Advocate-General with M. M. Thakore and M. G. Doshit", + "Party Name:": "JANSATTA KARYALAYA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 46 = 1980 SLD 46 = 1980 PTD 115 = (1966) 13 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 23-A(1), Proviso\nIssue: Applicability of Section 23-A(1) regarding the distribution of dividends when accumulated profits and reserves exceed the paid-up capital or the cost of fixed assets.\n________________________________________\nFacts:\n1.\nCompany Details:\no\nThe assessee company was incorporated in 1919 with a paid-up capital of ₹28,46,700 (28,467 shares of ₹100 each).\no\nDue to significant losses (₹23,94,210) by 1923-24, the company reduced its capital to ₹5,69,340.\no\nPaid-up capital later increased to ₹11,40,000 after issuing ₹5,70,000 worth of bonus shares (₹3,50,000 from revenue reserves and ₹2,20,000 from capital reserves).\n2.\nDisputed Reserves:\no\n₹4,00,000 adjusted against goodwill.\no\n₹78,500 set aside as a gratuity fund.\no\nInvestment depreciation reserve of ₹1,26,297.\n3.\nDividend Declaration:\no\nThe company declared a dividend of ₹99,750 for the assessment year 1956-57.\no\nIncome assessed: ₹3,13,830, leaving ₹1,75,608 after tax.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) argued that under Section 23-A, the company was required to distribute the entire balance of ₹1,75,608 as dividends.\n4.\nContention:\no\nThe company argued that the reserves used for goodwill adjustment and gratuity should not count as accumulated profits.\no\nClaimed its original paid-up capital (₹28,46,700) should be considered, not the reduced figure.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Findings:\n1.\nPaid-Up Capital:\no\nPaid-up capital refers to the amount at the relevant time, excluding bonus shares from reserves.\no\nCorrect paid-up capital: ₹7,90,000 (₹5,70,000 from cash and ₹2,20,000 from capital reserves).\n2.\nDefinition of Reserves:\no\n₹4,00,000 adjusted for goodwill and ₹78,500 for the gratuity fund cannot be treated as reserves for Section 23-A.\n3.\nAccumulated Profits and Reserves:\no\nCorrectly calculated at ₹6,99,757, significantly below both the paid-up capital and the cost of fixed assets (₹12,22,000).\no\nTherefore, Section 23-A(1) did not apply.\n4.\nLosses from 1923-24:\no\nTribunal ruled these losses irrelevant as they were wiped out through capital reduction and did not influence dividend decisions in subsequent years.\n________________________________________\nDecision:\n•\nSection 23-A(1) Proviso: Not applicable since accumulated profits and reserves were less than both the paid-up capital and fixed asset costs.\n•\nDividend Declaration: The company was not required to declare additional dividends beyond ₹99,750.\n•\nOrder of ITO under Section 23-A: Unsustainable.\n________________________________________\nKey Precedents Referenced:\n1.\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1955) 24 ITR 199.\n2.\nCreaves Cotton & Crompton Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1968) 48 ITR 20.\n3.\nJubilee Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1964) 51 ITR 683.\n4.\nStapley v. Read Brothers Ltd. (1924) 2 Ch. 1.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23A(1), ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 51 of 1961, decision dated: 30th April 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y. S. TAMBE AND V. S. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Palkhivala with F. N. Kaka. G. N. Joshi with R. F. Joshi", + "Party Name:": "BOMBAY CYCLE & MOTOR AGENCY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 47 = 1980 SLD 47 = 1980 PTD 138 = (1966) 13 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 23-A\nIssue: Determining whether capital expenditure should be deducted from profits available for dividend distribution under Section 23-A.\n________________________________________\nFacts:\n1.\nThe assessee company incurred significant capital expenses:\no\nAir-conditioning, furniture, electric lift, motor car, and other capital expenses.\no\n₹5,11,517 in the accounting year ending June 23, 1952.\no\n₹93,942 in the accounting year ending July 12, 1953.\n2.\nThe Income-tax Officer applied Section 23-A, arguing that profits available for dividend distribution should include these capital expenses.\nFindings:\n1.\nCapital Expenses: Not deductible for calculating commercial profits. \no\nProfits available for dividends should consider revenue expenses, not capital outlays.\n2.\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nAdjusted profits to include capital expenses, finding the dividend distribution below the statutory threshold (60% of adjusted profits after tax).\no\nRejected the contention that resolutions declaring dividends based on assessable income were valid, emphasizing that dividends must be a precise sum.\nDecision:\n•\nTribunal upheld the application of Section 23-A, requiring higher dividends.\nPrecedents Cited:\n•\nAssam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1955).\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd. (1961).\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 60 of 1960, decision dated: 18-07-1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SANKAR PRASAD MITRA AND K. C. SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. E. Meyer S. Roy and S. Sen. B. L. Pal and Dr. Pal", + "Party Name:": "BIRLA BROTHERS (PRIVATE) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 48 = 1980 SLD 48 = 1980 PTD 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Agricultural Income Tax Act\nIssue: Whether interest paid on loans for purchasing plantations qualifies as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the plantation.\n________________________________________\nFacts:\n1.\nThe assessee borrowed funds to purchase plantations and claimed interest paid as a deductible expense under agricultural income tax.\nFindings:\n1.\nDeductibility of Interest:\no\nInterest on borrowed funds used for acquiring plantations qualifies as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for plantation purposes.\no\nSuch expenditure directly supports the plantation's operations.\nDecision:\n•\nInterest is deductible, aligning with prior judicial interpretations.\nPrecedents Cited:\n•\nG. J. Coelho v. State of Madras (1960) affirmed.\n•\nAssam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1955) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 701 of 1963, decision dated: 30-04-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate (A. V. Rangam with him). C. P. Lal", + "Party Name:": "STATE OF MADRAS\nvs\nG. I. COELHO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 49 = 1980 SLD 49 = 1980 PTD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 34(1)(b), 16(3)(a)(ii), and 22\nIssue: Validity of reassessment and inclusion of minor sons' income in the total income of the assessee under Section 16(3)(a)(ii).\n________________________________________\nFacts:\n1.\nOriginal Assessments:\no\nThe assessee and his minor sons were partners in a firm, and their incomes were separately assessed.\no\nMinor sons’ income was not included in the assessee’s return.\n2.\nReassessment:\no\nNotices under Section 34 were issued to reassess the assessee’s income, including his minor sons’ share under Section 16(3)(a)(ii).\nFindings:\n1.\nDisclosure in Returns:\no\nAssessee failed to disclose the minors' relationship to him in the returns.\no\nTribunal upheld the reassessment, citing a lack of full and true disclosure.\n2.\nApplicability of Section 16(3):\no\nSection 16(3)(a)(ii) mandates inclusion of minor sons’ income in the parent’s total income, regardless of separate assessments for the minors.\nDecision:\n•\nReassessment and inclusion of minor sons’ income under Section 16(3)(a)(ii) were valid.\nPrecedents Cited:\n•\nDhanwate v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1961).\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar (1954).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,34(1)(b),16(3)(a)(ii),22 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 75 of 1962, decision dated: 21st August 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RAMACHANDRA IYER C, J. AND SRINIVASAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan and D. S. Meenakshisundaram. V. Balasubramaniam, Special Counsel", + "Party Name:": "MUTHIAH CHETTIAR (VD. M. RM. M. RM.)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 50 = 1980 SLD 50 = 1980 PTD 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)\nIssue: Whether the loss of stock-in-trade and book debts due to enemy action during wartime constitutes a business loss and how the value of such loss should be computed.\n________________________________________\nFacts:\n1.\nAssessment Year: 1942-43; Accounting Period: April 6, 1941, to March 26, 1942.\n2.\nThe assessee operated branches in Japan (Kobe, Yokohama, and Shanghai). These branches faced losses due to Japanese occupation during World War II:\no\nStock-in-trade and book debts were frozen by the Japanese authorities.\no\nThe assessee claimed a trading loss of ₹1,94,495.\n3.\nCompensation in the form of Japanese Government bonds (post-war) and payments from the Indian Government were received later:\no\nBonds in 1945 valued at ₹3,983.\no\nCompensation from the Indian Government in 1958 amounting to ₹2,87,517.\nFindings:\n1.\nNature of Loss:\no\nThe stock-in-trade and book debts were considered lost due to enemy action in the year of account (1941-42).\no\nTribunal held the loss as a non-business loss, arising from the cessation of business due to wartime circumstances.\n2.\nCompensation Received:\no\nThe compensation included elements attributable to stock-in-trade but was received much later. The Tribunal estimated ₹30,766 (equivalent to 37,750 Yens) as compensation for stocks.\no\nThe remaining loss was computed as ₹1,46,130 (179,311 Yens).\n3.\nValuation of Loss:\no\nTribunal ruled that the loss of stock-in-trade should be computed based on the exchange rate prevailing during the relevant assessment year, not at a later point when compensation was received.\n4.\nOutcome:\no\nLoss recognized as a trading loss, deductible from taxable income.\no\nThe quantum of the deductible loss was adjusted after considering partial compensation.\nDecision:\n•\nQuestions of Law:\n1.\nLoss due to enemy action was a trading loss deductible under Section 10(2).\n2.\nLoss to be valued at the exchange rate prevailing during the relevant assessment year.\nPrecedents Cited:\n•\nPohoomal Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 31 of 1957, decision dated: 3rd April 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y. S. TAMBE AND S. P. KOTWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. G. Advani with M. G. Mane and Dilip Dwarkadas. G. N. Joshi with R J. Joshi", + "Party Name:": "POHOOMAL BROTHERS (SILK SHOP)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 51 = 1980 SLD 51 = 1980 PTD 185 = (1966) 13 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 46(1)\nIssue: Validity of penalty proceedings for non-payment of advance tax when the demand notice incorrectly mentioned the assessee's status.\nKey Points:\n1.\nA demand notice was issued for advance tax payment but incorrectly mentioned the status of the assessee.\n2.\nThe mistake did not mislead or prejudice the assessee's ability to comply with the demand.\n3.\nThe penalty for non-payment of advance tax was upheld as valid.\nDecision: Proceedings and penalty under Section 46(1) were valid despite the error in the notice, as it did not affect the identifiability of the assessee or their ability to comply.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(1),29,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 1 of 1965, decision dated: 17-01-1966", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. S. CHOWDHURY AND K. M. HASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Afzalul Huq for Applicant. Asrarul Hussain and A. Azim", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nvs\nRATNA TEA ESTATE, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 52 = 1980 SLD 52 = 1980 PTD 190 = (1980) 42 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 26-A & 66(1)\nIssue: Assessment as an association of persons when the assessee failed to provide evidence for the dissolution of a partnership.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee claimed the dissolution of a partnership but did not produce supporting books or evidence.\n2.\nEvidence presented was inconsistent with the dissolution claim.\n3.\nIncome-tax authorities and the Tribunal assessed the entity as an association of persons. \nDecision: The concurrent findings were supported by evidence, and the High Court upheld the assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 474 of 1976, decision dated: 2-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS REHMATULLAH HABIBULLAH JAVED TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF.INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 53 = 1980 SLD 53 = 1980 PLD 191 = (1980) 41 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 145\nIssue: Rejection of accounts for a state-run business due to improper stock records.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee, a state-managed fisheries corporation, failed to maintain proper stock records.\n2.\nAccounts were rejected, and gross profits were estimated at 20% based on subsequent years' data.\n3.\nThe assessee argued that rejection of accounts was unjustified due to its state-run status.\nDecision: The rejection was upheld as it was not capricious, and maintaining proper accounts is mandatory irrespective of the entity's status. High Court declined interference.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=145 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 38 and 39 of 1973, decision dated: 20-09-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. K. RAY, ACTG. C, J. AND K. B. PANDA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Rath and A. K. Ray for the Assessee. A. B. Mirsa; Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ORISSA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 54 = 1980 SLD 54 = 1980 PTD 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 4(1) & 4-B(a)\nIssue: Interpretation of not ordinarily resident status.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee resided in taxable territory for eight preceding years.\n2.\nThe Tribunal ruled the assessee was ordinarily resident. \n3.\nDepartmental instructions were deemed irrelevant in statutory interpretation.\nDecision: The assessee was held to be ordinarily resident under Section 4-B(a).", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1),4B(a) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 9 of 1965, decision dated: 2nd February 1966", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. M. HASAN AND A. S. CHOWDHURY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Asrarul Hussain, Abdul Azim and Rafiqul Haq for Applicant. Afzalul Huq", + "Party Name:": "MUJIBUR RAHMAN, PROP. SHAMIM & Co., DACCA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 55 = 1980 SLD 55 = 1980 PTD 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Rules, 1922 – Rule 33\nIssue: Entitlement of a non-resident foreign shipping company to depreciation for ships not installed in Pakistan.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe company operated worldwide, including in Pakistan.\n2.\nDepreciation on ships not physically in Pakistan was claimed.\n3.\nRule 33 allowed for apportionment of global income, including depreciation.\nDecision: The company was entitled to depreciation under Rule 33.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=R-33 ", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 4 of 1972, decision dated: 31st March, 1979, hearing DATE : 18-03-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI AND ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Applicant Saleem Akhtar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS YUGOSLAV LINE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 56 = 1980 SLD 56 = 1980 PTD 210 = (1980) 42 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)(x)\nIssue: Interpretation of paid in the context of bonuses and the scope of appellate authority.\nKey Points:\n1.\n Paid was interpreted to exclude unpaid provisions unless actually discharged in the accounting year.\n2.\nAppellate authority overstepped by reversing the Tribunal's fact-based findings without addressing their correctness.\nDecision: The Tribunal’s factual findings were upheld; paid requires actual payment.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(x),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 52 of 1973, decision dated: 25-03-1980, hearing DATE : 10-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARIMULLAH DURRANI AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amirzada Khan, Asstt. A. G.. Hidayatullah Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMESSRS K. K. & COMPANY LTD., PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 57 = 1980 SLD 57 = 1980 PTD 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 16(3)(a)(ii)\nIssue: Inclusion of interest accrued to minor sons admitted to the benefits of a partnership in the father's income.\nKey Points:\n1.\nInterest accrued to minors from partnership investments made using their share from family partition.\n2.\nTribunal found interest closely tied to the partnership admission, making it includible in the father's income.\nDecision: Interest was rightly included in the father's income under Section 16(3)(a)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Income-tax Reference No. 356 of 1959, decision dated: 18-12-1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. C. DESAI, C, J. AND R. S. PATHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. L. Gulati, N.N. Gulati and R. K. Gulati. Gopal Behari", + "Party Name:": "L. RAM NARAIN GARG\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 58 = 1980 SLD 58 = 1980 PTD 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 66(1)\nIssue: Whether a sum added as income from an undisclosed source was subject to Excess Profits Tax.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee failed to explain a cash credit satisfactorily.\n2.\nThe Tribunal treated it as income from undisclosed sources. \n3.\nThe High Court directed a reference on whether it was liable for Excess Profits Tax.\nDecision: Liability under Excess Profits Tax Act depended on whether it was deemed business income; Tribunal upheld inclusion as taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Miscellaneous Case No. 145 of 1960, decision dated: 9th, April 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. C. DESAI, C, J. AND R. S. PATHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Radhakrishnan and R. L. Gulati. Gopal Behari", + "Party Name:": "RAM NATH RAM PRASAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 59 = 1980 SLD 59 = 1980 PTD 227 = (1980) 42 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 28(2B)\nIssue: Imposition of penalty for discrepancies in advance tax returns under Section 18A and final returns under Section 22.\nKey Points:\n1.\nNature of Penalty: Section 28(2B) is penal in nature, comparable to criminal statutes.\n2.\nConditions for Penalty:\no\nDishonest intent or motive by the assessee in filing the advance tax return must be proven by the Revenue.\no\nMere discrepancies between advance tax returns and final assessments, or falsity in the assessee's statement, do not suffice for penalty.\no\nUse of incorrect accounting methods, unless flagrantly dishonest, does not attract penalty provisions.\nDecision: Penalty cannot be imposed unless dishonest motives are clearly established by the Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,28(2B),18,22,23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 92 of 1971, decision dated: 24th March,1979, hearing DATE : 18-03-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE QURESHI AND ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUSLIM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 60 = 1980 SLD 60 = 1980 PTD 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 66(1)\nIssue: Whether a loss on the sale of shares constitutes a business loss or a capital loss.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee claimed a loss of ₹2,12,221 from share sales as a business loss.\n2.\nThe Tribunal found the shares were held as investments, not stock-in-trade, making the loss a capital loss.\n3.\nThe High Court held that determining the nature of the loss is a mixed question of law and fact.\nDecision: The Tribunal's finding that the loss was on capital account and not allowable as a business loss was upheld, as it was based on evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 49 of 1959, decision dated: 30-07-1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SANKAR PRASAD MITRA AND KAMALESH CHANDRA SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Choudhuri with Dr. D. Pal. E. R. Meyer with B. L. Pal", + "Party Name:": "Lala KARAM CHAND THAPAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 61 = 1980 SLD 61 = 1980 PTD 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 4(3)(vi) & 7(2)(iii)\nIssue: Whether travel expenses incurred by a part-time professor are exempt or deductible from taxable salary.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe professor's salary was an all-inclusive amount, covering all allowances.\n2.\nSection 4(3)(vi): Exemption requires a specific allowance for expenses incurred during duty performance, which was absent here.\n3.\nSection 7(2)(iii): Deductions are not allowable unless the expenses are necessarily incurred for duty performance.\nDecision: Travel expenses were neither exempt under Section 4(3)(vi) nor deductible under Section 7(2)(iii).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(vi),7(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1962, decision dated: 3rd September 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , J. M. SHELAT, C, J. AND BHAGWATI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. C. Nanavati. J. M. Thakore, A. G.", + "Party Name:": "J.G. MANKAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 62 = 1980 SLD 62 = 1980 PTD 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Martial Law Regulation No. 43/48 and Income-tax Act, 1922\nIssue: Composition of tax liability and applicability of the Martial Law Regulation for cases involving sales tax evasion.\nKey Points:\n1.\nA declaration of loss that does not disclose taxable income falls outside the scope of Martial Law Regulation No. 43.\n2.\nTax composition benefits under the Regulation require disclosure of excess income, which was not present here.\n3.\nSales tax liability could not be exempted under the Regulation if no valid income tax return was filed.\nDecision: The assessee was not entitled to benefits under Martial Law Regulation No. 43 for income-tax or sales tax liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,23 Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,4,7,8 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2072 of 1964, decision dated: 12th March 1980, hearing DATE : 29th October 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Saqib Siddique and Muhammad Mehdi Anwar for Petitioners. Sh. Abdul Haqs\nSh. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (REPMEMD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE)", + "Party Name:": "Sh. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (REPMEMD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE)\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 63 = 1980 SLD 63 = 1980 PTD 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 4(2A)\nIssue: Retrospective application of Section 4(2A) and computation of income based on accounting methods.\nKey Points:\n1.\nSection 4(2A) applies retrospectively to prior years if assessed after the amendment's introduction.\n2.\nThe Income-tax Officer has discretionary power to compute income if the employed method of accounting is inadequate.\n3.\nThe Tribunal, as a court of facts and law, can assess the reasonableness of findings.\nDecision: Section 4(2A) was retrospectively applied, and the officer's discretion in income computation was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(2-A),13 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 25 of 1972, decision dated: 25-03-1980, hearing DATE : 11-03-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARIMULLAH DURRANI AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amirzada Khan, Asstt. A. G.. Muhammad Asghar Jalby", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSh. EHSAN ELAHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 64 = 1980 SLD 64 = 1980 PTD 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)(vii) (Second Proviso)\nIssue: Taxability of the difference between the cost price and written-down value of assets transferred from a partnership to a private company.\nKey Points:\n1.\nAsset transfers at cost price between entities were deemed a sale. \n2.\nThe difference between the original cost price and written-down value was taxable as profits.\nDecision: The transaction was taxable, dissenting from earlier rulings that suggested otherwise.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vii), ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 2 of 1964, decision dated: 10-12-1965", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. S. CHOUDHRY AND K. M. HASAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Afzalul Haque for Applicant. Asrarul Hussain with Mohd. Nurul Haq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nvs\nA. K. KHAN PLYWOOD Co., CHITTAGONG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 65 = 1980 SLD 65 = 1980 PTD 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)(vii)\nIssue: Whether distribution of assets during the dissolution of a partnership constitutes a sale. \nKey Points:\n1.\nDistribution of assets among partners during dissolution was held not to be a sale. \n2.\nDepreciation previously allowed on such assets was not assessable as profits upon dissolution.\nDecision: The distribution of assets did not attract tax under Section 10(2)(vii).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 22 of 1963 decided on 15-04-1966", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. V. DIXIT, C, J. ARID K. L. PANDEY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G.M. Chophekars. M. Adhikari, A. G, and R.J Bhave, Government Advocate", + "Party Name:": "DEWAS CINE CORPORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 66 = 1980 SLD 66 = 1980 PTD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)(xvi)\nIssue: Whether a penalty imposed for wrongful export of goods can be considered a deductible business expenditure.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee exported molasses to Pakistan, which was not permitted under the Indo-Pakistan trade agreement.\n2.\nA penalty of ₹3,110 was imposed for violating Pakistan's customs regulations.\n3.\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of the penalty, considering it an infringement of law.\n4.\nThe Tribunal initially allowed the deduction, citing it as an expense for earning profits.\nDecision: The High Court held that a penalty paid for contravening the law is not an allowable business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 402 of 1954, decision dated: 11th November 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. C. DESAI, C, J. AND R. S. PATHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Das. S. B. L. Srivasava R. L. Gulati and R. K Gulati", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMATHURA PRASAD HARDWAR PRASAD DEORIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 67 = 1980 SLD 67 = 1980 PTD 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 25-A(2) & 46(2)\nIssue: Validity of recovery proceedings against members of a partitioned Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) without apportioning tax liability.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe HUF was assessed before partition, and tax recovery proceedings were initiated against individual members post-partition.\n2.\nThe Income-tax Officer sought to recover tax without apportioning the liability among family members.\n3.\nThe High Court ruled that recovery without proper apportionment and notice to individual members was invalid.\nDecision: Recovery proceedings without apportionment of liability among members of a partitioned HUF were not valid.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25,25A(2)8t46(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 396 of 1962, decision dated: 25th September 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Row for Petitioner. Venkatappa for C. Kondaiahs", + "Party Name:": "NOONE CHINA SESHAIAH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 68 = 1980 SLD 68 = 1980 PTD 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 3 & 4\nIssue: Assessment year for income accrued from compensation for breach of a supply contract.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee received ₹44,000 as compensation in 1955 for a contract terminated in 1954.\n2.\nThe question was whether this income should be assessed in the year of receipt (1956-57) or the year the transaction occurred (1955-56).\n3.\nThe Tribunal applied the principle of accrual, holding that income becomes assessable when it is crystallized or realized.\nDecision: The compensation was assessable in the year it was received (1956-57), as the income crystallized only in that year.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 39 of 1962, decision dated: 3rd March 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. CHANDRA REDDY, C, J. AND KUMARAYYA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B.V. Subrahmanyam and K. Venkatramana Rao", + "Party Name:": "MAHALAKSHMI RICE & OIL MILL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 69 = 1980 SLD 69 = 1980 PTD 301 = (1980) 42 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 46(1)\nIssue: Relevance of the Central Board of Revenue's permission to pay taxes in installments when deciding an appeal against penalty.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe respondent was permitted to pay income tax in installments by the Central Board of Revenue.\n2.\nThe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered this a relevant factor and allowed the respondent's appeal against a penalty imposed for delayed payment.\n3.\nThe Supreme Court declined special leave to appeal, citing the absence of illegality in the Tribunal's decision.\nDecision: The Tribunal's allowance of the appeal against the penalty was upheld, and no special leave to appeal was granted.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 99 of 1977, decision dated: 9th March 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate, S. Riazul Haq, Advocate and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMESSRS LAHORE TEXTILE & GENERAL MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 70 = 1980 SLD 70 = 1980 PTD 303 = (1980) 41 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1961 – Section 147(a)\nIssue: Validity of reopening assessments for prior years when compensation for requisitioned property was retroactively agreed upon.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee's house was occupied by the Government at a standard rent of ₹484/month.\n2.\nIn 1965, compensation was retroactively agreed upon at ₹2,128/month from 1962.\n3.\nThe Income-tax Officer issued notices to reopen assessments for 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66 under Section 147(a).\n4.\nThe High Court held that the assessee was unaware of the compensation prior to 1965, so there was no failure to disclose material facts.\nDecision: The reopening of assessments was invalid as the notices under Section 148 were not justified.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "C. R. No. 1228(W) of 1973, decision dated: 11-08-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sanjay Battachyaryya and Miss Aparna Dutta for Petitioner. Nanda Lal Pals", + "Party Name:": "GANESH CHANDRA KHAN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 71 = 1980 SLD 71 = 1980 PTD 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 10 read with Sections 2(4) & 4(3)(vii)\nIssue: Determining whether speculative share transactions constituted business income.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe nature of transactions—investment or trading—was assessed based on the frequency and intent of the sales.\n2.\nSpeculative buying and selling of shares for profit constituted a business, making the profits taxable as revenue receipts.\n3.\nHowever, occasional sales of investments did not constitute trading and were not taxable.\nDecision: The burden of proving speculative trading lies on the Revenue. Profits from investments were held non-taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,2(4),4(3Kvls) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No. 1 and Income-tax Cases Nos. 82 to 85 of 1971, decision dated: 31st March 1980. dates of hearing: 22nd August; 5th and 12th September 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND B. G. N. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Mansoor Ahmed Khans", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL, CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 72 = 1980 SLD 72 = 1980 PTD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 3 & 4\nIssue: Whether the Thal Development Authority qualified as a local authority exempt from income tax.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe Thal Development Authority was deemed a local authority under the West Pakistan Thal Development Act, 1949.\n2.\nNotices of demand for income tax issued to the Authority were challenged.\n3.\nThe High Court held that the Authority was exempt from income tax under the Income-tax Act.\nDecision: Notices of demand issued to the Thal Development Authority were declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,2(9) Thal Development Act, 1949=45 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 258 to 274 of 1976, decision dated: 27th February 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate with Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 73 = 1980 SLD 73 = 1980 PTD 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act, 1922 – Sections 66 & 26\nIssue: Whether introducing a new partner and executing a fresh partnership deed created a new firm for assessment purposes.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe assessee firm executed a new partnership deed, introducing a new partner and reshuffling shares.\n2.\nThe Revenue contended this created a new firm requiring a separate assessment.\n3.\nThe High Court held that merely executing a new deed did not constitute the creation of a new firm.\nDecision: The firm was assessed as it existed at the time of the assessment, and the Revenue's contention was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,66 Partnership Act, 1932=63 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 39 of 1973, decision dated: 16th March 1980, hearing DATE : 10th March 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARIMULLAH DURRANI AND USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amirzada Khan, Asstt. A. G.. Abdur Rehman Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMESSRS AHMAD SHAFI & BROS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 74 = 1980 SLD 74 = 1980 PTD 336 = (1980) 42 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Section 221\nIssue: Scope of rectification of mistakes and limitations on introducing new facts.\nKey Points:\n1.\nRectification cannot involve new facts requiring verification, investigation, or examination outside the record available to the appellate body.\n2.\nThe Tribunal dismissed a second rectification application because no error was apparent on the face of the record at the time of the original decision.\n3.\nProper remedy for the Department was to appeal to the High Court rather than re-seeking rectification repeatedly.\nDecision: Miscellaneous application for rectification was dismissed as it fell outside the scope of Section 221.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,66(1),33(6) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 291 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd April 1980. dates of hearing: 9th and 23rd April 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhtar Hussain for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Nawaz", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMESSRS SAFDAR & Co., GUJRAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 75 = 1980 SLD 75 = 1980 PTD 341 = (1980) 42 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 16(3) (a) (ii)--Total income---Computation of-Widow alongwith her major daughter forming partnership for carrying on business of deceased husband and admitting minor children to benefits of partnership-Income, from shares of minors in such business-Held, can be clubbed with income of their mother -Expressions any individual and such individual in S. 16(3)-Meaning and scope­ [Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mst. Fatima Bibi (1968) 17 Taxation 115 held not applicable].\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Khatija Begum 1965 P T D 540 ref.\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Mst. Fatima Bibi (1968) 17 Taxation 115 held not applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 85 of 1972, decision dated: 9-11-1977, hearing DATE : 30-10-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "RASHID AKHTAR & SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 76 = 1980 SLD 76 = 1980 PTD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 66 read with S. 26-A and Income-tax Rules, 1922, rr. 5 & 7- Application for registration of firm rejected by Income-tax Officer on ground that four partners had not subscribed to it-Nothing on record to show that any opportunity to show cause was asked for by 6v assessee at any stage-Tribunal upholding findings of authorities below---Held, only a question of fact and no question of law was involved in case--Reference refused.\n \nRivoli Theatres, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 31 Taxation 55 (S C) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,66 Income Tax Rules, 1922=5,7 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 31 of 1977, decision dated: 13-12-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "BAHREEN FOUNDRY & WORKSHOP, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 77 = 1980 SLD 77 = 1980 PTD 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 26-A--Registration of partnership consisting of three individuals and a firm--Deed signed by partners of firm and all three specify­ing clearly their names and specific shares-Held, such partnership was genuine and was entitled to registration.\n \nChhotalal Devchand v. C. I. T. (1958) 34 I T R 351 (Bom.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 75 of 1976, decision dated: 12-07-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C, J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with Y J. Pandit instructed by Y. B. Shastri (Attorney) for the Commissioner. Y. H. Paul with J. P. Pandit and S. J. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nvs\nNEW LIFE CONSTRUCTION Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 78 = 1980 SLD 78 = 1980 PTD 351 = (1979) 39 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---Ss. 33-A (2) & 35 read with S. 18-A (6) -Imposition of penal interest-Revision-Limitation for-Application for waiver of penal interest rejected by Income-tax Officer without notice to assessee-­Held, Commissioner can revise such order of Income-tax Officer-Limitation for revision application starts from date of order sought to be revised and not from date of assessment order--Order of Income-tax Officer under S. 18-A(6) not being appealable, such an appeal, if filed, cannot be a bar to revision by Commissioner.\n \nPt. Deo Sharma v. C. L T. (1953) 23 I T R 226 (All.) fol.\n \nS. A. L. Narrayan Rao v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas (1965) 57 1 T R 149 (S C) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A(6),33A(2),35 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 2291 of 1972, decision dated: 16th February,1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. L. GULATI AND C. S. P. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Seth BANARSI DAS GUPTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 79 = 1980 SLD 79 = 1980 PTD 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 33-Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal-Controversy before Income-tax Officer Appellate Assistant Commissioner; whether loss claimed by assessee be treated as speculative loss or business loss­ to determine whether it was capital loss or revenue loss-Held, beyond jurisdiction of Tribunal-Relief can be given by High Court in writ in such case --Constitution of India, Art. 226.\n \nC. I. T. v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1971) 82 I T R 941 (Cal.) applied, Hirday Narain v. I. T. O. (1970) 78 I T R 26 S C distinguished.\n \nHukumchand Mills Ltd. v. C. I. T. (1967) 63 I T R 232 (S C); I. T. O. v. Muhammad Kunki (1969) 71 I T R 815 (S C) and Union Coal Co. Ltd. v. C. I. T. (1968) 70 I T R 45 (Cal.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 1399 (W) of 1973, decision dated: 12-08-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sanjoy Batlacharya for Petitioner. Nanda Lal Pal and Sailendra Nath Datta", + "Party Name:": "R. L. RAJGHARIA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 80 = 1980 SLD 80 = 1980 PTD 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax Act (XIV of 1963)---S. 27-Reference to High Court-Market value of property-Tribunal reducing market value of gift property assessed by Gift Tax Officer-Held, finding of Tribunal does not give rise to question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=27 ", + "Case #": "T. R. No. 110 of 1971 (P. C. R. No. 143 of 1971), decision dated: 4th March 1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN QADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Lone for Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nNOMAN JAN ERKIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 81 = 1980 SLD 81 = 1980 PTD 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 35-Rectification of mistake-Conclusion or finding as to whether there is a mistake apparent from records in a particular case-Held, not a pure question of fact to be determined subjectively by Tribunal ­Mistake apparent from record must be capable of being demonstrated objectively--Questions to be determined are whether there is a mistake and whether it is apparent from record-Question arising from such determination-Held, a mixed question of fact and law.\n \n(b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1912)-\n \n--- S, 66----Reference---Law not considered or cued before Tribunal-­Held, cannot be considered or taken into account by High Court in its advisory jurisdiction.\n \n(c) Interapretation of statutes-\n \n---Act passed with retrospective effect- Deeming provision must be given its full and logical effect.\n \nVenkatachalam (M. K.), I. T. O. v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd (1958) 34 I T R 143 (S C) and S. A. L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhgwandas (1965) 57 I T R 149 (S C) distinguished.\n \nC. I. T. v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 I T R 540(S.C); C. I. T. v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd. (1965) 57 I T R 384 (Cal.); East End Dwellings Co Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1952) A C 109 (H L); Government o­f Andhra Pradesh v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (1975) A I R 1975 S C 2037; Sankappa v. I. T. O. (1968) 68 I T R 760 (S C); Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Malikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale A I R 1960 S C 137; Shenmugham (K. M.) v. S. R. V. S. (P.) Ltd. A I R 1963 1626; Southern India Tea Estate Co. Ltd. v. C. I. T. (1964) 51 I T R 47 (Ker.) and Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. C. I. T. (1966) 60 I T R 217 (S C) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35,66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos. 276 and of 1969, decision dated: 20th May 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Sen with Ajay Mitter for the Commissioner. K. Ray with A. K. Roy Choudhry for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALI\nvs\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 82 = 1980 SLD 82 = 1980 PTD 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 66-Reference-Jurisdiction of Tribunal-Appellate Tribunal as appellate authority setting aside order appealed against and directing lower authority to dispose of appeal afresh--Such order, held, within jurisdiction of Tribunal and does not amount to enlarging scope of enquiry by Appellate Assistant Commissioner--Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, S. 256(1).\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Rane (Madras) Ltd. (1978) 112 I T R 244 (Mad.) ref. and distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 78 of 1971, decision dated: 4-08-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambram for the Commissioner. T. Srinivasamoorthi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRASII\nvs\nRANE (MADRAS) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 83 = 1980 SLD 83 = 1980 PTD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 10 (2) (xv)-Business expenditure-Commission paid to sales agent responsible for payment by customers-Commission not found to be excessive or paid on extra-commercial consideration-Held, cannot be disallowed.\n \nAluminium Corporation of India Ltd v. C. I. T. (1972) 86 I T R (S C) and C. I. T. v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasing1rji (1973) 91 1 T R 544 (S C) applied.\n \nBengal Enamel Works Ltd. v. C. I. T. (I9 7 0) 77 I T R 119 (S C); C. I. T. v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1967) 65 1 T R 381 (S C) ; Eastern Investments Ltd., v. C. 1. T. (1951) 20 I T R 1 (S C) ; J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. v. C. I. T. (1975) 101 I T R 221 (S C) ; J. K. Woollen Manufacturers v. C. I. T. (1969) 721 T R 612 (S C) ; Stott and Ingham v. Trehearne (1924) 9 T C 69 (K B) and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. C. I. T (1967) 63 I T R 57 (S C) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 210 of 1973, decision dated: 18-06-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Pal with R. Murarka for the Assessee. S. C. Sen with Ajit Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "J. K. STEEL & INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 84 = 1980 SLD 84 = 1980 PTD 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 16(3)(a)(ii)-.Income of individual-Computation-Hindu un­divided family partitioned and co-parceners of family forming partnership to carry on business and minor sons of assessee admitted to benefits of partnership--Interest on capital invested by minors in partnership-Held; can be included in total income of assessee father--Interest accumulated profit remaining with firm cannot, however, be included in total income of father-Indian Income-tax Act 1961, S. 64(ii).\n \nS. Srinivasan v. C. I. T. 631 T R 273 (S C) rel.\n \nBhogilal Laherchand v. C.I. T. (1954) 25 I T R 523 (8om.) distinguished.\n \nChouthmal Kejtiwal v. C. I. T. (1961) 411 T R 570 (Assam); C. I. T. v. Chinubhal (M) Modi (1968) 69 I T R 76 (Guj.); C. 1. T. v. Shah Jethaji Phulchand (1965) 57 I T R 588 (S C); C.I. T. v. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram (1965) 57 I T R 415 (S C) and Ram Narain Garg (L.) v. C. I. .T. (1965) 55 I T R 435 (All.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 27 of 1967 and 215 of 1971, decision dated: 1st December, 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TULZAPURKAR AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. S. E. Dastur instructed by Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Carat (Attorneys) for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITYII\nvs\nCHANDAMAL KASTURCHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 85 = 1980 SLD 85 = 1980 PTD 406 = (1980) 42 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n \nArt. 199 read with Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 66-Writ jurisdiction-Alternative adequate remedy-Reference under S. 66 of Income-tax Act, 1922-Held: Not an adequate and equally efficacious remedy so as to debar petitioner from invoking extraordinary juris­diction of High'. Court under Art, 199 of Constitution (1973).\n \nNat; ins Silk Mills v. Income-tax Officer P L D 1963 S C 322; Premier Cloth Mills Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer 1972 S C M R 237; Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan P L D 1972 S C 279 and Salahuddin Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. P L D 1975 S C 244 ref.\n \n(b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)--S.34-Re-assessment-Jurisdiction-Bias-Assessee filing criminal case against Income-tax Officer and requesting higher authorities to transfer case to another Income-tax Officer but higher authori­ties declining to transfer case as-prayed for--Matter under considera­tion involving substantial monetary liability - Assessee in circum­stances, held, denied fair trial and orders passed by Assessing Officer and Appellate Tribunal without lawful authority and of no legal effect.\n \nAkhtar Ali v. Altafur Rehman P L D 1963 Lab. 390; Mrs. Saeeda Tasneem Ara v. Province of West Pakistan P L D 1967 Lab. 1112 and S. A. de Smith's Constitutional and Administrative Law. 2nd Edn. p. 575 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 356 of 1974, decision dated: 11-07-1979. dates of hearing: 14th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 24th, 25th, 28th June; 22nd July 1978 and 11th July 1979)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Ziaullah for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq and Raja Abdul Razzaq for Deputy Attorney-General. Abdul Malik Income-tax Officer in person (on 28-6-1978 and 22-7-1978)", + "Party Name:": "Sheikh AKHTAR ALI\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 86 = 1980 SLD 86 = 1980 PTD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 13, proviso-Method of accounting-Computation of income-­Rejection of accounts-- Managing agents of assessee-Company entering into contract with object to enrich themselves-Additional income from such contract not received by assessee-Rejection of accounts of assessee and addition of income from contracts-Held, not justified-Proviso to S. 13 does not apply to such case.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1975, decision dated: 1st July 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C, J. AND TULZIPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITYI\nvs\nINDIA UNITED MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 87 = 1980 SLD 87 = 1980 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 66 read with S. 26-A-Reference to High Court-Finding of fact-Fact that one of partners was allowed to retire and remaining partners undertook to continue partnership with same name, style and capital with certain other partners showing intention of partners to reconstitute and continue partnership-Such finding of fact recorded by Tribunal on basis of material before it-Held, cannot be said to be erroneous in law-No question of law arises from such order of Tribunal.\n \n(b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)-\n \nS. 66-Reference to High Court-Findings of fact-Held, cannot be agitated before High Court under S. 66.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,66 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 297 and P. T. R. No. 255 of 1972, decision dated: 31st May 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Lone for Applicant. Muhammad Amid Butt with A. H. Najafi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI\nvas\nHAJI MUKHTAR & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 88 = 1980 SLD 88 = 1980 PTD 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 2 (11) (i) (a), proviso read with Ss. 3, 4, 6 8r 10-Change of \"\"previous year\"\" in consonance with change of financial year by Government-Concept of national income of a previous year by multiplying 3 months' income by 4-Not vouched by provisions of Act-Imposition of super-tax on basis of such concept as a condition precedent for permission to change of previous year--Meld, without legal sanction---Proviso to S. 2 (11) (i)(a) to be interpreted in harmony with other provision of Act arid not to nullify those provision-Interpretation of statutes.\n \nIkram Bus Service v. Board of Revenue PLD 1963 SC 564; Kohinoor Textile Mills v. The Province of Punjab P L D 1972 SC 100 and The Guardian of the Poor of the West Derby Union v. The Metropolitan Life Assu­rance Society (1897) AC 647 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(11)(i)(a),3,4,68r10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 3 of 1970, decision dated: 6-06-1978. dates of hearing: 5th and 6-06-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNISHAT CINEMA, LAYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 89 = 1980 SLD 89 = 1980 PTD 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- S. 561-A read with S. 439 and Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 51(2), 52, 52-A & 53(1)-Quashment of proceedings -----Assessment order, on basis of which assessee prosecuted already set aside by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal--Held, proceedings having become misconceived liable to be quashed.\n \nZafar Ahmad Khan v. State 1975 P Cr. L J 1300; Muhammad Hussain v. State (1976) 33 Taxation 57 (Kar.) and Shaikh Fazal Illahi v. Assistant Income- tax Officer, Karachi 1977 P Cr. L J 538 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,561,51(2),52,52A,53(1) ", + "Case #": "Cr. Misc. Application No. 943 of 1978, decision dated: 21-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. A. CHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nafis-ud-Din for Applicants. S. Ansar Hussain No. 1. Muzaffar Hussain Shahs Nos. 3 to 5. Ghulam Ali H. Agha for the State", + "Party Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE IV, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 90 = 1980 SLD 90 = 1980 PTD 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)--- S. 23 read with Companies Act (II of 1913), S. 153(2)---Assessee-Company proved to be liable to pay income-tax and thus Income-tax Officer its creditor - Sanction for splitting up of Company obtained from High Court by concealing and misrepresentation that there was no creditor of Company-Held, Income-tax Officer acted rightly in assessing such Company as a whole in circumstances of case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=153(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 633 of 1969, decision dated: 26th June 1978. dates of hearing: 25th and 26-06-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFTAB HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. M. Khalid for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Sh. Riazul Haq and Zia Muhammad Mirza", + "Party Name:": "HAIDERIA TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 91 = 1980 SLD 91 = 1980 PTD 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 33(1)--Appeal to Tribunal-Commissioner not preferring any appeal against order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner nor filling any cross-objection in an appeal by assessee-Held: Tribunal in such case, w exercise of appellate power cannot pass an order enhancing tax liability of assessee-Department also cannot be allowed to agitate matters not subject-matter of appeal before Tribunal-Tribunal cannot, by remand order, direct Appellate Assistant Commissioner to do something which would go adversely to assessee by way of enhancing tax liability-Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, Ss. 80-P (2) & 254.\n \nAssam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. C. 1. T. (1978) 112 1 T R 87 (Gau.); Balasubba Setty. (Pathikonda) v. C. I. T. (1967) 65 1 T R 252 (Mys,); C. I. T. v. Chenniappa Mudaliar (S.) (1969) 74 1 T R 41 (S C); Hukumchand Mills Ltd, v. C. I. T. (1967) 63 I T R 232 (S C); Motor Union Insurance Co Ltd, v. C. I. T. (1945) 13 I T R 272 (Bom.); Puranmal Radhakishan & Co. v. C. I. T. (1957) 31 I T R 294 (Bom.) and Rawaswamy Iyengar (V.) v. C. I. T . (1960) 40 I T R 377 (Mad.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,33(1) Income Tax Act, 1961=80P(2),254 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 33 of 1974, decision dated: 18-08-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. C. PATHAK, C, J. AND D. PATHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Roy and Sarma for the Assessee. G. K. Talukdar and D. K. Talukdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 92 = 1980 SLD 92 = 1980 PTD 441", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 10 (2)(xvi)-Business expenditure--Licensing agreement with foreign company for collaboration in manufacture of for know-how paid to foreign Company-Held, not an capital nature but business expenditure.\n \nC. I. T. v. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 691 T R 692 (S C) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 230 of 1972 (Reference No: 43 of 1972), decision dated: 11th November 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K Ramgopal for the Assessee. J, Jayaraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TIMEAIDS (INDIA) (PRIVATE) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRASI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 93 = 1980 SLD 93 = 1980 PTD 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---S. 23 read with Finance Act (XVI of 1963), S. 8-Assessment­ Rebate on export--Commissioner rejecting claim without applying his independent mind to question whether assessee entitled to rebate-Order set aside and case remanded to Commissioner for consideration of claim of assessee afresh in accordance with law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 Finance Act, 1963=8 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 443 of 1974, decision dated: 29-06-1976. dates of hearing: 4th, 11th May; 9th, 16th and 29-06-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFTAB HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Abbas Mirza with F. H. Lohani, Chief Accountant) for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "MODerN TENTAGE INDUSTRIES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 94 = 1980 SLD 94 = 1980 PTD 448", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)---Ss. 22 & 23 read with S. 16-Assessment--Computation of total income---Transaction of sale of tobacco from partners and their relatives to assessee-firm-No evidence to show that such transactions being not bona fide nor Department's case that same being sham transac­tions or price paid in respect thereof being other than one set out in books of account-Held, taxing authorities had no right to substitute either market price or average price in place of price or value agreed to between parties to transaction.\n \nC. I. T. v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 I T R 8 (S C); C. I. T. v. Raman (A.) & Co. (1968) 67 I T R 11 (S C); C. I. T. v. Homi Metha's Executors (1955) 28 I T R 928 (Bom.) and Kikabhai Premchand v, C. I. T. (1953) 24 1 T R 506 (S C) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,22,23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 153 of 1974, decision dated: 16-02-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B, J. DIVAN, C, J. AND P. D. DESSAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. P Shah for the Assessee. K. H. Kaji with R. P. Bhatt of R. P. Bhatt & Co. (Solicitors) for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MARGHABHAI KISHNABHAI PATEL & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 95 = 1980 SLD 95 = 1980 PTD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)----S. 66-Reference to High Court-Question of fact-Tribunal, on assessment of material, forming opinion that explanation offered by assessee in regard to nature and source of cash credits was satis­factory-Held, finding of Tribunal was one of fact and did not give rise to a question of law-Reference rejected-Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, S. 256.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 83 and 84 of 1972, decision dated: 31st October, 1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND K. B. PANDA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. B. K. Mohanty for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA\nvs\nDEO NARAYANLAL JAGDISHLAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 122 = 2012 SLD 122 = (2012) 106 TAX 174 = 2012 PTD 1883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---Ss. 76, 155 & 156---Form-A filed by company for relevant year not reflecting name of petitioner as shareholder of company---Effect---Company could not register a transfer of shares or debentures without proper instrument of transfer duly stamped and executed by transferor and transferee and delivered to company along with scrips---Provision of S.76 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 being mandatory in nature, but default in compliance therewith, if any, would be a matter inter se between company and Security Exchange Commission, which could take its cognizance---Such Form-A would be prima facie evidence of matters contained therein, which could not be denied or refuted without cogent evidence---Petitioner for not being named in such Form-A ceased to be shareholder of company in relevant year---Principles.\n \nShahana Parvez and 2 others v. Messrs Goodluck Trade Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore and 6 others 1998 CLC 1157 ref.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----Ss.2(66), 91, 138(1) & 139---Income Tax Rules, 2002, R. 186---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Failure of petitioner after attaining majority to pay tax due from him for assessment years during his minority as shareholder of company--Issuance of warrants of detention of petitioner under R.186 of Income Tax Rules, 2t102 and demand notice under S.138(1) of Income Tax, Ordinance, 2001---Petitioner's plea that for being minor during disputed tax years, he was not a tax-payer, thus, could not be made liable to pay such tax of company---Validity---No person could be made liable for tax of company for assessment years during which he either ceased to be its shareholder or was a minor---Record, in the present case, showed that petitioner was a minor during disputed years, thus, he could not be made liable for total income tax of company for such years---High Court set aside impugned order of detention while declaring same to be illegal in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=138 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(66),91,138(1),139 Income Tax Rules, 2002=2002,,186 Companies Ordinance, 1984=76,155,156 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18046 of 2012, decision dated: 16-08-2012, hearing DATE : 10-08-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AYESHA A. MALIK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar and Abdul Qaddus Mughal for Petitioner. Asjad Yaqub, Advocate with Zain-ul-Abadin Addl. Commissioner and Shahid Sattar, Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenues", + "Party Name:": "WASEEM YAQOOB\nvs\nCHIEF COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 123 = 2012 SLD 123 = (2012) 106 TAX 259 = 2012 PTD 1889", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Section 221\nIssue: Scope of rectification of mistakes and limitations on introducing new facts.\nKey Points:\n1.\nRectification cannot involve new facts requiring verification, investigation, or examination outside the record available to the appellate body.\n2.\nThe Tribunal dismissed a second rectification application because no error was apparent on the face of the record at the time of the original decision.\n3.\nProper remedy for the Department was to appeal to the High Court rather than re-seeking rectification repeatedly.\nDecision: Miscellaneous application for rectification was dismissed as it fell outside the scope of Section 221.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,121,111(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) 112/IB of 2011, decision dated: 28-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees ASC for Applicant. Ziaullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs TARIQ MEHMOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 124 = 2012 SLD 124 = 2012 PTD 1978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 111(1)(b), 122(9), 177\nIssue: Validity of addition of unexplained income to the wrong tax year.\nKey Points:\n1.\nAddition under Section 111 was made for tax year 2007 based on information discovered in 2009.\n2.\nThe law required such addition to be made in the preceding tax year of discovery (2008), not 2007.\n3.\nThe Tribunal held that the addition was not in accordance with the law and deleted the addition.\nDecision: Appeal allowed; addition made in the wrong tax year was deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),122(9),177 ", + "Case #": "C.I.R., AUDIT DIVISION-H, R.T.O., LAHORE A. NO.1586/LB of 2010, decision dated: 22-11-2011, hearing DATE : 4-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmad Chaudhry. Miss Samia Ijaz, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "SHAN SHAHID\nvs\nC.I.R., AUDIT DIVISIONII, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 125 = 2012 SLD 125 = 2012 PTD 1958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 161, 153(1)(a), 153(7)(h)(i)\nIssue: Taxpayer’s status as an individual versus association of persons and obligation to deduct tax.\nKey Points:\n1.\nTaxpayer was treated as an individual, not an association of persons (AOP), for tax years 2009 and 2010.\n2.\nThe e-filing system’s technical issues forced the taxpayer to use the AOP status, but this did not change the reality of their individual status.\n3.\nThe Tribunal annulled the orders requiring the taxpayer to deduct tax under Section 153.\nDecision: Taxpayer declared an individual, not obligated to deduct tax; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=117,161,153(1)(a),153(7)(h)(i),205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.882/LB and 883/LB of 2012, decision dated: 24-07-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed Sh.. Mrs. Pouzia Pakhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "LUQMAN KHALID\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 126 = 2012 SLD 126 = 2012 PTD 1976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 140, 137, 138 & 139\nIssue: Recovery of tax through bank account attachment without prior notice.\nKey Points:\n1.\nRecovery under Section 140 without prior notice violates principles of natural justice and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.\n2.\nAttachment of bank accounts is a coercive measure requiring prior notice.\n3.\nDepartment was restrained from further recovery without proper notice.\nDecision: Recovery without notice declared invalid; department restrained from coercive measures.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=140,137,138,139 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.l026/LB of 2012, decision dated: 19-07-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHEER-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Hafeez, ITP. Jamshed Fakhri, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAEWOO PAKISTAN MOTORWAY SERVICE LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., Zone-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 127 = 2012 SLD 127 = (2012) 106 TAX 249 = 2012 PTD 1981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 22, 23, 32, 34 & 169(2)(a)\nIssue: Depreciation and initial allowance under presumptive tax regime.\nKey Points:\n1.\nUnder the presumptive tax regime, depreciation and expenses are deemed allowed automatically.\n2.\nReducing depreciation from the written-down value for subsequent tax years was found inconsistent with the law.\n3.\nThe Tribunal upheld that depreciation remains accounted for under presumptive taxation.\nDecision: Appeal dismissed; Tribunal validated the approach of authorities below.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=169,22(5)(b),23,32,34,169(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.957/IB, 958/IB, 515/IB, 150/IB and 151/IB of 2012, decision dated: 13-03-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Anjum Ata Sheikh, FCA for Applicant. Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BGP (PAKISTAN) INTERNATIONAL, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD\nMaj. Gen.(R) Dr. CM. ANWAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 3 = 2013 SLD 3 = (2013) 107 TAX 141 = 2012 PTD 1936 = 2013 PTD 1169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Section 122(9)\nIssue: Amendment of assessment after expiry of the limitation period.\nKey Points:\n1.\nAssessment could only be amended within five years as per the law prevailing when the return was filed.\n2.\nAmendment initiated after the limitation period was declared void ab initio.\n3.\nProcedural changes introduced later could not retrospectively extend the limitation.\nDecision: Assessment amendment barred by time; proceedings declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(9)A177(4) General Clauses Act, 1897=6(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.431/IB of 2011, decision dated: 1st August, 2012, hearing DATE : 13-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND QURBAN ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Basit, FCA and Hafiz Muhammad Idrees. Zia-Ullah Khan, DR.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1187 = 2016 SLD 1187 = 2016 PTD 2257 = (2018) 117 TAX 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Fifth Schedule\nIssue: Regulation of profits for oil and gas exploration under the Petroleum Concession Agreement.\nKey Points:\n1.\nTax rates between 50% and 55% must apply to profits before deductions for royalties.\n2.\nThe Petroleum Concession Agreement must comply with the statutory framework under the Mining Act.\n3.\nThe Tribunal upheld the Department’s computation, ensuring consistency with statutory limits.\nDecision: Department’s calculation validated.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,53(1),100,122B,150,151,153,159,159(1),159(2),206,233,PartI,DivisionVII oftheFirst Schedule,Clause47B ofPart-IV oftheSecond Schedule, Schedule-VI ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3564-P of 2015, hearing DATE 26.04.2016, DATE of order: 24-5-2016.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YAHYA AFRIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "By Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad (Senior), Advocate\nBy Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad (Junior) Advocate", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 129 = 2012 SLD 129 = (2012) 106 TAX 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Depletion Allowance\nIssue: Deduction of royalties from gross receipts for depletion allowance.\nKey Points:\n1.\nDepletion allowance applies to the actual interest of the taxpayer, excluding royalty.\n2.\nRoyalty represents the Government’s share and must be excluded from gross receipts.\n3.\nThis ensures accurate calculation without giving double benefits to taxpayers.\nDecision: Depletion allowance correctly calculated after deducting royalty.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5thSchedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 433/IB to 436/IB, 137/IB, 440/IB to 443/IB of 2008, 1086/KB, of 2005, 545/KB, 1305/KB to 1369/KB of 2006, 297/KB, 298/KB, 115/KB, 116/KB, 117/KB, 1944/KB of 2007, 18/KB, 19/KB of 2011 and M.A. (A.G)/IB 137/IB of 2009 (Tax Years 2003-2008).I.T.A. Nos. 311/IB, 312/IB of 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUHAMMAD ASHRAF & ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS, NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Hamid, Sr. Advocate S.c, Abid Aziz, Advocate, Rashid Ibrahjm. F.C.A, MirzaTaqi ud Din, A.C.A, Nadeem Ayaz Ahmad, F. C.A, Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A, Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A, Taqi ud Din, A.C.A, Mrs. Zareen Anwar, A.C.A, Shahid Sadiq, F.C.A for the Appellant. Makhdoom AH Khan, Sr- Advocate Supreme Court, Tariq Masood, Majid Bashir advocates, Yousaf Hyder Shaikh, Assistant Commissioner, Syed Shabbar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 130 = 2012 SLD 130 = (2012) 106 TAX 429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 18, 39, 122(5A)\nIssue: Disallowance of adjustments on borrowed capital and interest income.\nKey Points:\n1.\nBorrowed capital adjustments were denied against bank deposit profits as they fall under different sections (business income under Section 18, and interest income under Section 39).\n2.\nCIR(A)'s direction to adjust interest paid against interest earned was vacated as interest expenses could not be allowed in this context.\n3.\nTribunal clarified that FBR cannot override quasi-judicial functions of assessing officers.\nDecision: Appeal dismissed, CIR(A)'s order partially vacated, and the matter remanded for factual verification.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,18,39 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 582/KB to 584/KB of 2011 (Tax Year 2007 to 2009), decision dated: 24-7-2012. I.T.A. Nos. 689/KB to 691/KB of 2011 (Tax Year 2007 to 2009), hearing DATE : 11-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA. N. ZAIDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hassan Alam, Advocate, for the Appellant/Respondent. Azhar Erum Memon, D.R. LTU., for the Respondent/Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 131 = 2012 SLD 131 = (2012) 106 TAX 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 111(1)(a), 120, 122(5), 128(5)\nIssue: Addition of credit transactions as suppressed receipts.\nKey Points:\n1.\nTax officer’s presumptive treatment of credit transactions as suppressed income was without evidence or nexus to business receipts.\n2.\nHeavy burden lies on the tax officer to link credit entries to business proceeds.\n3.\nTribunal upheld CIR(A)'s deletion of additions due to lack of corroborative evidence.\nDecision: Appeal dismissed; deletion of additions upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(a),120,122(5),128(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 845/IB of 2011 (Assessment Year 2004), decision dated: 27-6-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHASR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Khan, DR., for the Appellant. Muhammad Hafeez, ITP, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 133 = 2012 SLD 133 = (2012) 106 TAX 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 25, 70, 122(1), 122(5), 129\nIssue: Waiver of interest and gain on disposal of fixed assets.\nKey Points:\n1.\nWaiver of interest cannot be taxed without considering corresponding expenses, as it results in double taxation.\n2.\nWaiver is business income but can only be taxed post-commencement of business.\n3.\nIssue of gain on disposal of fixed assets remanded for further evidence on whether assets were depreciable.\nDecision: Orders vacated for waiver of interest; remanded for gain on disposal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=25,25,70,122(1),122(5),129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 352/IB of 2011 (Assessment Year 2005), decision dated: 5-10-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idress, Advocate and Faisal Banday, FCA. for the Applicant. Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, DR., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 55 = 1985 SLD 55 = 1985 PTD 315 = (1985) 51 TAX 11 = 1986 PTCL 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Book Results – Income Tax Assessment\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a dry cleaning business, filed returns declaring receipts of Rs. 94,931 and Rs. 85,811 for Assessment Years (AYs) 1972–73 and 1971–72 respectively. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected these book results and estimated receipts at Rs. 1,50,000 for each year, citing factors like installation of a new plant, lack of usage data (e.g., gas/electricity consumption), absence of detailed chemical usage records, no proper inward/outward movement register, and unverifiable cash sales. The Tribunal, on appeal, partially reduced the estimates to Rs. 1,20,000 (AY 1971–72) and Rs. 1,10,000 (AY 1972–73). The assessee filed references under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, raising two questions:\nWhether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the rejection of book results.\nWhether there was material to estimate receipts at the revised figures.\nThe Court observed that the assessee had maintained receipt books with detailed customer information and no specific discrepancies were pointed out in the accounts. Past assessments had accepted similar accounting methods. The Court found the ITO's approach speculative and lacking concrete evidence of defects or inaccuracies in the books.\nHeld:\nThe High Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that the rejection of the assessee’s book results was not legally sustainable. It ruled that unless specific defects or discrepancies are found in the account books, mere suspicion or change in opinion is insufficient for rejection. The proviso to Section 13 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked without establishing that the books are defective or fail to enable proper profit determination.\nCitations:\nMessrs S.M. Yousuf and Brothers v. CIT (1974 PTD 45)\nStar Rolling Mills v. CIT (1974 PTD 200)\nVijaya Traders v. CIT (1974 PTD Note 32)\nDhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (PLD 1956 SC [Ind.] 168)\nMessrs Coronet Paints Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (1984 PTD 355)\nImperial Paint and Varnish Works v. CIT (1979 PTD 473)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.217 of 1974, decision dated: 27-09-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Kazi for Applicant. Waheed Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "M/s NEW SNOW WHITE DRY CLEANS\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax EAST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 56 = 1985 SLD 56 = 1985 PTD 320 = 1985 PTCL 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Proviso to Section 13 – Rejection of Accounts on Ground of Low Yield\nDetails:\nThe assessee, Messrs Pakistan Oil Mills Ltd., for the assessment year 1969-70, disclosed a gross profit (G.P.) rate of 3.8% on a turnover of Rs. 18,78,415 in its Crushing Section . The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the books of accounts under the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, citing low oil yield (12%) as against the previous year (13.8%) and determined a yield of 15.6%, thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,38,600 to the declared income.\nThe assessee explained that the lower yield was due to inferior quality cottonseed sourced from regions like Tharparkar and Hyderabad, while only 15% came from higher-yielding regions like Nawabshah and Shahdadpur. It also cited increases in cottonseed prices, crude oil, mobile oil, and labour costs.\nWhile the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the rejection of accounts, it limited the addition, directing that profits should not exceed 4%, as that G.P. was accepted for the succeeding year (1970-71).\nThe assessee referred the matter to the High Court, raising the following question:\n Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was entitled to confirm rejection of book results in 'Crushing Section'? \nHeld:\nThe High Court answered the reference in the negative, ruling that:\nA mere low yield or G.P. ratio was not sufficient ground to invoke the proviso to section 13.\nThe assessee had regularly maintained a method of accounting, which had been accepted in the preceding and succeeding years.\nThe Tribunal failed to establish that income could not be properly deduced from the regularly maintained accounts.\nRejection of accounts requires judicial reasoning, not arbitrary suspicion.\nThe burden lies on the Department to justify rejection, not on the assessee to prove the adequacy of his accounts.\nThe Court relied on:\nCIT v. Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1938 PC 1 (Privy Council) – establishing that the ITO’s decision under the proviso must be judicial and based on material.\nCoronet Paints & Chemicals Ltd., 1984 PTD 355 – where it was held that low G.P. alone is not sufficient ground to reject accounts.\nDistinguished Zoraster & Co., 1982 PTD 339 and Ibrahim Brothers, 1979 PTD 1, as in those cases the accounts failed to reflect profits properly, unlike here.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1938 PC 1\nCoronet Paints & Chemicals Ltd., 1984 PTD 355\nZoraster & Co., 1982 PTD 339 (Distinguished)\nIbrahim Brothers, 1979 PTD 1 (Distinguished)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal erred in confirming the ITO’s rejection of accounts solely on the basis of variations in yield. The accounts were regularly maintained, and no substantial defect or material irregularity was established.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 188 of 1974, decision dated: 30-09-1984, hearing date: 5th September 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HYDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha\nShaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "M/s PAKISTAN OIL MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 57 = 1985 SLD 57 = 1985 PTD 329 = (1985) 51 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 24\nIssue: Loss on redemption of securities.\nKey Points:\n1.\nAssessee failed to prove that securities were part of stock-in-trade rather than investments.\n2.\nOnus lies on the assessee to show the nature of securities held.\nDecision: Loss on securities treated as capital loss; disallowed as a business expense.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 99 of 1973, decision dated: 10-10-1984. dates of hearing: 24th September and 10-10-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GRINDLAYS BANK Ltd\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 58 = 1985 SLD 58 = 1985 PTD 334 = (1985) 51 TAX 49 = 1986 PTCL 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Wealth Tax under Clause 83 of Second Schedule – Interpretation of Proviso\nDetails:\nThe department filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had granted the assessee exemption in respect of wealth tax paid on 30th September 1979 under Clause 83 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nThe key legal issue revolved around whether the conditions in the proviso to Clause 83 — requiring:\n(a) liability to both income and wealth tax,\n(b) taxable income exceeding Rs. 100,000, and\n(c) aggregate tax exceeding 75% of total income —\nalso governed the main exemption provision relating to wealth tax.\nThe department argued that the exemption was conditional upon all three proviso clauses being fulfilled. However, the assessee's representative contended that the proviso was only relevant to a further concession — a reduction in income tax where the combined burden of income and wealth tax exceeded 75% of total income — and did not govern the main exemption for wealth tax payment.\nThe Tribunal held that:\nThe main part of Clause 83 provided exemption for any amount payable by way of wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and was not subject to the conditions listed in the proviso.\nThe proviso introduced a separate and additional relief in the form of a cap on tax liability but did not qualify or limit the exemption granted in the main clause.\nMoreover, the Tribunal took judicial notice that this proviso was subsequently omitted in the new Clause 129 of the amended Second Schedule, indicating a legislative intent to simplify and broaden the exemption.\nThe Tribunal also declined to consider a CBR Circular No. 1 of 1979 cited by the Department since the circular was not produced and, even if it were, it would not be binding on the Tribunal.\nHeld:\nThe departmental appeal lacked merit.\nThe CIT(A)’s decision to grant exemption for the wealth tax paid was legally correct.\nThe appeal was dismissed and the CIT(A)’s order affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,SecondSched, ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.594/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 9-08-1984, hearing DATE : 6-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-e-Ajam. Wadood", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 59 = 1985 SLD 59 = 1985 PTD 336 = (1985) 51 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 32(3)\nIssue: Rejection of accounts and conversion of CIF sales to FOB sales.\nKey Points:\n1.\nDepartment cannot unilaterally convert CIF sales to FOB basis.\n2.\nAccounts can only be rejected when they fail to reflect income accurately.\nDecision: Rejection of accounts deemed invalid; CIF-to-FOB conversion disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1837 of 1982-83, decision dated: 29-08-1984, hearing DATE : 7-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Arshad Pervez, A.C., D.R.. Liaqat Mahmood, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 60 = 1985 SLD 60 = 1985 PTD 341 = (1985) 52 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 4(3)(i)\nIssue: Exemption for trust income.\nKey Points:\n1.\nIncome from trust businesses must be carried out directly for charitable purposes to qualify for exemption.\n2.\nDepartment correctly denied exemption where business was not integral to trust objectives.\nDecision: Exemption claim denied; upheld department’s stance.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(i), ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 52 to 57 of 1981, decision dated: 6-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHABUDDIN AHMED, A.T.M. MASUD AND MUHAMMAD MOHSEN ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record. Rafiq-ul-Haq, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF TAXES\nvs\nGHAUS I PAK I AZAM WELFARE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 61 = 1985 SLD 61 = 1985 PTD 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax – Allowances for plant \nIssue: Whether books used in profession qualify as plant. \nKey Points:\n1.\nProfessional books used intellectually in business qualify as plant. \n2.\nAssessee entitled to allowances for wear and tear.\nDecision: Allowance granted; books categorized as plant. ", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Cyprus", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Case No. 92 of 1972, decision dated: 21st October, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): L. LOIZOU, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant in person. A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel", + "Party Name:": "NICOS G. IONIDES\nvs\nREPUBLIC OF CYPRUS through Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Income tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 62 = 1985 SLD 62 = 1985 PTD 359 = (1985) 51 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)(xvi)\nIssue: Capital vs. revenue expenditure.\nKey Points:\n1.\nExpenses for initial outlay or extending business are capital; operational expenses are revenue.\n2.\nInterest on capital asset purchase considered capital expenditure.\nDecision: Clarified capital/revenue distinction; interest treated as capital expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 114 of 1973, decision dated: 23rd October, 1984. dates of hearing: 15th and 30-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Dareshani for Applicant. Naseem Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN PROGRESSIVE CEMENT INDUSTRIES Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 63 = 1985 SLD 63 = 1985 PTD 375 = (1985) 51 TAX 53 = 1985 PTCL 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Legality of Fresh Assessment Pending Reference to High Court – Income Tax\nDetails:\nThe writ petition challenged the legality of a fresh assessment order dated 30.06.1980 issued by the Income Tax Officer while a reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act was still pending before the High Court. The petitioner’s original assessments for AYs 1968-69 and 1969-70 were set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 18.09.1979, which also referred a question of law to the High Court:\n Whether after giving a finding that the assessment was illegal for lack of prior approval by the IAC, the learned Tribunal was right in setting aside the order instead of cancellation? \nDespite the pendency of this reference, the ITO proceeded to make a fresh assessment. The petitioner contended that no valid reassessment could be made until the High Court answered the reference, citing the principle from CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas (1938) 6 ITR 414 (PC), which held that an assessment order is not final until the entire appellate process is complete. The Court agreed that the pendency of the reference effectively froze the proceedings and that the assessment could not be treated as finally set aside.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that the Income Tax Department had no authority to proceed with a fresh assessment while the legality of setting aside the original order was itself sub judice in the reference before the High Court. The impugned assessment dated 30.06.1980 and all subsequent proceedings were declared null and void. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Khemchand Ramdas, (1938) 6 ITR 414 (Privy Council)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3564 of 1984, decision dated: 19-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. \nCh. Muhammad Ishaq", + "Party Name:": "Mst. INAYAT BEGUM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 64 = 1985 SLD 64 = 1985 PTD 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 4\nIssue: Taxability of maintenance allowance under Waqf-al-Aulad.\nKey Points:\n1.\nMaintenance allowances under waqf are exempt if waqf income is exempt.\n2.\nOriginal recipient must receive in their own right for tax applicability.\nDecision: Exemption granted for maintenance allowances.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,15BB(4AA) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.61/KB of 1981.-82, decision dated: 14-11-1984, hearing DATE : 30th October 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Tanauli. Muhammad Farid, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 65 = 1985 SLD 65 = 1985 PTD 379 = (1985) 51 TAX 72 = 1986 PTCL 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Government Grants – Revenue vs. Capital Receipts\nDetails:\nThe Income Tax Department appealed against orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had deleted additions of Rs. 55,00,000, Rs. 90,00,000, and Rs. 80,00,000 from the respondent company’s income for the charge years 1976–77, 1977–78, and 1978–79 respectively.\nThe sums in question were grants received by the respondent, Northern Areas Transport Corporation Ltd. (NATCO), from the Federal Government of Pakistan. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated these amounts as taxable revenue receipts, but the appellate authorities held them to be capital receipts, not liable to tax.\nThe department relied on Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 484 (SC) to argue that the grant was revenue in nature. However, the Tribunal distinguished that case, noting that the grant here was made for a specific developmental purpose—namely, to support transport infrastructure in Gilgit-Baltistan—and was not linked to the company's business profits.\nThe grants were provided through sanctioned budget heads (Demand No. 140) for development expenditure by the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas Division. Official correspondence confirmed that the company was wholly government-owned, created to provide essential transport services in remote areas and funded by annual non-revenue grants from the development budget.\nCiting cases such as:\nSeaham Harbour Dock Co. v. Crook (1931) 16 T.C. 333\nCIT v. Habib Bank Executors & Trustees Co. Ltd. (1967 PTD 217)\nSind Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. v. CBR (PLD 1975 Kar. 128)\n—the Tribunal concluded that the company, despite its corporate structure, was essentially an arm of the government. The “veil of corporate personality” was not to override the substance of governmental functions, and the grants, being for capital purposes and not derived from business activity, were not taxable.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals and upheld the orders of AAC and CIT(A), holding that the government grants were capital receipts and exempt from income tax.\nCitations:\nRaghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1952) 22 ITR 484 (SC)\nSeaham Harbour Dock Co. v. Crook, (1931) 16 T.C. 333\nCIT v. Habib Bank Executors & Trustees Co. Ltd., 1967 PTD 217\nSind Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. v. CBR, PLD 1975 Kar. 128\nIncome Tax Ordinance (relevant to the concept of taxable receipts)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,6,23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 336/PB, 337/PB of 1980-81 and 148/PB of 1982-83, decision dated: 17-09-1984, hearing DATE : 4-09-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT, KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR Muhammad Naeem, C A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 66 = 1985 SLD 66 = 1985 PTD 382 = (1985) 51 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 10(2)\nIssue: Deduction for embezzlement losses.\nKey Points:\n1.\nLosses from embezzlement are deductible in the year they are written off as irrecoverable.\nDecision: Deduction for embezzlement allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 146/PB of 1981-82, decision dated: 12-09-1984, hearing DATE : 5-09-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, DR. Khalid Majid, CA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 67 = 1985 SLD 67 = 1985 PTD 386 = (1985) 51 TAX 45 = 1985 PTCL 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Expenditure on Sending an Employee for Haj\nCitation: Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT, West Bengal (1967) 45 ITR 1\nFacts:\nA private limited company introduced a scheme in the assessment year 1975-76 to send one of its employees for Haj. The company claimed an amount of Rs. 9,690 as a deductible expense, arguing that it was spent for workers' welfare and served as an incentive to employees. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\nIssue:\nWhether the expenditure incurred on sending an employee for Haj could be allowed as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xvi) of the Repealed Income Tax Act, 1922.\nArguments:\nThe appellant contended that the expenditure was motivated by commercial expediency and was aimed at boosting employee morale, citing the Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. case as precedent. The Department argued that the payment was more personal and did not meet the criteria of being wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the disallowance. It held that the company failed to demonstrate that the expenditure was incurred solely for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure must satisfy the tests of commercial expediency and not be based on generosity or favoritism. In this case, the lack of clarity regarding the selection process and the absence of evidence proving business relevance led to the rejection.\nSignificance:\nThis case highlights that expenses related to personal or religious purposes, even if motivated by goodwill, may not be deductible unless directly linked to business objectives. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the expenditure must be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes to qualify as a deductible expense.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,.10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 1430/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 6-06-1984, hearing date: 3rd June 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "I.B. Pasha\nAsghar Abbas, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Private Limited Company\nvs\nIncome Tax Authorities" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 68 = 1985 SLD 68 = 1985 PTD 389 = (1985) 52 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 2(6c)(15), 6, 10(2), 12, 24\nKey Points:\n1.\nBonus Shares: Bonus shares are deemed income for super tax purposes but not treated as actual income under Section 6. Losses cannot be offset against deemed income.\n2.\nDepreciation vs. Carried Forward Losses: Depreciation allowance is adjusted through Section 10(2)(vi), while carried forward losses are handled under Section 24. A priority order exists for their adjustment.\nDecision: Bonus shares not treated as taxable income; clarified adjustments for losses and depreciation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,2(6c),24,10(2)(vi),24(2) Finance Act, 1967=4 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.184 of 1973, decision dated: 10-04-1984, hearing DATE : 15-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 69 = 1985 SLD 69 = 1985 PTD 396 = (1985) 52 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 2(6A), 15(2)(3)(4), 15C\nKey Points:\n1.\nBonus Shares Exemption: Bonus shares, being deemed income of the issuing company, do not form part of the assessee's total income.\n2.\nExemption Denied: Assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 15C was invalid as bonus shares were not an investment made by the assessee.\nDecision: Exemption denied; bonus shares remain income of the issuing company.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,2(6A),15(2)(3)(4),15C ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.103 of 1983, decision dated: 22-03-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BADRUL HAIDER CHAUDHURY, SHAHABUDDIN AHMAD, A.T.M. MASUD AND MUHAMMAD MOHSEN ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.M. Mahmudur Rahman instructed by Muhammad Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record S.M. Hossain instructed by Sharif-ud-Din Chaklader, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX\nvs\nABDUL AZIZ\nMESSRS NOVITAS INTERNATIONAL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER. (FILM CIRCLE) AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 70 = 1985 SLD 70 = 1985 PTD 411 = 1985 PTCL 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Reassessment and Scrutiny under Self-Assessment and Reopening Provisions\nDetails:\nThe first case involved a private limited company assessed for tax years 1971–72 to 1975–76. The assessments had attained finality when the Income Tax Department issued notices under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, to reopen them following the seizure of books of account in 1976. The petitioner challenged the reopening, arguing that there was no material justifying the belief that income had escaped assessment and that reasons for reopening were not disclosed.\nIn the second case, a registered partnership firm filed a return under the Self Assessment Scheme for assessment year 1984–85 and claimed immunity under Para. 6. However, the return was not accompanied by all required documents under Para. 2. Upon issuance of a notice dated 25th September 1984, the firm failed to provide the missing documents within the 30-day period. The Income Tax Officer initiated detailed scrutiny under Para. 5(b), which the petitioner challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction.\nHeld:\nIn the first case, the Supreme Court held that while the Income Tax Officer is not obligated to reveal the source of information (Section 125, Evidence Act), the basis for reopening under Section 34 must eventually be disclosed and must be supported by relevant material. However, as reassessment had not been finalized and investigation was ongoing, the writ petition was premature and was dismissed.\nIn the second case, the High Court held that immunity under the Self Assessment Scheme is conditional upon compliance with Para. 2 (submission of all required documents with the return). Failure to respond fully to a notice within 30 days under Para. 5(b) justifies the case being selected for scrutiny. The ITO acted within jurisdiction, and refusal to condone delay in filing documents does not warrant constitutional intervention. The petition was dismissed in limine.\nCitations:\nGovt. of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1A) Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=125 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No D-110 of 1985, decision dated: 14th February 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J. AND SALEEM AKHTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sabih-ud-Din for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "M/S. NOVITAS INTERNATIONAL\nVS\nINCOME TAX OFFICER (FILM CIRCLE) AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 71 = 1985 SLD 71 = 1985 PTD 413 = (1985) 51 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 10(2), 2(6BB)\nKey Points:\n1.\nGratuity Liability: Gratuity set apart for employees is a legitimate trading liability and not a free reserve.\n2.\nDeductibility: Gratuity liabilities are allowable deductions as per commercial accounting principles.\n3.\nStatutory Checks: Statutory provisions prevent indefinite use of funds set aside for gratuity.\nDecision: Gratuity treated as a proper trading liability; deductions allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2),2(6BB) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 286, 291 and 324 of 1974, decision dated: 12-11-1984. dates of hearing: 30th October and 1-11-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider Ali for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 72 = 1985 SLD 72 = 1985 PTD 433 = (1985) 52 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 23(3)\nKey Points:\n1.\nCash Credits: Burden lies on the department to prove that cash credits are income from undisclosed sources.\n2.\nNo Evidence: In the absence of evidence linking credits to undisclosed income, the explanation by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily.\nDecision: Addition of cash credits disallowed due to lack of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(3) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Applications Nos. 329 to 331 of 1974, decision dated: 7-03-1985, hearing DATE : 11th February 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Sheikh Gul Pir Bux for Applicant. M. Sheikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS DHANRAJMAL MANUMAL & SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 73 = 1985 SLD 73 = 1985 PTD 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 66(1); Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 166(2)\nKey Points:\n1.\nLimitation Period: The limitation period under the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922 applies to pending proceedings, not the extended period under the 1979 Ordinance.\nDecision: Proceedings upheld under the 1922 Act’s limitation framework.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 3942, 3943, 3946 and 3969 to 3971 of 1979-80 decided on 23rd August, 1984, hearing DATE : 20-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Tahir Butt, D. R.. Mian Ghulam Muhammad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 74 = 1985 SLD 74 = 1985 PTD 458 = (1985) 51 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Sections 3, 4, 5(3), 5(1), 8, 135, 155\nKey Points:\n1.\nNatural Justice: The right to a hearing does not necessarily include a personal hearing.\n2.\nJurisdiction: CBR holds authority to transfer cases and issue binding directions.\n3.\nGross Profit Rate: Substitution of disclosed gross profit rates without notice is invalid.\nDecision: Transfer orders upheld; substitution of gross profit rate disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4,3,4,5(3),5(1),155,135,62,65 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos, 3105/KB to 3115/KB of 1,981-82, decision dated: 17-07-1984, hearing DATE : 15th July 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALL KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. Asghar Abbas, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 75 = 1985 SLD 75 = 1985 PTD 465 = (1985) 52 TAX 55 = 1985 PTCL 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer to Reopen Assessments under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a private limited company involved in indenting and consultancy services, had its income tax assessments for the years 1971–72 to 1975–76 finalized. On 12 November 1976, the Income Tax Department seized the petitioner’s books and subsequently issued notices under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, to reopen assessments for the said years. The petitioner contended that the reopening was unjustified as no specific reasons or materials were disclosed for forming the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.\nThe department argued that under Section 125 of the Evidence Act, it was not bound to disclose the source of its information at the notice stage and claimed that they had definite information suggesting income had escaped assessment, particularly due to alleged non-disclosures.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that:\nSection 125 of the Evidence Act only protects the source of information, not the material itself, which can be reviewed by the court.\nFor a notice under Section 34(1A) to be valid, there must be material that a reasonable and honest officer could rely on to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.\nWhile the sufficiency of the material is not to be examined at this stage, the existence of such material and its relevance to forming the belief is justiciable.\nThe department had produced material before the court which reasonably justified issuance of notices.\nHowever, since the reassessment proceedings were still in the investigation stage, the petitioner had no present cause of action.\nCitations:\nPLD 1969 SC 14 — Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri Case\nReferenced new law: Section 65, Income Tax Ordinance (discussed for comparative context)\nConclusion:\nThe petition challenging the reassessment notices was dismissed. The court emphasized that once reassessment is formally initiated, the assessee must be confronted with the material relied upon by the tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=125 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No D-350 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd October,1984. dates of hearing 8th and 9-10-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner \nShaikh Haider Alis", + "Party Name:": "M/S BURHAN ENGINEERING Co. LTD\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE 11, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 76 = 1985 SLD 76 = 1985 PTD 485 = (1985) 51 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 23(3); Fifth Schedule, Paragraph 1\nKey Points:\n1.\nUndisclosed Income: Assessments must pertain to years ending before July 1, 1975, to fall under undisclosed income provisions.\n2.\nScope: Assessments for charge year 1976-77 fall outside these provisions.\nDecision: Income outside the specified period cannot be treated as undisclosed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(3),FifthSched. ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 293(I-B) of 1980-81, decision dated: 18th September,1984, hearing DATE : 2-09-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D. R.. Ehsan-ul-Haq, Accountant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 77 = 1985 SLD 77 = 1985 PTD 498 = (1985) 52 TAX 110 = 1985 PTCL 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Filing Revised Return – Section 22(3), Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe assessee filed revised income-tax returns for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, and 1971-72 before any notice had been issued under sections 22(4) or 23(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer ignored these revised returns and based the assessments on the original provisional returns. The matter was brought before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the assessee was entitled to file revised returns under section 22(3) on the ground that the original omission was due to a bona fide mistake. The Tribunal’s factual finding on the genuineness of the omission was challenged by the department through a reference raising eight questions of law.\nHeld:\nThe High Court confined itself to deciding Question No. 5 only:\n Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to file a revised return under section 22(3) of the Income-tax Act? \nThe Court answered in the affirmative, holding that under section 22(3), a revised return could be filed before assessment if the omission or error in the original return was due to a bona fide mistake. It further noted that this was a finding of fact by the Tribunal, which could not be interfered with by the High Court in its reference jurisdiction. The Court cited the Indian Supreme Court decision in India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (60 ITR 50), which held that findings of fact by the Tribunal are binding unless challenged under the proper procedure.\nCitations:\nIndia Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (60 ITR 50)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(3),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 284, 287 and 292 of 1974, decision dated: 26th November 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan and A.A. Dareshani for Applicant\nIqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nM/S SHAHNAWAZ LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 78 = 1985 SLD 78 = 1985 PTD 500 = (1985) 52 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 2(4A), 13, 23\nKey Points:\n1.\nCapital Asset Liability: Reduction in liability due to foreign currency devaluation is capital in nature and not taxable.\n2.\nConjectural Findings: Tribunal findings not based on evidence are invalid.\nDecision: Reduction treated as capital; conjectural findings disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4A)13,23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 177 of 1974, decision dated: 25-10-1984, hearing DATE : 15th October 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Waheed Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 79 = 1985 SLD 79 = 1985 PTD 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 7\nKey Points:\n1.\nSuperannuation Fund Contributions: Employer contributions to foreign superannuation funds are not perquisites and excluded from taxable income.\nDecision: Contributions excluded from total income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 174 of 1974, decision dated: 10-05-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Faruqui for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nA.J. HARTSHORM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 80 = 1985 SLD 80 = 1985 PTD 509 = (1985) 52 TAX 25 = 1985 PTCL 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Section 23A — Income Tax Act, 1922 — Company Limited by Guarantee\nDetails:\nThis direct reference under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, arose in respect of assessment year 1971-72. The Income Tax Officer had applied Section 23A of the Act on the ground that the respondent company failed to distribute at least 60% of its assessable income as dividends, and accordingly deemed the undistributed portion as distributed income among shareholders.\nThe respondent, a company limited by guarantee with no share capital and no shareholders, challenged the application of Section 23A. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the respondent’s appeal, holding that Section 23A was not applicable in this case.\nThe department referred the matter to the High Court, arguing that since the respondent was a limited company, Section 23A was rightly invoked.\nThe respondent countered that the absence of shareholders and share capital made Section 23A inapplicable.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and answered the question in the affirmative, holding:\nSection 23A can only be applied where a company has shareholders and distributes dividends.\nSince the respondent is a company limited by guarantee and has no share capital or shareholders, the condition precedent for invoking Section 23A is not satisfied.\nHence, the deeming provision for undistributed dividends among shareholders could not apply.\nQuestion answered in the affirmative. No order as to costs.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A,66(1),49AA ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 320 of 1974, decision dated: 16-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant\nA.A. Shareef", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nM/S PETROLEUM INSTITUTE OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 81 = 1985 SLD 81 = 1985 PTD 510 = (1985) 51 TAX 237 = 1985 PTCL 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation – Retrospective Effect of Company Merger – Jurisdiction of Tax Authorities\nDetails:\nTwo companies—Messrs Ujalla Cotton Mills Ltd. (transferor) and Messrs Crescent Jute Products Ltd. (transferee)—petitioned the Lahore High Court under Sections 153 and 153-A of the Companies Act, 1913 for amalgamation/merger effective retrospectively from 30th June 1981. The Court sanctioned the merger on 19th January 1983, declaring that all assets and liabilities of Ujalla Cotton Mills stood vested in Crescent Jute Products as of the stated date.\nDespite the merger, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice dated 4th July 1983 under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, requiring Ujalla Cotton Mills (a now-defunct company) to file a tax return for Assessment Year 1982-83 (income year 1981-82). The petitioner challenged this as illegal on the ground that the company ceased to exist from 1st July 1981 due to the court-approved merger.\nThe department contended that:\nThe ITO was not a party to the merger proceedings and was not bound by its retrospective effect.\nThe merger could only be effective prospectively (from the date of the court order).\nThe petitioner had alternative remedies such as appeal or revision and thus should not have invoked writ jurisdiction.\nHeld:\nThe Lahore High Court rejected the department’s arguments and allowed the writ petition, holding:\nRetrospective mergers are legally valid as per case law (e.g., Reghubar Dayal v. Bank of Upper India Ltd., Badarganj Loan Office Ltd. v. Shahar Uddin Shah, CIT v. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd.).\nThe court's merger order from 30th June 1981 rendered the transferor company non-existent from that date. Therefore, it was not liable to file returns or be taxed thereafter.\nThe tax department, though not a party to the merger proceedings, is bound by the court's decision under the Companies Act.\nSection 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance allows notices to be issued to persons , but a non-existent entity is not a person in law.\nThere is no requirement to implead the tax authorities in a merger petition under the Companies Act.\nThe existence of alternative remedies did not bar the writ, especially in view of precedents like Usmania Glass Sheet Factory v. Sales Tax Officer (PLD 1971 SC 205), which allow writs to prevent fiscal overreach.\nThe Court quashed the notice and restrained the ITO from seeking returns from the defunct company for A.Y. 1982-83.\nCitations:\nUsmania Glass Sheet Factory v. Sales Tax Officer, PLD 1971 SC 205\nReghubar Dayal v. The Bank of Upper India Ltd., AIR 1919 PC 9\nBadarganj Loan Office Ltd. v. Shahar Uddin Shah, ILR I Cal 121\nCIT v. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd., (1983) 140 ITR 304\nCrescent Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT, W.P. No. 2320 of 1984 (unreported)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=153,153-A Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)=9 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3168 of 1983, decision dated: 10-10-1984, hearing date: 10-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AKHTAR HASSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ameen Butt, Sh. Zia Ullah and Abdul Qayyum Bhatti for Petitioner\nKhan Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "UJALLA COTTON MILLS LTD.\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 82 = 1985 SLD 82 = 1985 PTD 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 46(1), 66(1)\nKey Points:\n1.\nPenalty for Tax Default: Penalty imposed under Section 46(1) was vacated by the Tribunal.\n2.\nTribunal’s Jurisdiction: Tribunal justified in vacating the penalty based on circumstances.\nDecision: Penalty order vacated; Tribunal’s decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1),66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases No. 303, 304, 305, 318 and 319 of 1974, decision dated: 26-11-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Kazi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS SIND LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD., MIRPUR KHAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 83 = 1985 SLD 83 = 1985 PTD 516 = (1985) 52 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 13 (Proviso 1)\nKey Points:\n1.\nRejection of Accounts: Department rejected accounts citing lack of a daily stock register and low gross profit.\n2.\nInsufficient Grounds: Mere absence of records or low profits does not justify rejection without evidence of material defects.\nDecision: Rejection of accounts overturned; assessment must rely on valid grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Report No. 526 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd January, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Nasrullah Await", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS M. E. J. HAZARI AND SONS\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 84 = 1985 SLD 84 = 1985 PTD 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nDevelopment Rebate: Assessee involved in bus body construction entitled to a higher development rebate for machinery installed for this purpose.\nDecision: Higher rebate allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=33 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1219 of 1977, decision dated: 22-11-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND RATNAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner. S. V. Subrahmanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAMIL NADU\nvs\nSIMPSON & Co. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 85 = 1985 SLD 85 = 1985 PTD 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nRefund Adjustment: Adjusting refunds against tax liabilities must follow principles of natural justice.\n2.\nRight to Representation: Assessees must be notified and allowed to present their version before adjustments.\nDecision: Order passed without notice is invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=182 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 265 of 1979, decision dated: 14th February 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. M. SAHAI AND V. K. MEHROTRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. C. Chaturvedi for Petitioner. M. Katju", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HIRA LAL & SONS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), MEERUT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 86 = 1985 SLD 86 = 1985 PTD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax – Penalty for Non-Compliance\nKey Points:\n1.\nBurden of Proof: Assessee must prove reasonable cause for failing to file advance tax estimates.\n2.\nPenalty Imposition: Tax authorities can impose penalties if reasonable cause is absent.\n3.\nHigh Court’s Role: High Court cannot interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or unsupported.\nDecision: Penalty upheld; High Court interference restricted.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 106 of 1977, decided 31st December, 1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PUNNAYYA AND, JEEVAN REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Srirama Rao for Petitioner. M. J. Swamy", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax A. P. 11, HYDERABAD\nvs\nMESSRS ANANTHARAM VEERASINGAIAH & Co., HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 87 = 1985 SLD 87 = 1985 PTD 529 = (1985) 52 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 45A\nKey Points:\n1.\nRetrospective Application: Provisions penal in nature are interpreted in favor of taxpayers.\n2.\nRetrospective Limitations: Section 45A applies prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.\nDecision: Additional tax provisions interpreted prospectively.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45,256 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.1240 of 1978, decision dated: 10-03-1985, hearing DATE : 19-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Waheed Farovquis", + "Party Name:": "RUSTOM F. COWASJEE and 2 others\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 88 = 1985 SLD 88 = 1985 PTD 549 = (1985) 51 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisions Discussed: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Article 199; Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Sections 57, 59\nKey Points:\n1.\nConstitutional Jurisdiction: High Court may intervene in cases of jurisdictional errors.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme: Amendments or omissions in the scheme do not alter core provisions or taxpayer rights.\n3.\nSelection for Scrutiny: Arbitrary selection under self-assessment schemes deemed ultra vires.\nDecision: Scheme provisions clarified; arbitrary selection invalidated.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-35, 129, 344, 345, 346 and 674 of 1984, decision dated: 21st March, 1985. dates of hearing : 27th February; 4th and 5-03-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hassan Naqvi and Mazharul Hassan for Petitioner. Sh. Haider and Waheed Farooquis", + "Party Name:": "CANNON PRODUCT LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 89 = 1985 SLD 89 = 1985 PTD 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nFirm Property: Properties acquired and recorded in firm accounts remain firm property, even if entries are later made to transfer them to partners.\n2.\nOwnership Rights: Partners cannot claim specific firm properties as their own.\nDecision: Properties remain assets of the firm.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 124 of 1977, decision dated: 14-12-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PUNNAYYA AND, JEEVAN REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Dasaratharami Reddy for Applicant. M.S.N. Murthy", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS ABDUL KAREEMIA AND BROTHERS VIJAYAWADA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OP Income Tax ANDHRA PRADESH II, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 90 = 1985 SLD 90 = 1985 PTD 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nPenalty for Late Return: Assessee’s plea of ignorance or financial losses not sufficient to avoid penalty.\n2.\nNon-Interference: Commissioner’s decision to uphold the penalty considered valid.\nDecision: Penalty upheld; no interference warranted.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=264 ", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 944 (W) of 1977, decision dated: 11-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANASHNATH ROY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ranendra Nath Dutt with Sadananda Ganguly for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KAPUR & CO. (PAKISTAN) Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL 11 AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 91 = 1985 SLD 91 = 1985 PTD 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax – Business Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nLitigation Expenses: Legal costs to protect the source of income or preserve business assets are allowable as business expenditure.\n2.\nMesne Profits: Deduction claim for mesne profits decreed against the assessee was valid when recognized in the year of the decree.\nDecision: Both litigation expenses and mesne profits decreed in partition suits are deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 113 of 1977 (Reference No. 87 of 1977), decision dated: 15-06-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RARNANUJAM AND BALASUBRGHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Rangaswamy and Mrs. Nalini Chindambaram. K. Srinivasan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAMIL NADU IV\nvs\nO. P. N. ARUNACHALA NADAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 92 = 1985 SLD 92 = 1985 PTD 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Trust Objects\nKey Points:\n1.\nBeneficiary's Objectives: The objectives of beneficiaries cannot automatically be considered the trust's objectives.\n2.\nCharitable Trust: A trust benefiting a financial entity like an ashram does not qualify as a charitable trust unless it aligns with recognized charitable purposes.\nDecision: The trust was deemed non-charitable.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 815 of 1977, decision dated: 1st April, 1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND PADMANABHATT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. J. Jayaraman and Messrs Nalini Chfdambaram for Applicant. T. S. Ramu", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME=TAX\nvs\nWORKSHOP TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 93 = 1985 SLD 93 = 1985 PTD 592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nIncome Tax Returns: Posting a return under a certificate of posting within the allowed time constitutes sufficient evidence of timely filing unless proven otherwise.\nDecision: Timely posting of returns presumed valid.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No. 8 of 1975, decision dated: 1st April, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. K, JHA AND AIHWINI KUMAR SINHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. B. Rajgharhia and S. K. Sharan for Petitioner. Rameshwar Prasad. B. P. Gupta for the Opposite-Party", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR, PATNA\nvs\nMESSRS KALYANI SELECTION KARGALLIA COLLIERY, BERMO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 94 = 1985 SLD 94 = 1985 PTD 594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Allowable Deductions\nKey Points:\n1.\nInterest: Claims for interest deductions unsupported by verifiable facts were disallowed.\n2.\nMunicipal Taxes: Assessee could only claim deductions for taxes in the assessment year they accrued.\nDecision: Deductions were restricted to verifiable and relevant years.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=36 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 109 of 1973, decision dated: 13-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "W. G. Deo for Applicants. R. J. Joshi and R. G. Deshpande", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SHANKAR THEATRES, AMRAVATI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIDARBHA & MARATHWADA, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 95 = 1985 SLD 95 = 1985 PTD 596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nPublic Interest in Company: Company with substantial losses and no reasonable expectation of dividends does not involve public interest in its operations.\nDecision: Public interest status not applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 114 of 1973, decision dated: 13-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi and R. G. Deshpande for Applicant. C. J. Thakar and P. D. Thakar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OH Income Tax VIDARBHA AND MARATHWADN NAGPUR\nvs\nUNITED TRANSPORT CO. PRIVATE LTD., AKOLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 96 = 1985 SLD 96 = 1985 PTD 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nDefinition of Purchase : Purchase implies acquiring property through transfer, not merely procuring items.\n2.\nTax Exemptions: The cooperative society did not qualify for exemptions due to lack of ownership transfer in the goods handled.\nDecision: Exemption denied.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=81 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1975, decided 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. J. Thakar and P. D. Thakar for Applicant. R. J. Joshi, A. Shelt and R. G. Deshpande", + "Party Name:": "VIDARBHA CO OPERATIVE MARKETING NAGPUR\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VI DARATHWADA, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 97 = 1985 SLD 97 = 1985 PTD 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Entertainment Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nDistinction Between Hospitality and Entertainment: Routine acts of hospitality (e.g., offering coffee) are not considered entertainment for tax purposes.\n2.\nTribunal's Inadequate Review: Tribunal failed to provide adequate analysis of the expenditure in question.\nDecision: Reference returned unanswered for lack of sufficient materials.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1249 to 1251 of 1980, decision dated: 15-12-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND RATNAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaragan and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram. M. Uttama Reddi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nPRASAD PROCESS PRIVATE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 98 = 1985 SLD 98 = 1985 PTD 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nCarpets and Screens: Expenditure for non-capital assets in cinema theaters was deemed revenue expenditure.\n2.\nDepreciation Rates: False ceilings and partitions classified as fittings qualified for higher depreciation.\nDecision: Expenditure allowed as revenue, and higher depreciation granted.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No: 976 of 1977, decision dated: 3rd August, 1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. RAMANUJAM AND R. SENGOTTUVELAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Rangaswamy and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram. S. V. Subramaniam and P. P. S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), MADRAS\nvs\nINDIAN METAL AND METALLURGICAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 99 = 1985 SLD 99 = 1985 PTD 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Search and Seizure\nKey Points:\n1.\nAuthorization Validity: Commissioner’s authorization based on detailed reports was deemed valid.\n2.\nSister Concerns: Including all firms under common control in the search was justified.\nDecision: Search authorization upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=132 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No. 758 of 1981, decision dated: 20-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND K. K. ADHIKARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Gulab Gupta with B. L. Nema for Petitioner. J. P. Sanghi with B. K. Rawats", + "Party Name:": "NARAINDAS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 100 = 1985 SLD 100 = 1985 PTD 621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nBad Debts: A debt cannot be classified as bad solely on insolvency filings; factual determination is required.\n2.\nBrokerage Business: Messing facilities for clients were allowed as business expenditure.\nDecision: Debt classification required further assessment, and expenditure deduction allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 154 of 1978, decision dated: 25-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): U. N. BHACHAWAT AND C. P. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Bagdiya for Petitioner. K. B. Joshi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX, M. P. I., BHOPAL\nvs\nMESSRS MATHURALAL KAPOORCHAND & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 101 = 1985 SLD 101 = 1985 PTD 625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Dissolution of Firms\nKey Points:\n1.\nAsset Distribution: Transferring assets to retiring partners is an adjustment of mutual rights, not taxable profits.\n2.\nCapital Gains: No taxable profits arose from such transfers.\nDecision: No tax liability on the difference between written-down value and the retiring partners' dues.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=41,256 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 365 of 1980, decision dated: 6-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G.F. SINGH, C.J. AND K.K. ADHIKARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.K. Rawat for Applicant. B.L. Nema for Opposite Party", + "Party Name:": "THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax M. P., BHOPAL\nvs\nMESSSR AGARWAL TIMBER AND BANS CO., SATNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 102 = 1985 SLD 102 = 1985 PTD 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nSur Tax: Sur tax liability cannot be deducted when computing total income.\nDecision: Sur tax deduction disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 202 of 1979, decision dated: 15-10-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA, SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MOLINS OE INDIA LTD., CALCUTTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax WEST BENGAL III, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 103 = 1985 SLD 103 = 1985 PTD 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Constitutional Jurisdiction\nKey Points:\n1.\nPending Appeals: High Court declined intervention but directed timely resolution of appeals.\nDecision: Appeals ordered to be resolved within four months.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,3C,23(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1091 and 1295 of 1978, decision dated: 6-02-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hassan for Petitioners. Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 104 = 1985 SLD 104 = 1985 PTD 651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Revenue Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nEx Gratia Payment: Payment made to avoid greater losses and ensure smooth business operation was deemed revenue expenditure.\nDecision: Payment allowed as revenue expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 558 of 1972, decision dated: 10-04-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. A. A. Sharif", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMESSRS CIBA (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 105 = 1985 SLD 105 = 1985 PTD 653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Tribunal’s Findings\nKey Points:\n1.\nFinality of Tribunal: Tribunal’s factual findings cannot be contested unless shown to lack evidence or be contrary to law.\nDecision: Findings upheld as conclusive.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1975, decision dated: 25-04-1985, hearing DATE : 15-04-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS MOOSA UMER & Co LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 106 = 1985 SLD 106 = 1985 PTD 655", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Rejection of Accounts\nKey Points:\n1.\nJudicious Exercise: Accounts can only be rejected on cogent and tangible grounds, not merely on low profits or minor defects.\nDecision: Rejection of accounts deemed unjustified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,13, ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 41 and 44 of 1975, decision dated: 13-05-1985, hearing DATE : 2-05-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel. for Applicant. Muhammad Naseem", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS TAJ HOTEL (PAK.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 107 = 1985 SLD 107 = 1985 PTD 659 = (1985) 52 TAX 27 = 1985 PTCL 479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Donations and Legal Expenses under the Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a branch of a company incorporated in the Bahamas and assessed as a company in Pakistan, made two main claims in its assessment for the assessment year 1966–67:\nA donation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the National Defence Fund should be exempt from tax under S.R.O. 233(R)/65 dated 20-09-1965, issued under Section 60(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nLegal expenses of Rs. 5,100, incurred in drafting lease documents for petrol pump sites, should be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital.\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) denied full exemption for the donation and treated the legal expenses as capital expenditure. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The assessee filed a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, bringing the matter before the High Court.\nHeld:\nQuestion 1 (Donation): The Court held that the ITO and Tribunal were incorrect in denying full exemption of the Rs. 1,00,000 donation. Since the assessee was a company, the specific provisos applicable only to non-company assessees (individuals) under SRO 233(R)/65 did not apply. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to full exemption under Section 60 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Question answered in the negative (i.e., Tribunal was not justified).\nQuestion 2 (Legal Expenses): The Court held that the legal expenses related to the lease of sites for petrol pumps (which were long-term and had renewal options) led to acquisition of enduring rights and were capital in nature. Therefore, they were rightly disallowed as revenue expenditure. Question answered in the affirmative (i.e., Tribunal was justified).\nCitations:\nNotification S.R.O. 233(R)/65, dated 20-09-1965\nIncome Tax Appeal No. ITA 2636/71-72\nAssessment Year 1966–67\nReference under Section 66(1), Income Tax Act, 1922", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,15D,60,60(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 115 and 116 of 1973, decision dated: 13-10-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z. C. VALIANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B Nasim Ahmed Khan for Applicant\nNemo", + "Party Name:": "CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 108 = 1985 SLD 108 = 1985 PTD 662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nKey Points:\n1.\nDistinction: Expenditure for initial setup or business extension is capital; operational expenses are revenue.\n2.\nInterest: Interest on purchase price of capital assets classified as capital expenditure.\nDecision: Interest treated as capital expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi),10(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 114 of 1973, decision dated: 23rd October, 1984. dates of hearing : 15th and 30-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Dareshani. Naseem Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS PAKISTAN. PROGRESSIVE CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 109 = 1985 SLD 109 = 1985 PTD 677 = (1984) 50 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Reassessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nAudit Opinion: Audit party’s opinion alone does not qualify as information for reassessment purposes.\n2.\nInvalid Reassessment: Reassessment based solely on audit findings was invalid.\nDecision: Reassessment annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 3645 of 1979, decision dated: 19-02-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B, J. DIVAN, C, J. AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. P. Shah for Petitioner. G. N. Desal, instructed by R. P. Bhatt of M/s. R. P. Bhatt & Co., Solicitor", + "Party Name:": "ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE II, AHMEDABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 110 = 1985 SLD 110 = 1985 PTD 684", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Penalty for Failure or Delay in Submitting Returns\nKey Points:\n1.\nPenalty Nature: Penalty is a quasi-criminal proceeding and is not imposed for technical or minor breaches unless the conduct is contumacious, dishonest, or a conscious disregard of obligations.\n2.\nBurden of Proof: The initial burden lies on the department to prove the delay or failure without reasonable cause, after which the burden shifts to the assessee to show reasonable cause.\nDecision: Penalty can only be imposed after due consideration of circumstances and proper reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1974, dated 5-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. PATHAK, ACTG. C, J. AND K. N. SAIKIA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. G. Barua, R. P. Agarwalla and R. L. Jain for Petitioner. Mrs. G. K. Talukdar, D. K. Talukdar, R. K. M. Singh and Mrs. R. Bordoloi", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SEWBALKRAM & Co., KOHIMA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM, NAGALAND MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR AND TRIPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 111 = 1985 SLD 111 = 1985 PTD 698 = 1986 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "The Commissioner of Income Tax filed a reference under Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, challenging the Tribunal's ruling that the assessee company’s liability to deduct tax under Section 18(3B) of the 1922 Act was limited to 30% of the actual amount paid (Rs. 351,852) to the non-resident M/s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., and not on the grossed-up amount that included tax paid on behalf of the non-resident. The Tribunal had held that tax deduction under section 18(3B) applies only on the actual amount paid, not on any tax gross-up.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, observing that the deduction obligation is tied to the amount actually paid to the non-resident at the time of payment—not on the later determined gross income. The court dismissed the reference in limine, finding no question of law arising.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18(3B),43,136(1) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 6 of 1983, decision dated: 28-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND FAZAL-E-MAHMOOD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMESSRS NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 112 = 1985 SLD 112 = 1985 PTD 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Allowable Deductions for Litigation Expenses\nKey Points:\n1.\nLitigation Expenses: Expenditure incurred in litigation to recover business-related investments is allowable as a deduction.\n2.\nUnrealized Income: Interest and commission merged in accounts but not realized are not taxable on an accrual basis.\nDecision: Litigation expenses allowed; unrealized income not taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "I. T. Rs. Nos. 185 of 1973, 1231 of 1976 and 108 of 1982, decision dated: 16-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. M. SAHAI AND V. K. MEHROTRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BENI PRASAD SIDH GOPAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 113 = 1985 SLD 113 = 1985 PTD 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Registration of Partnership Firms\nKey Points:\n1.\nMinors Becoming Partners: If the partnership deed does not foresee and provide for the eventuality of minors attaining majority, registration cannot be continued.\nDecision: Firm registration denied due to incomplete provisions in the partnership deed.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=18 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 68 of 1980, decision dated: 8-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND B. C. VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat for Applicant. B. L. Nema for the OppositeParty", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOMFTAX, MADHYA PRADESHII, BHOPAL\nvs\nMESSRS DURGAPRASAD RAJARAM ARATIYA, GRAIN MARKET SAGAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 114 = 1985 SLD 114 = 1985 PTD 711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nAppeal Against Penalty: Appeal against penalty is maintainable even if a waiver application was dismissed.\nDecision: Appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=18 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 444 of 1979, decision dated: 13-09-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. L. OZA, ACTG. C, J. AND B.C. VARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat for Applicant. D. M. Dharmadbikari", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, M. P. II, BHOPAL\nvs\nMESSRS KEKATPURE GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY, PANDHURNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 115 = 1985 SLD 115 = 1985 PTD 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nCash Credits: Assessee can argue that cash credits represent previously taxed undisclosed income, even if raised for the first time on appeal.\nDecision: Assessee’s plea for earlier taxed income accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 379 of 1979, decision dated: 30-08-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. P. SINGH, C, J. AND B. C. VARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. K. Rawat for Petitioner. H. S. Shrivastava with A. K Rhaskalam", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M. P. BHOPAL\nvs\nDHARMDAS AGARWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 116 = 1985 SLD 116 = 1985 PTD 715", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Real Income and Accrual\nKey Points:\n1.\nReal Income: Tax liability is based on actual realizable income, not accounting entries.\n2.\nFilm Distribution: No income was considered accrued as actual realizations were less than investments.\nDecision: No tax on unrealized commission.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 588 to 592 of 1977 (Reference Nos. 401 to 405 of 1977), decision dated: 20-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Rangaswami and Nalini Chidambaram for Petitioner. S. Swaminathan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nMESSRS DEVI FILMS (P) LTD., MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 117 = 1985 SLD 117 = 1985 PTD 722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Speculative Transactions\nKey Points:\n1.\nDamages for Breach: Arbitration awards for breach of contract are not speculative transactions.\nDecision: Arbitration damages are not speculative.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=257 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 4 of 1978, decision dated: 21st July, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. S. PATHAK, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY III\nvs\nMESSRS SHANTILAL PVT. LTD., BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 118 = 1985 SLD 118 = 1985 PTD 725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Reassessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nCapital Gains: Non-reporting of capital gains exceeding one lakh on land acquisition justified reassessment.\nDecision: Reassessment upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "T. C. 969 of 1977, decision dated: 30-06-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAMANUJAM AND BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Janakiraman for Petitioner. J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram", + "Party Name:": "P. R. ADAIKAPPA CHETTIAR, PALLATHUR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 119 = 1985 SLD 119 = 1985 PTD 734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Adjustment of Losses\nKey Points:\n1.\nDepreciation: Profits from non-speculative business must first account for depreciation before adjusting brought-forward losses.\nDecision: Loss adjustment without depreciation rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 75 of 1968, decision dated: 13-01-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C. J. Thakkar and P. D. Thakkar for Applicant. R. J. Joshi and A. Shelat", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING Co. Pvt, LTD., AMRAOTI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. POONA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 120 = 1985 SLD 120 = 1985 PTD 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nReduce vs. Waive: The terms are not interchangeable; waiving interest is not obligatory even with sufficient cause for late filing.\nDecision: ITO not obliged to waive interest entirely.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139 ", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 2645 of 1980, decision dated: 22-06-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, A. K. Ravindranath K. Karthikeya Panicker C. N. Sreekumar and Mathew Cheriyan for Petitioner. P. K. Ravindranatha Menon and N. R. K. Nairs", + "Party Name:": "THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, C WARD, TRIVANDRUM AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 121 = 1985 SLD 121 = 1985 PTD 742 = (1985) 52 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Additional Assessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nRetrospective Assessment: Section 65 of the 1979 Ordinance allowed assessments for up to 10 years retrospectively.\n2.\nChange of Facts: Additional assessments justified when based on new material not previously considered.\nDecision: Notices and reassessments upheld based on new evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,166 Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 8 to 16/KB of 1981-82, decision dated: 24-12-1984, hearing DATE : 18-12-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha. Muhammad Farid D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 122 = 1985 SLD 122 = 1985 PTD 754 = (1985) 52 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Self-Assessment Scheme and Commissioner’s Powers\nKey Points:\n1.\nPrejudice to Assessee: Commissioner cannot revise orders to the detriment of the assessee under Section 138.\n2.\nSecond Assessments: Conducting a second assessment without proper notice is impermissible.\nDecision: Second assessment orders void; original self-assessment upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,59,65,56 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 3110/LB of 1982-83, 1587/LB of 1983-84, 3172/LB of 1982-83 and 1890/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 18-02-1985, hearing DATE : 30-10-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Arshad Pervaiz, A. C. D. R.. M. H. Khokhar, I. T. P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 123 = 1985 SLD 123 = 1985 PTD 759 = (1985) 52 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Interpretation of Jewellery Dealer \nKey Points:\n1.\nStrict Construction: Taxing provisions limiting rights of assessees must be strictly interpreted.\n2.\nArtificial Jewellery: Dealers in artificial jewelry excluded from the term jewellery dealer. \nDecision: Artificial jewelry dealers excluded from coverage.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 274/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 26-12-1984, hearing DATE : 16-12-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mazhar-ul-Hassan. Muhammad Farid D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 124 = 1985 SLD 124 = 1985 PTD 761 = (1985) 52 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Definition and Allowable Deductions\nKey Points:\n1.\nIncome Includes Loss: Loss cannot be computed without receipts or expenditure.\n2.\nInterest on Borrowings: Deduction for interest is contingent on actual income generation from the source.\nDecision: Deduction denied for loans generating no income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 6022/6-B of 1979-80, decision dated: 6-03-1984, hearing DATE : 13-02-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz Ch., C. A.. Arshad Pervaiz, A. C., D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 125 = 1985 SLD 125 = 1985 PTD 767", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Expiry of Limitation on Sundry Credits\nKey Points:\n1.\nLiability Extinguishment: Expiry of limitation does not extinguish debtor’s liability to pay.\n2.\nSundry Credits: Adding back amounts from unpaid creditors after three years was unjustified.\nDecision: Sundry credits excluded from taxable profits.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2A) Finance Act, 1956=11 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 336 of 1974, decision dated: 5-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider for Applicants. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST, ZONE) KARACHI AND ANOTHER\nvs\nMESSRS MUHAMMADI RE ROLLING MILLS, OLD HAJI CAMP, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 126 = 1985 SLD 126 = 1985 PTD 770 = (1985) 52 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Tribunal’s Authority in Reducing Assessments\nKey Points:\n1.\nTribunal’s Discretion: Tribunal justified in reducing assessments based on cogent reasoning and past history.\nDecision: Tribunal’s decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 48 of 50 and 52 of 1975, decision dated: 19-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Raider for Applicant Naimur Rehman", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI\nvs\nKARACHI OIL AND SEED INDUSTRIES LTD., OFFICE RAMBHARTI, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 127 = 1985 SLD 127 = 1985 PTD 785 = (1985) 52 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: High Court’s Jurisdiction in Appeals\nKey Points:\n1.\nAppeal Hearing Timeframe: High Court cannot direct the Commissioner to expedite hearings unless statutory requirements are violated.\nDecision: Petition for expedited hearing rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=31 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-352 of 1985, decision dated: 20-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND IBADT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Qureshi for Petitioner. Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (APPEALS), ZONE II KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 128 = 1985 SLD 128 = 1985 PTD 787 = (1985) 52 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Tax on Rights to Collect Export Tax\nKey Points:\n1.\n Property Definition: Rights to collect export tax constitute property. \n2.\nRetrospective Explanation: Explanation to Section 50(7A) applied retrospectively.\nDecision: Demand under Section 50(7A) valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7A),92 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. D-462 of 1984, decision dated: 7-08-1985. dates of hearing: 6th and 7-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. S. Waswani for Petitioner. Shaikh Haiders", + "Party Name:": "REHMAN CORPORATION, HYDERABAD\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, MIRPURKHAS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 129 = 1985 SLD 129 = 1985 PTD 796 = (1985) 52 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Advance Tax\nKey Points:\n1.\nNon-Filing of Income Estimate: Substantial compliance achieved if income is below threshold, even without exact figures.\nDecision: Assessee not deemed a defaulter.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(1),18A(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1976, decision dated: 12-08-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND K. A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Raider for Applicant. Respondent (absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE)\nvs\nMESSRS SHAHSONS FISHERIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 130 = 1985 SLD 130 = 1985 PTD 799 = (1985) 52 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Dividend Rebates\nKey Points:\n1.\nRebate on Current Year’s Income: Rebates allowed only for income distributed as dividends during the relevant year, not past years.\nDecision: Rebate restricted to current-year income distribution.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=17,17(5),2(6C),12(B),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 28 of 1976, decision dated: 4-09-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Dareshani for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMESSRS DAWOOD CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 131 = 1985 SLD 131 = 1985 PTD 803 = (1985) 52 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Additional Tax Proceedings\nKey Points:\n1.\nNotice Requirement: Additional tax under Section 45A required prior notice and opportunity to be heard.\nDecision: Additional tax order void due to lack of notice.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45,35 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 580/KB of 1983-84 decided on 26-09-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Farid, D. R.. Respondent (absent)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 132 = 1985 SLD 132 = 1985 PTD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Burden of Proof in Concealment Cases\nKey Points:\n1.\nRevenue's Burden: The burden lies on the revenue to prove the charge of concealment of income by the assessee.\n2.\nAssessee's Role: The nature and extent of the burden on the assessee are determined based on the context.\nDecision: The revenue must substantiate concealment claims before shifting the onus to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 145 to 147 of 1978, decision dated: 25-02-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND PADMANABHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram for Petitioner. K Srinivasan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nMBSSRS JAYASHANKAR TRADERS, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 133 = 1985 SLD 133 = 1985 PTD 820 = (1986) 53 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Change in Method of Accounting\nKey Points:\n1.\nAssessee's Freedom: An assessee can change their accounting method if done bona fide and regularly maintained.\n2.\nITO's Discretion: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) may reject the method only if it fails to reflect true income, profits, and gains.\n3.\nRevised Returns: A mere change in filing returns without altering the accounting method is impermissible.\nDecision: Bona fide changes in the accounting method are permissible if they align with Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,6.10,13,8,4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 140 to 144 of 1983, decision dated: 16-07-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): F. K. M.A. MUNIM, C, J., SHAHABUDDIN AHMAD, CHOWDHURY A. T. M. MASUD AND MUHAMMAD MOHSIN ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mozammel Haque Bhuiyan, Advocate instructed by M. R. Khan Advocate. on-Record (in all the Appeals). Habibullslam, Bhuiyan, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (in all the Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DHAKA NORTH ZONE, DHAKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 134 = 1985 SLD 134 = 1985 PTD 838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Business Loss Due to Misappropriation\nKey Points:\n1.\nIncidental Loss: Losses caused by misappropriation during the regular course of business are incidental and deductible.\n2.\nExamples Cited: Various precedents highlight that such losses are considered business expenses.\nDecision: Loss due to the misappropriation of funds is deductible as a business expense.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No. 62 of 1975, decision dated: 7-04-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. K, JHA AND ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. P. Rajgarhia, Samarendra Pratap Singh and S. K. Sharan for Petitioner. K. N. Jain and G. C. Bharuka for the Opposite-Party", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR\nvs\nMESSRS PARMANAND MAKHAN LAL, CHAIBASA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 135 = 1985 SLD 135 = 1985 PTD 841", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Capital Expenditure for Shifting Business\nKey Points:\n1.\nNature of Expenditure: Expenses incurred to construct new premises due to municipal orders are capital in nature.\nDecision: Shifting expenses classified as capital expenditure and not deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 140 of 1980, decision dated: 12th. January, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND MOHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi, R. G. Deshpande and A. Shelot for Applicant. C. J. and P. D. Thakkar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASIK (NOW COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR)\nvs\nMESSRS AGRAWAL TRADING Co., AKOLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 136 = 1985 SLD 136 = 1985 PTD 844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Nature of Government Grants\nKey Points:\n1.\nVoluntary Contributions: Grants given with conditions do not lose their nature as voluntary contributions.\n2.\nConditions: Such conditions ensure proper utilization but do not alter the grant's classification.\nDecision: Government grants remain voluntary contributions despite conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 232 of 1973, decision dated: 25-06-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHAHDURKAR AND KANIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with H. K. Sajnani for Applicant. M. Munim with S. J. Mehta", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY IV\nvs\nTHE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 137 = 1985 SLD 137 = 1985 PTD 847", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Profits in Insurance Business\nKey Points:\n1.\nITO's Scope: The ITO cannot question figures in the profit and loss account if prepared according to statutory requirements.\nDecision: Profit figures stated in accounts cannot be re-evaluated by the ITO.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 164 of 1973, decision dated: 15-06-1962", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND KANIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "I. M. Munim with S. P. Mehta and Dr. F. M. Dalal for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY IV" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 138 = 1985 SLD 138 = 1985 PTD 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Reopening of Assessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nBasis for Reopening: Reopening assessments requires valid information. Without such information, the order is invalid.\nDecision: Reopening without a valid basis is unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1973, decision dated: 25-02-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND KANIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. E. Dastur with Miss S. V. Chhaberia for Applicant. R.J. Joshi with Sajnani", + "Party Name:": "BRITISH INSULATED CALLENDARS CABLES LTD., BOMBAY\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY 1, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 139 = 1985 SLD 139 = 1985 PTD 858", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Nature of Receipts and Entertainment Duty\nKey Points:\n1.\nStatutory Receipts: Amounts collected under statutory authority (e.g., entertainment duty) are trading receipts.\n2.\nLiability to Pay: Assessee must deposit such amounts with the government or relevant authority.\nDecision: Entertainment duty collected is a trading receipt; deductions allowed upon payment.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,10(2)(v) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 20/KB of 1981-82 and 1516/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 28-03-1985, hearing DATE : 16-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "J.N. Pasha. Muhammad Farid, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 140 = 1985 SLD 140 = 1985 PTD 869 = (1985) 52 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Tax Treatment of Registered Firms\nKey Points:\n1.\nRegistered Firms: Treated as separate entities for tax purposes but not as juristic persons.\n2.\nExport Benefits: Export rebates apply to both the firm and its partners under specific provisions.\nDecision: Registered firms and partners can benefit from export-related tax rebates.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(6)(22) ", + "Case #": "income-tax Appeals Nos. 1556 to 1558/KB 10-07-1984, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, AND GHULAM MURTAZA", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha and Jan-e-Alam, I. T. P.. Mumtaz A. Sheikh, A. C./D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 141 = 1985 SLD 141 = 1985 PTD 874 = (1986) 53 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Revisional Powers under Section 34A\nKey Points:\n1.\nRevisional Authority: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) can revise orders only if they are prejudicial to revenue.\n2.\nMerged Orders: If the original order merges with an appellate order, the IAC cannot invoke Section 34A.\nDecision: Revisional powers restricted to unmerged orders.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 13 and 15 of 1975, decision dated: 20-03-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nATTA MUHAMMAD FAIZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 142 = 1985 SLD 142 = 1985 PTD 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Double Taxation Avoidance with the USA\nKey Points:\n1.\nTaxable Categories: Income from specified categories (e.g., royalties, fees) is subject to Pakistan tax.\n2.\nBusiness Activity: Activities connected to trade or business are taxable.\n3.\nBinding Precedents: Correspondence or CBR views are not binding on the appellate tribunal.\nDecision: Income from specified categories taxable in Pakistan; tribunal not bound by departmental views.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=78,79 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 116/KB to 119/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 28-05-1985, hearing DATE - 24-02-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Dareshani, Legal Adviser and Muhammad Farid, D. R.. E. U. Khawaja", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 143 = 1985 SLD 143 = 1985 PTD 888 = (1985) 52 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 - Section 65\nKey Points:\n1.\nDower Money: Dower money shown as a liability cannot be treated as unexplained investment.\n2.\nAdditional Evidence: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner may accept circumstantial evidence if it satisfies the factual requirements.\n3.\nOwnership of Property: The assessee constructing property on land in possession is deemed the owner for purposes of property income under Section 9.\nDecision: The dower amount and circumstantial evidence were appropriately considered, confirming ownership and clarifying liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Income Tax Act, 1922=9 ", + "Case #": "T. As. Nos. 1657/KB to 1662/KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 5-02-1985, hearing DATE : 19-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-e-Ajam, D. R.. Ali Athar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 243 = 1992 SLD 243 = 1992 PTD 1001 = (1992) 66 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Repeal of Estate Duty Act, 1950\nKey Points:\n1.\nEffect of Repeal: The repeal of the Estate Duty Act via Finance Ordinance, 1979, nullifies pending or new proceedings unless saved by explicit provisions.\n2.\nSaving Provisions: Subsequent laws (Finance Ordinance, 1982) validated prior gaps in legal proceedings after repeal.\n3.\nGifts and Estate: A gift within five years of death does not form part of the estate if gift tax was duly paid.\nDecision: Proceedings under repealed laws without explicit saving clauses are invalid unless validated by later legislation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=58,53(3),58A,9 General Clauses Act, 1897=6 Finance Ordinance 1979=3 ", + "Case #": "E.D.R. No.55 of 1984, decision dated: 9-04-1992, hearing DATE : 30-03-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND SHAUKAT A. ZUBERI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Petitioner, 7, Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM\nvs\nASSISTANT CONTROLLER, ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 193 = 2008 SLD 193 = 2008 PTCL 99 = (2007) 96 TAX 264 = (2007) 96 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Constitutional Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Forums\nKey Points:\n1.\nAdequate Remedy: Assessment orders under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are appealable first to the Commissioner, then to the Tribunal, negating direct constitutional petitions.\n2.\nScope of Jurisdiction: Constitutional petitions are inadmissible where statutory remedies are available.\nDecision: Appeals must be pursued within prescribed forums before constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,134,136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 2114-L of 2002, decision dated: 10-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHIEF, JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND MR. JUSTICE KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner by: Sh. Zia Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court Mr. Muhammad llyas Khan, Senior Advocate. Supreme Court and Ch.. M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "M/S. Shifa Medico\nvs\nFederation of Pakistan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 687 = 2001 SLD 687 = 2001 PTCL 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Nature of Section 50, Income Tax Ordinance\nKey Points:\n1.\nDeduction Obligations: Section 50 imposes responsibilities on the payer to deduct and deposit taxes, but undue burden on assessees is discouraged.\n2.\nCare in Assessments: Assessing officers must carefully investigate and distinguish between payments such as commissions and trade discounts.\nDecision: Tax authorities must probe thoroughly before treating an assessee as in default under Section 50.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52 ", + "Case #": "l.T.As. No. 1490/LB to 1494/LB of 1999, decision dated: 14-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 688 = 2001 SLD 688 = 2001 PTCL 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Professional Activities as Business\nKey Points:\n1.\nBusiness Classification: Professional activities involving commercial elements are treated as business for taxation.\n2.\nExemptions: Exemptions under Wealth Tax Act, 1963, require strict interpretation, limiting benefits to clear cases.\nDecision: Activities with intertwined professional and business components are taxable as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(11) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 411/LB, 412/LB, 624/LB of 1999, 404/LB of 1997-98, 622/LB, 623/LB, 921/LB, 920/LB, 1281/LB, 1282/LB of 1998, 912/LB, 913/LB, 248/LB, 249/LB and 585/LB of 1998-99, decision dated: 31st December, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MANSOOR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MR. KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED AND MR. SYED MASOODUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Mr. G. Abbas Chatha, Mr. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A., Mr. Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R., Mr. M.R. Farooqi, l.T.P., Mr. Habib Fakharud Din, F.C.A., Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Mr. M. Aslam Anwar, Mr. Muhammad Nazir Shad, Mr. Shahid Abbas and Mr. lftikhar Ahmed Khan, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 39 = 2009 SLD 39 = 2009 PTCL 54 = (2009) 99 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Mistake Apparent on Record\nKey Points:\n1.\nDefinition: Mistakes must be clear and evident on the record; complex errors of law or fact are excluded.\n2.\nReassessment Prohibition: Reassessment cannot be conducted under the guise of rectifying apparent mistakes.\nDecision: Errors requiring detailed analysis are beyond the scope of Section 156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Case No. I.T.R. No. 57 of 2007, decision dated: 22-07-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND MR. JUSTICE DR. SAJID QURESHI.", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Shahina Akbar, Advocate Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad\nvs\nM/s. Dewan Salman Fibre Limited, Hattar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 40 = 2009 SLD 40 = 2009 PTCL 97 = (2008) 98 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Adequate Remedy in Audit Cases\nKey Points:\n1.\nAudit Selection: Taxpayers can challenge audit selections through appeal mechanisms but not via writ petitions if remedies exist.\n2.\nShow-Cause Notices: Compliance with natural justice is ensured through notices, even if explicit provisions are absent.\nDecision: Appeals against audit orders must follow statutory routes before seeking constitutional relief.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,120,122,127,131 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 452 of 2008, decision dated: 16-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner by: Mr. Hafiz Muhammad ldrees. Respondent by Nemo", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Amson Vaccines Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd.\nvs\nCommissioner of Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 42 = 2009 SLD 42 = (2009) 100 TAX 177 = 2009 PTCL 725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Retrospective Application of Circulars\nKey Points:\n1.\nSubstantive Amendments: Circulars restricting prior schemes cannot apply retrospectively to rights already vested.\n2.\nInvestment Tax Scheme: Benefits declared under prior schemes remain valid unless expressly repealed by legislative enactments.\nDecision: Substantive changes in tax schemes cannot retroactively affect vested rights.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120A ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1520 of 2008, decision dated: 6-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHIEF, JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Shahzad Butt and Mr. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocates Supreme Court, Respondents by: Mr. Shahid Jamil, Advocate Supreme Court, Mr. M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record and Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Sh., Member (Legal) FBR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Fazal Din & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd\nvs\nFederal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 194 = 2008 SLD 194 = 2008 PTCL 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Scope of Section 156 (Rectification of Mistakes)\nKey Points:\n1.\nJurisdiction Limits: Rectification powers are confined to clear mistakes without reassessing tax liability.\n2.\nMaterial Questions: Issues requiring detailed inquiry are outside Section 156's purview and must follow appellate remedies.\nDecision: Tax authorities cannot expand rectification powers to address substantive errors.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 503-K of 2006, decision dated: 22-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE RANA BHAGWANDAS AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Mumtaz A, Sheikh, Member Legal, Central Board of Revenue Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi\nvs\nM/s. Shadman Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 4 = 2013 SLD 4 = 2013 PTD 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Amendment of Assessments and Binding O.M.\nKey Points:\n1.\nBinding Effect: Office Memorandums (O.M.) issued before the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, do not override its provisions.\n2.\nBusiness Income: Profits on surplus funds are classified under Income from Other Sources and cannot offset brought-forward business losses.\nDecision: Tax classifications and amendments adhere strictly to current statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122(9),18(2),18(3),39,40,20 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.582/KB to 584/KB, 689/KB to 691/KB of 2011, decision dated: 24-07-2012, hearing DATE : 11-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hassan Alam (in I.T.As. Nos. 582/KB to 584/KB of 2011). Azhar Erum Memon, D.R. LTU (in I.T.As. Nos. 582/KB to 584/KB of 2011). Azhar Erum Memon. (in I.T.As. Nos. 689/KB to 691/KB of 2011). Muhammad Hassan Alam (in I.T.As. Nos.689/KB to 691/KB of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI\nvs\nA.C.I.R.-B, ADI, L.T.U., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 87 = 1984 SLD 87 = 1984 PTD 11 = (1984) 49 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Penalty Imposition and High Court's Role\nKey Points:\n1.\nPenalty Validity: Penalties under Section 46(1) cannot be imposed during a valid stay order or based on flawed records.\n2.\nHigh Court's Jurisdiction: Findings of fact are not to be distorted unless explicitly challenged under proper references.\nDecision: Penalties must adhere to procedural correctness, and appellate challenges must precede High Court intervention.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 474 of 1972, decision dated: 10-08-1983, hearing DATE 9-08-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Abdul Rashid Mirza", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS EASTERN SERVICES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 126 = 1995 SLD 126 = 1995 PTD 1092", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199(4-A), (4-B)\nKey Points:\n1.\nTime Limit on Stay Orders: Stay orders granted in constitutional petitions related to public revenue collection cease after six months.\n2.\nNo Extension: High Courts lack the authority to extend such stay orders beyond the specified period.\n3.\nPending Cases: The mere pendency of a case does not affect the automatic expiry of the stay order.\nDecision: The stay order ceased after six months, and the High Court was not empowered to extend it.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=199(4A),(4B) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous No.4671 of 1993 (in Constitutional Petition No.1560 of 1993), decision dated: 1st June, 1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid S. Zuberis. Abdul Khair Ansari on behalf of Collector of Customs. Syed Kazim Bukhari, Advocate. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Dy.A.G", + "Party Name:": "M/s. NADIA GHEE MILL (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 165 = 2007 SLD 165 = 2007 PTD 67 = (2007) 95 TAX 153 = 2007 CLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Central Excise Act (1944), Sections 2(20), 3, and others\nKey Points:\n1.\nExcise Duty on Services: Validity of imposing excise duty on specific services provided by financial institutions affirmed.\n2.\nInterpretation Principles: Fiscal statutes must be interpreted literally in favor of the taxpayer unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n3.\nIslamic Banking: Terms like loan and interest are incompatible with Islamic banking principles but do not affect excise duty provisions.\n4.\nLegislative Power: The legislature retains the authority to impose taxes, including excise duties, to generate revenue.\nDecision: The imposition of excise duty was lawful, and related principles of statutory interpretation were reaffirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2,2(20),3,FirstSched,3C(1)(b),4(3),7(1) Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951=2,25 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,184,185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2296 to 2412, 2707-2717 of 2001, 516, 934 of 2002, 1087-1091 of 2004, 2254-2403, 2410-2423, 2433--2436 of 2005, decision dated: 22-02-2006. dates of hearing: 20th, 21st and 22-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, and Mumtaz Sheikh, Member (Legal) C.B.R.s (in Civil Appeals Nos.2296 to 2412 of 2001).\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi and M.S. Khattak, Advocates-on-Records (in C. As. Nos.2312, 2317, 2321, 2355, 2356, 2359, 2373, 2375, 2376, 2383, 2402 and 2406 of 2001)\nSyed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 2318 of 2001)\nFazal-e-Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 2325, 2331, 2376, 2402 and 2410 of 2001)\nMuhammad Afzal Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 2330 and 2366 of 2001)\nRaja Haq Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 2345, 2357, 2363, 2386 and 2405 of 2001)\nMuhammad Farid, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 2401 of 2001)\nA.I. Chundrigarh, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.As. Nos. 2707-2717 of 2001)\nWaseem Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 2707 to 2717 of 2001) and Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A.2717 of 2001)\nA.I. Chundrigarh, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 516 of 2002).\nNemos (in C.As. Nos. 516 of 2002)\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 934 of 2002)\nA. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Corut and Ahmer Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 934 of 2002)\nNemo (in C.As. Nos. 1087-1091 of 2004)\nRaja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 1087 to 1091 of 2004)\nIzhar-ul-Haq Advocate-Supreme-Court (in C. A No. 1091 of 2004)\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.2254-2256, 2260-2261, 2262, 227, 2287, 2290-2292,2297-2300, 2301, 2303, 2318-2322, 2327-2329, 2349, 2350 and 2395 of 2005)\nSyed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Arshad Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 2257, 2288, 2289 and 2304-2308 of 2005)\nSyed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 2258 and 2259 of 2005)\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 2262, 2290-2292 and 2327-2329 of 2005)\nShahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 2263-2265 of 2005)\nKhawaja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 2293-2296 and 2323 of 2005)\nMuhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.2310-2317 and 2325-2326 of 2005)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As.Nos.2259, 2311, 2330-2338, 2340-2347, 2349, 2352, 2353, 2365, 2367-2369, 2375, 2376 and 2385-2388 of 2005)\nSh. Shahid Waheed, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.2337-2339 of 2005)\nMian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 2344 and 2352 of 2005)\nCh. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 2348, 2354 and 2364 of 2005)\nTariq Mehmood Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 2332 of 2005)\nWaseem Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mumtaz Sheikh, Member (Legal) C.B.R.s (C.As. Nos.2410-2423 of 2005)\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.2410 and 2412 of 2005)\nMuhammad Azeem Malik, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.2433 and 2434 of 2005)\nCh. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 2435-2436 of 2005)\nM.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records (in C.A. No. 2433 of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nvs\nHaji MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.2707-2717 of 2001\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeal No.516 of 2002\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeal No.934 of 2002\nICC TEXTILE MILLS, LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.1087-1091 of 2004\nMessrs PAK ELECTRON LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.2254-2403 of 2005\nMessrs FAISAL ASAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.2410-2423 of 2005\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nvs\nGUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others\n(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.Ps. Nos. 462, 780, 2289/93, 2136/94, 841/93, 3139/92, 147/03, D54/94, D2190/93, D254/93, D2202/93, D933/93, D1331/93 and 1606-D/1993).\nCivil Appeals Nos.2433-2436 of 2005\nTHE PAK PUNJAB MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 280 = 2003 SLD 280 = 2003 PTCL 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Section 62\nKey Points:\n1.\nAnonymous Complaints: Assessments based solely on anonymous complaints and reports made after significant delays are invalid.\n2.\nMalafide Actions: Tampering with records and changing dates undermines the validity of assessment proceedings.\n3.\nValidity of Proceedings: Assessment proceedings initiated without a valid basis or proper inquiry are void.\nDecision: The assessment was invalid due to reliance on flawed and delayed inquiry reports.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 3106/LB, 3107/LB and 3108/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NNDEEM SAQLAIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Dr. Khalil Ahmad, DR Respondent by: Mr. Nadeem Ahsan, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 134 = 2012 SLD 134 = (2012) 106 TAX 370 = 2012 PTCL 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Sections 34, 35, 37\nKey Points:\n1.\nValuation of Stock: Obsolete stock does not need to be written off completely; it should be valued at realizable value.\n2.\nDepreciation and Gain: Gains resulting from depreciation should be taxed, even under Presumptive Tax Regime (PTR).\n3.\nLegal Compliance: Tax authorities must adhere to statutory requirements when dealing with stock valuation and gains.\nDecision: Orders disallowing expenses and improperly taxing gains were annulled, ensuring compliance with legal provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=34 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1415/LB/2010, (Tax Year 2005), MA No. 56/LB/2011, (Tax Year 2004), ITA No. 907/LB/2010, (Tax Year 2005), ITA No. 1440/LB/2010, (Tax Year 2004), ITA No. 801/LB/2011, (Tax Year 2005) decided on 26-07-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MR. MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Karamatullah Ch. DR., Mr. Asim Zulifqar, FCA, Mr. Maqsood Ahmed, ACA Mr. Asim Zulifqar, FCA, Mr. Maqsood Ahmed, ACA, Mr. Karamatullah Ch. DR", + "Party Name:": "The CIR (LTU), Lahore\nvs\nM/s. F.M.C. United (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 5 = 2013 SLD 5 = 2013 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Double Taxation Convention (UK-Pakistan, 1986)\nKey Points:\n1.\nNon-Resident Taxation: Business profits of non-resident companies without permanent establishments in Pakistan are exempt from local taxes under the convention.\n2.\nWithholding Tax: Additions to income for non-deduction of withholding tax on payments to such entities are unjustified.\nDecision: The addition to income was invalid as the non-resident company was protected under the Double Taxation Convention.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(41)(d),21(c),107,152 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No.657 and C.M. No.728 of 2010, decision dated: 5-09-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE AND FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Mohsin Imam for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 6 = 2013 SLD 6 = 2013 PTD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Sections 65, 13\nKey Points:\n1.\nDefinite Information Requirement: Reopening assessments requires definite information; vague or incomplete notices render proceedings void.\n2.\nBank Deposits: Estimation of sales based on bank deposits without adverse inference or lawful basis is impermissible.\nDecision: Proceedings and additions based on improperly issued notices and lack of definite information were declared void ab initio.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1182/LB to 1191/LB of 2011, decision dated: 10-05-2012, hearing DATE : 10-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed. Dr. Muhammad Idrees D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD SHARIF ZARGAR, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nC.I.R. (APPEALS), GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 7 = 2013 SLD 7 = 2013 PTD 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), Section 9\nKey Points:\n1.\nMaladministration: Arbitrary actions by tax officers, such as ignoring evidence or directions, constitute maladministration.\n2.\nJurisdiction of Ombudsman: The Federal Tax Ombudsman can address maladministration even if it involves tax assessments.\nDecision: Tax authorities were directed to reassess and rectify maladministration under the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(1),122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),2(3),10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 341/LHR/IT(256)666 of 2012, decision dated: 28-09-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SADDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Syed Ali Imran Rizvi, Advocate Authorized Representative. Muhammad Farooq Anwar, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AZAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 8 = 2013 SLD 8 = (2013) 107 TAX 1 = 2013 PTD 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Sections 122, 176\nKey Points:\n1.\nAmendment of Assessments: Assessments cannot be amended without fulfilling statutory notice and procedural requirements.\n2.\nDefinite Information: Proceedings based on vague or previously available information are unlawful.\n3.\nNatural Justice: Failure to provide notices or opportunities for defense invalidates proceedings.\nDecision: Improper assessments, notices, and proceedings were annulled due to procedural lapses and lack of compliance with statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=210,,122(5A),122(9),120 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 391/KB to 394/KB of 2012, decision dated: 25-07-2012, hearing DATE : 14-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N, ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem. Dr. Abdul Sattar Abbasi, DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD YASEEN\nvs\nC.I.R., AUDIT Zone-III, R.T.O.-III, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 9 = 2013 SLD 9 = (2013) 107 TAX 96 = 2013 PTD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Sections 109, 99, 67, 177, 122(1), Fourth Schedule\nKey Points:\n1.\nCapital Gains on Shares: Exemption for capital gains under Rule 6A of the Fourth Schedule upheld.\n2.\nTax Avoidance Allegations: Allegations of tax avoidance through appreciation of investment rejected as transactions showed genuine realization of gains.\n3.\nRecharacterization of Income: Court held that recharacterization under S.109 was inapplicable as the transactions were legitimate.\n4.\nPrinciples of Tax Law: Tax exemptions cannot be construed as tax avoidance unless explicitly intended by law.\nDecision: Actions of the Taxation Officer were unlawful and annulled by the tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=109(1)(a),99,109,67,177,67,122(1),122(5),FourthSched.,6A&5(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 108/KB and 247/KB of 2011, decision dated: 8-10-2012, hearing DATE : 12-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Arshad Siraj and Shabbar Zaidi, FCAs (in I.T.A. No. 108/KB of 2011). Amjad Javed Hashmis (in I.T.A. No. 108/KB of 2011). Amjad Javed Hashmi, Advocate (D.R.)s (in I.T.A. No. 247/KB of 2011). Arshad Siraj and Shabbar Zaidi. F.C.A.s (in I.T.A. No. 247/KB of 2011).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IGI INSURANCE LIMITED, KARACHI and another\nvs\nC.I.R., AUDIT DIVISION II, L.T.U., KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 477 = 2002 SLD 477 = 2002 YLR 2693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Central Excises Act (1944), Sections 36-C, 35-C\nKey Points:\n1.\nAppeals on Questions of Law: Appeals to the High Court under S.36-C are maintainable only on questions of law, not factual disputes.\n2.\nFactual Findings: Selling of beverages in chilled form was deemed a factual issue and not reviewable by the High Court.\n3.\nRejection of Records: Rejection of accounts registers was upheld as no legal question arose.\nDecision: High Court dismissed the appeal as it raised no legal issues.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36,3,4(2),36C ", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeals Nos.325 to 331 of 2001, decision dated: 1st November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXECISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 10 = 2013 SLD 10 = 2013 PTD 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Sections 35, 34, 122\nKey Points:\n1.\nValuation of Stock: Taxpayer allowed to value stock-in-trade at the lower of cost or net realizable value without needing to write off obsolete stock.\n2.\nTaxing Gains: Gains from sale of scrap or assets were to be taxed proportionally under the Final Tax Regime and Presumptive Tax Regime.\n3.\nPrinciples of Fair Taxation: Taxpayer's valuation practices were found consistent with the law, and department's reliance on S.34(3) was misplaced.\nDecision: Expenses were allowed, and orders against the taxpayer were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,35(4),34(3),122(5A),169(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1415/LB, M.A. No.56/LB of 2011, I.T.As. Nos.907/LB, 1440/LB of 2010 and I.T.A. No.801/LB of 2011, decision dated: 26-07-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.I.R. (LTU), LAHORE", + "Lawyer Name": "Karamatullah Ch. D.R.s (in I.T.As. Nos.1415/LB and 907/LB of 2010 and M.A. No. 56/LB of 2011). Asim Zulfiqar, FCA and Maqsood Ahmed, ACAs (in I.T.A. No. 1415/LB of 2010, M.A. No. 56/LB and I.T.A No. 907/LB of 2010).\nAsim Zulfiqar, FCA and Maqsood Ahmed, ACAs (in I.T.As. Nos. 1440/LB of 2010 and 801/LB of 2011). Karamatullah Ch. D.R.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 1440/LB of 2010 and 801/LB of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LTU), LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs F.M.C. UNITED (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 11 = 2013 SLD 11 = 2013 PTD 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 122(4)\nKey Points:\n1.\nMaladministration: Conducting audits without formal selection was deemed contrary to law and amounted to maladministration.\n2.\nDelays in Finalization: Protracted delays in completing audits were categorized as maladministration.\nDecision: Audit proceedings conducted without proper authorization were invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 572/LHR/IT(423)/1073 of 2012, decision dated: 6-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Syed Ali Imran Rizvi, Authorized Representative. Waqas Ahmad, ACIR; Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMER FAROOQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 12 = 2013 SLD 12 = (2013) 108 TAX 268 = 2013 PLC 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 130(3)\nKey Points:\n1.\nAppointments to Appellate Tribunal: Appointment of members was consistent with constitutional provisions and applicable laws at the time.\n2.\nRetrospective Challenges: Retrospective application of changes in law to past appointments was rejected.\nDecision: High Court upheld appointments and dismissed the petition.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=130,130(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=193(2),240,242,199 Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977=7(3)(a) ", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 415 of 2009, Writ Petitions Nos. 10608 of 2010 and 15898 of 2009, decision dated: 2-07-2012, hearing DATE ; 12-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Amir Baig and Umar Riaz for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.10608 of 2010 and 15898 of 2009). Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Dy. A.G.s. Respondent No. 4 in person. Zohaib Imran Sheikh and Mehmood Ahmed Qazi No. 5. Syed Nadir Hussain, Deputy Director, FPSC.", + "Party Name:": "Ch. ANWAAR UL HAQ ARIF, Advocate\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 644 = 1999 SLD 644 = 1999 PTD 2443 = (1997) 227 ITR 846", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Business Expenditures under Income Tax Act (1961), Section 37\nKey Points:\n1.\nCommercial Considerations: Deductibility of commission expenses depends on proof of commercial justification.\n2.\nOnus of Proof: Burden lies on the taxpayer to demonstrate that payments were made for legitimate business purposes.\nDecision: Commission payment disallowed due to lack of evidence supporting commercial considerations.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.3 of 1990, decision dated: 2-05-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. BARMAN ROY AND D. N. CHOUDHURY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Joshi and Sint. U. Chakravarty for the Assessee. Dr. A. K. Saraf and K. K. Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM PESTICIDES AND AGRO CHEMICALS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 128 = 2014 SLD 128 = 2014 SCMR 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act (1977), Section 6\nKey Points:\n1.\nFood Security: Federal and Provincial Governments directed to ensure controlled prices of essential commodities.\n2.\nConstitutional Duty: State's obligation under Article 38 to provide basic necessities of life was emphasized.\nDecision: Federal and Provincial Governments instructed to implement effective measures for food security.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=38,184(3),38(d) West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, (XX of 1958)=3 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.52 of 2013, decision dated: 2-12-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Taufiq Asif, Advocate Supreme Court, Amir Malik, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Saifullah Gondal, Advocate for Petitioners. Syed Attique Shah, Additional A.G., Altaf Hussain, Assistant Chief, M/o Commerce, Dr. Muhammad Aslam, Food Security Commissioner-I, M/o National Food Security and Research on Courts Notice. Mustafa Ramaday, A.G., Punjab, Qasim Mirjat, Additional A.G., Sindh, Zahid Yousaf, Additional A.G., KPK and M. Fareed Dogar, A.A.G., Balochistan on Courts Notice", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 187 = 2005 SLD 187 = 2005 SCMR 1814", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Principles of Locus Poenitentiae and Audi Alteram Partem\nKey Points:\n1.\nLocus Poenitentiae: Principle applies only to valid and lawful orders, not to those contrary to law.\n2.\nRight to Hearing: Fundamental right to a hearing applies unless the order was obtained through fraud or illegality.\nDecision: Illegal absorption order canceled; principle of locus poenitentiae inapplicable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Civil Servants Act, (XIV of 1973)=2,2(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.720-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Wajahat Niazi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Records Nos.1 and 2. Nemos Nos.3 and 4", + "Party Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD PANHWAR\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Sindh and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 555 = 1999 SLD 555 = 2000 PTCL 374 = (1999) 80 TAX 9 = 2000 MLD 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Central Excises Act (1944), Section 35-B\nKey Points:\n1.\nTribunals and Orders: Courts and tribunals are bound by written orders, and oral remarks hold no legal weight.\n2.\nExhaustion of Remedies: Petition dismissed as alternative remedies were available and partially availed.\nDecision: Constitutional petition dismissed for bypassing prescribed forums.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7431 of 1999, decision dated: 3rd May, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, AdvocateA. Karim Malik, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Saleem Automotive Industries (Pvt.) Ltd\nvs\nC.B.R. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 678 = 1999 SLD 678 = (1999) 80 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Service of Notices under Income Tax Ordinance\nKey Points:\n1.\nService Rules: Notices must be served in person unless an agent is authorized.\n2.\nPrinciples of Natural Justice: Actions taken without proper service violate the principle of audi alteram partem.\nDecision: Proceedings annulled due to failure in properly serving notices.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=7,16(2),16(5),17 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=OrderV,rule15,16,17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 657(IB) to 663 (IB) of 1998-99 (Assessment years 1987-88 to 1993-94), decision dated: 24-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mian Muhammad Azim, Advocate and Mr. Anwar Ul Haq, Advocate. Respondent by . Mr. Imran Raza Kazmi, DR.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 166 = 2007 SLD 166 = 2007 PTD 2601 = (2008) 97 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 122\nKey Points:\n1.\nAmendment of Assessments: Requires clear jurisdiction, factual basis, and adherence to procedural requirements.\n2.\nDefinite Information: Amendments must rely on tangible information, not speculation or estimates.\nDecision: Orders based on vague notices without definite information were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,66A,(5A),120,122(5) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,63,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 188/IB of 2007, decision dated: 20-07-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Atif Waheed. Sardar Taj Muhammad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 3 = 1975 SLD 3 = 1975 PLD 924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act (1956)\nKey Points:\n1.\nTaxability of Government Payments: Payments made to cover losses of PIA were deemed income receipts and subject to tax.\n2.\nLegal Precedents: Payments distinguished from capital receipts under established tax law principles.\nDecision: Payments were taxable under the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2) Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956=26 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 27 of 1968, decision dated: 24th Jane 1975, dates of hearing : 22nd, 29th November and 2nd December 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND, JAMALUDDIN H. AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar. S. A. Nusrat", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 1 = 1978 SLD 1 = 1978 PLD 1047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1922), Section 10\nKey Points:\n1.\nCapital vs. Revenue Receipts: Payments for loss of capital rights (e.g., sole-selling agency) are considered capital receipts and not taxable.\n2.\nPurpose of Payment: Determination depends on the purpose and facts of the case, with no single test for classification.\nDecision: Compensation for the loss of a sole-selling agency was held as a capital receipt, not taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 4 of 1970, decision dated: 3rd May 1978, hearing DATE :18th January 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAHMUD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. G. M. Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nMESSERS FORBES CAMPBELL & Co. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1610 = 2002 SLD 1610 = (2002) 258 ITR 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Wealth-tax Act (1957), Section 7\nKey Points:\n1.\nValuation of Assets: Joint lessees' interest in a superstructure cannot include reversionary value since ownership remains with the lessees for the lease term.\n2.\nIrrelevant Valuation Approach: Reliance on lessor's valuation was found irrelevant to the lessee's tax liability.\nDecision: Inclusion of reversionary value in valuation was unjustified and annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=7 ", + "Case #": "T.C. NOS. 1004 TO 1006 OF 1990, AUGUST 26, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Applicant. T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "H. MD. Zaid\nvs\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1611 = 2002 SLD 1611 = (2002) 258 ITR 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Gift-tax Act (1958), Section 4\nKey Points:\n1.\nDeemed Gift: Reduction in existing partners' shares to accommodate a new partner creates a taxable gift if benefits to the new partner exceed their contribution.\n2.\nValue Disparity: Diminished shares of continuing partners were deemed a gift.\nDecision: Tribunal correctly held that a gift resulted from the reconstitution of the partnership.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=4 ", + "Case #": "TAX CASES NOS. 334, 336 AND 338 OF 1992, AUGUST 26, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Meenakshisundaram for the Applicant. T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M.K. Kuppuraj\nvs\nCommissioner of Gift-tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1612 = 2002 SLD 1612 = (2002) 258 ITR 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 80HHC\nKey Points:\n1.\nExport Definition: A sale qualifies as an export only if it involves customs clearance and occurs outside India.\n2.\nForeign Exchange Sales: Sales in India against foreign currency do not qualify as exports.\nDecision: Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction; sales were not exports.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80HHC,143(2) ", + "Case #": "D.B. IT APPEAL NO. 18 OF 1999, AUGUST 26, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y.R. MEENA AND SHASHI KANT SHARMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.B. Mathur for the Applicant. J.K. Ranka and Raj Kumar Yadav for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax Officer\nvs\nVaibhav Textiles" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1613 = 2002 SLD 1613 = (2002) 258 ITR 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 234A\nKey Points:\n1.\nInterest on Late Filing: Interest cannot be charged unless explicitly directed in the assessment order.\n2.\nNo Direction Given: Tribunal deleted interest due to the absence of such direction.\nDecision: Appeal dismissed as no question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=234A,260A,156 ", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2002, AUGUST 21, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jagdish Rai Goel for the Appellant. P.C. Sharada for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nKishan Lal (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 687 = 1982 SLD 687 = (1982) 45 TAX 147 = 1982 PTD 157 = (1981) 132 ITR 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Wealth-tax Act (1957), Section 7(1)\nKey Points:\n1.\nBreak-Up Value Computation: Additional super tax liability not determined by the valuation date cannot be deducted.\n2.\nBonus Liability: Recognized as deductible even if not accounted for in the balance sheet.\nDecision: Deduction for additional super tax disallowed; bonus liability allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=27(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=23A Income Tax Act, 1961=104 ", + "Case #": "Wealth-tax Reference No. 19 of 1969. March 12, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDURKAR AND SAWANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. C. Kotwal for the Commissioner. V. J. Pandit with P. O. Pandit instructed by J.P. Pandit for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Wealth Tax, BOMBAY CITY-II\nvs\nA. E. MASKATI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1614 = 2002 SLD 1614 = (2002) 258 ITR 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 271(1)(c)\nKey Points:\n1.\nPenalty for Concealment: Penalty cannot be imposed when income is assessed based on estimates without evidence of concealment.\n2.\nNo Positive Act: Mere estimation differences do not constitute concealment.\nDecision: Penalty quashed; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=260A,271(1)(c),274 ", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2002, AUGUST 21, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N.K. SODHI AND VIRENDER SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.C. Jain and Pankaj Jain for the Appellant. N.L. Sharda for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Harigopal Singh\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1615 = 2002 SLD 1615 = (2002) 258 ITR 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 139\nKey Points:\n1.\nInterest Waiver: Reasonable estimation of income justified deletion of interest levied for late filing.\n2.\nTribunal's Decision: Upheld as legally valid.\nDecision: Interest deleted; appellate decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139,215 ", + "Case #": "T.C. NO. 701 OF 1994, AUGUST 20, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nA. Manickam & Sons" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1616 = 2002 SLD 1616 = (2002) 258 ITR 448", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 32A\nKey Points:\n1.\nInvestment Allowance: Assessee entitled to investment allowance for dumpers used in mining operations.\n2.\nCircular Clarification: Supported the claim.\nDecision: Allowance granted under Section 32A.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=32A,33(1) ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NO. 665 OF 1994, AUGUST 20, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. Ravikumar for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nBajrang Enterprises" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1617 = 2002 SLD 1617 = (2002) 258 ITR 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 48\nKey Points:\n1.\nCapital Gains: Fair market value of property accepted based on Sub-Registrar's certificate and municipal tax.\n2.\nValuation Factors: Emphasis on reliable indicators like rental value and certified market value.\nDecision: Tribunal's reliance on valid materials upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2),48 ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NO. 626 OF 1994, AUGUST 20, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. Ravikumar for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nJ.V.K. Rao" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1618 = 2002 SLD 1618 = (2002) 258 ITR 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1961), Section 13A\nKey Points:\n1.\nPolitical Parties' Income: Benefit under Section 13A applies only prospectively, not retroactively.\n2.\nNo Retrospective Effect: Tribunal correctly denied benefit for years before Section 13A's enactment.\nDecision: Tribunal's decision favored the revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=13A,288,40(3)(vi) ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NOS. 579 TO 582 OF 1994, AUGUST 20, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman for the Petitioner. T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 653 = 1991 SLD 653 = 1991 PLC 821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Civil Service Regulations, Regulation 465-B\nKey Points:\n1.\nPremature Retirement: Once granted and leave preparatory to retirement availed, withdrawal is not permitted.\n2.\nLeave Period: Use of more than half the leave solidifies the retirement.\nDecision: Application for withdrawal rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 470(P) of 1987, decision dated: 3rd June, 1990.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN, SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRY AND RASHEEDUDDIN ARSHAD, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "NAZAR HUSSAIN\nvs\nINSPECTOR-GENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 654 = 1991 SLD 654 = 1991 PLC 823", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Service Tribunals Act (1973), Section 4\nKey Points:\n1.\nAppeal Maintainability: Non-civil servants cannot claim pensionary benefits through a Service Tribunal.\n2.\nScope of Jurisdiction: Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal.\nDecision: Appeal not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 54(K) of 1985, decision dated: 28-02-1989.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN AND RASHEEDUDDIN ARSHAD MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAFDAR\nvs\nSECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 655 = 1991 SLD 655 = 1991 PLC 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules (1973), Rules 4 & 5\nKey Points:\n1.\nPartial Charges Proven: Appellant guilty of two out of three charges; punishment adjusted accordingly.\n2.\nReduction in Rank: Dismissal reduced to a three-year reduction in rank.\nDecision: Dismissal replaced with lesser punishment.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 8 (K) of 1985, decision dated: 4-02-1989.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN AND SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRY, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "KHAIRUL INAM RIZVI\nvs\nDIRECTOR-GENERAL, F.IA. ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 656 = 1991 SLD 656 = 1991 PLC 827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Civil Service Regulations, Regulation 422\nKey Points:\n1.\nPension Eligibility: Gap between retirement and re-employment not condonable for pension benefits.\n2.\nTime-Barred Appeal: Appeal dismissed due to delay.\nDecision: Pension claim rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 329(R) of 1988, decision dated: 31st March, 1990.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN AND RASHEEDUDDIN ARSHAD MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Syed ALI AKHTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 657 = 1991 SLD 657 = 1991 PLC 859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, Sections 12 & 15(4)\nKey Points:\n1.\nTermination Procedure: Non-compliance with procedural requirements invalidates termination for misconduct.\n2.\nReinstatement Justified: Court upheld reinstatement.\nDecision: Workman reinstated.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. KAR-116 of 1991 decided on 2-05-1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES\nvs\nRaja HASSAN AKHTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 658 = 1991 SLD 658 = 1991 PLC 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Civil Servants Act (1973), Section 8(4)\nKey Points:\n1.\nSeniority Disputes: Seniority from a previous role upheld unless challenged timely.\n2.\nPromotion Discrepancies: Appellant's seniority claim rejected due to earlier inaction.\nDecision: Seniority list maintained as per law.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.48-K of 1986, decision dated: 13-06-1990.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN AND MISBAHULLAH KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIRAJUL HAQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, AVIATION DIVISION and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 659 = 1991 SLD 659 = 1991 PLC 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975\nKey Points:\n1.\nDepartmental Proceedings: Forfeiture of service penalty imposed on a police inspector without a regular inquiry.\n2.\nDenial of Defence: Appellant was denied access to crucial documents and a fair opportunity to defend himself.\n3.\nFair Inquiry Requirement: Failure to provide necessary documents invalidates proceedings.\nDecision: Penalty annulled due to procedural flaws and lack of conclusive evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal, Punjab", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.686 of 1988,.decided on 6-06-1990.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ADAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN AND ABDUL HAMID KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SIKANDAR HAYAT\nvs\nDEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 660 = 1991 SLD 660 = 1991 PLC 815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Industrial Relations Ordinance (1969), Section 25-A\nKey Points:\n1.\nWorkman Rights: Labour Court recognized Clock Winder as skilled staff entitled to Scale 5, based on evidence.\n2.\nEmployer's Failure: Employer's inability to rebut workman's claim rendered appellate tribunal's decision invalid.\nDecision: Labour Court’s decision reinstated; workman placed in Scale 5.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 841 of 1989, heard on 4-03-1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "S. TASEER ALI\nvs\nPUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 661 = 1991 SLD 661 = 1991 PLC 821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Industrial Relations Ordinance (1969), Section 25-A\nKey Points:\n1.\nDefective Inquiry: Courts below invalidated dismissal of workman due to procedural flaws in the employer's inquiry.\n2.\nFresh Inquiry Permitted: With workman's consent, employer allowed to conduct a fresh inquiry.\nDecision: Petition disposed of with permission for fresh proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1312 of 1987, heared on 4-06-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PASRUR SUGAR MILL\nvs\nABDUL QADEER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 662 = 1991 SLD 662 = 1991 PLC 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Industrial Relations Ordinance (1969), Section 51\nKey Points:\n1.\nLabour Court Jurisdiction: Court empowered to determine back benefits for workers under settlements or awards.\n2.\nEmployer's Contention Rejected: Argument against Labour Court's jurisdiction deemed baseless.\nDecision: Labour Court's authority to adjudicate back benefits upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-73 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd March, 1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN PRESS INTERNATIONAL\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ABDUL CHOHAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 663 = 1991 SLD 663 = 1991 PLC 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973\nKey Points:\n1.\nParity in Punishment: Appellant argued for equitable treatment as co-accused received a lighter penalty.\n2.\nMutual Agreement: Respondent agreed to align appellant's punishment with that of the co-accused.\nDecision: Penalty reduced to match co-accused's punishment.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 65(K) of 1986, decision dated: 28-02-1989.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED ALI MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN AND RASHEEDUDDIN ARSHAD, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "ZAMIR AHMAD KHAN\nvs\nCENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 664 = 1991 SLD 664 = 1991 PLC 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973\nKey Points:\n1.\nRetirement Age: Workers retired upon reaching 60 years as per amended scheme.\n2.\nBoard's Authority: Retirement decisions aligned with lawful authority granted through amendments.\nDecision: Board's action deemed lawful.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-210 and D-126 of 1990, decision dated: 10-04-1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "CHAR SHAMBAY\nvs\nKARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 665 = 1991 SLD 665 = 1991 PLC 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Industrial Relations Ordinance (1969), Section 2(viii)(d)\nKey Points:\n1.\nEmployer Classification: Petitioners performing secretarial duties classified as employers under the law.\n2.\nNature of Duties: Clerical and complaint-handling tasks categorized as secretarial.\nDecision: Classification as employers upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-170 of 1986, decision dated: 1st April, 1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAZIQUL KHAIRI AND SYED ABDUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "FAKIR MUHAMMAD and another\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 219 = 1993 SLD 219 = 1993 SCMR 73 = (1992) 66 TAX 125 = 1992 SCC 920", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Income-tax Act (1922), Section 18-A(6)\nKey Points:\n1.\nRetrospective Effect: Amendments applied only to pending cases; past and closed cases excluded.\n2.\nRemedial Statutes: Liberal interpretation applies, but without explicit retrospective provision.\nDecision: Amendment applied to pending cases only.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(6) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 210-K to 219-K, 223-K, 226-K to 246-K and 571-K of 1990, decision dated: 26-04-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH, ACTG. C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record (in CAs. Nos.210K and 231K of 1990)\nIqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos.217K and 231K of 1990)\nRehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos.217K and 242K of 1990)\nSirajul Haque Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with N.C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record (in CA. No. 244K of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSHAHNAWAZ LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 1574 = 2014 SLD 1574 = (2014) 364 ITR 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "WRIT PETITION NO. 1214 OF 2014, MARCH 4, 2014", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.J. VAZIFDAR AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.E. Dastur, P. Pardiwala, R. Murlidhar and Arun Siwach for the Petitioner. Vipul Bajpayee and Vimal Gupta for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd.\nv.\nAssistant Registrar representing Income Tax Appellate Tribunal" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 379 = 1993 SLD 379 = 1993 CLC 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (1979), Sections 14 & 15\nKey Points:\n1.\nStrict Interpretation: Section 14 benefits landlords in specific situations; failure to comply renders ejectment application premature.\n2.\nSpecial vs. General Provisions: General provisions under Section 15 apply when Section 14 conditions are unmet.\nDecision: Ejectment application dismissed for non-compliance with Section 14.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=14,14(1),15 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 ", + "Case #": "F.RA. No. 499 of 1991, decision dated: 9-08-1992, hearing DATE : 1st ,June, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ali Ahmed Tariq. Ali Murtaza Hussain", + "Party Name:": "A.R. TAHIR\nvs \nM/s. MUHAMMAD ALI & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 380 = 1993 SLD 380 = 1993 CLC 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (1979), Section 15\nKey Points:\n1.\nPersonal Need: Landlord's right to reclaim premises for bona fide needs upheld regardless of prior use permissions.\n2.\nSub-Letting: Differentiated from handing over possession without landlord's consent.\nDecision: Landlord's claim upheld; tenant's defenses rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15(2),15,15(iii)(a) ", + "Case #": "F.R.A. No. 236 of 1991, decision dated: 22-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Jan. Mustafa Lakhani", + "Party Name:": "KHALID NASIM and others\nvs \nASMA YOUSAF and anothers" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 381 = 1993 SLD 381 = 1993 CLC 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Punjab Money Lenders Ordinance (1960)\nKey Points:\n1.\nIslamic Injunctions: Ordinance declared repugnant to Islam; money lending licenses non-renewable.\n2.\nCase Handling: Factual disputes left to investigation or lower courts.\nDecision: License renewal denied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Money Lenders Ordinance XXIX of 1960=3,3(5),19 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=203D(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6781 of 1992, heard on 12-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Masood Gangohi for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl.A.G. and Irfan Qadir,", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM SHAH KHAN\nvs \nTHE COLLECTOR, LAHORE DISTRICT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 382 = 1993 SLD 382 = 1993 CLC 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (1959), Section 13\nKey Points:\n1.\nBona Fide Need: Landlord’s personal and reconstruction needs validated with substantial evidence.\n2.\nDeemed Sanction: Building plan automatically approved after statutory period without objection.\nDecision: Ejectment granted for personal and reconstruction purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=13,13(2)(vi),11 Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=77(4),77 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 645 of 1992, heard on 18-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL ZARIN KIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Awais for Petitioners. Nahida Mahmoob Ellahi No. 3", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IDREES SHAH and 4 others\nvs \nDISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 383 = 1993 SLD 383 = 1993 CLC 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision Discussed: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (1974), Section 44\nKey Points:\n1.\nConstitutional Petitions: Misjoinder of parties does not defeat petitions under the Constitution.\n2.\nContractual Matters: High Court jurisdiction applies to legality of governmental decisions.\nDecision: Petition allowed; statutory duties upheld.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=44 Contract Act, 1872=2(h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=0.1,R.10 ", + "Case #": "Writ Pc t it ions Nos. 90 and 94 of 1992, decision dated: 27-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Petitioner (in Petition No. 94 of 1992). Advocate General and Sardar Rafique Mehmood Khans", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD FIAZ ABBASI and another\nvs \nPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT through Secretary, PWD AJ&K, Muzaffarabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 384 = 1993 SLD 384 = 1993 CLC 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (1979) – Section 15(2)(vii)\nKey Issue: Personal bona fide need of the landlord.\nHeld: Landlord cannot use Section 15(2)(vii) to seek tenant ejectment for the needs of brothers; the provision applies only to the landlord, spouse, or children.\n________________________________________\n(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (1979) – Section 15(2)(vii)\nKey Issue: Landlord seeking premises for business purposes.\nHeld: The landlord's requirement for a general store was reasonable. No technical expertise was necessary. Evidence showed the landlord had no other premises and was unemployed.\n________________________________________\n(c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (1979) – Section 15(2)(vii)\nKey Issue: Burden of proving good faith. \nHeld: Good faith is inferred from honesty and reasonableness of the landlord's demand. Courts evaluate circumstances and evidence to determine bona fide intentions.\n________________________________________\n(d) Words and Phrases:\n•\nHonesty: Defined as a psychological state provable through conduct or evidence.\n•\nBona fides: Equates to good faith, while mala fides means bad faith or actions taken for ulterior motives.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15,15(2)(vii) West Pakistan General Clauses Act, (IV of 1956)=2(27) ", + "Case #": "First Rent Appeals Nos.107 and 1081 of 1990, decision dated: 22-09-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Javed. Muhammad Sadiq", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED SHAHID \nvs \nSyed ABDUL BASHIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 385 = 1993 SLD 385 = 1993 CLC 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (1908) – Order XXII, Rule 4; Limitation Act (1908), Article 177\nKey Issue: Impleading legal heirs of a deceased defendant/respondent beyond 90 days.\nHeld: The application for impleading heirs was time-barred and self-contradictory. Abatement of suit upheld.\n________________________________________\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (1908) – Order XXII, Rule 4\nKey Issue: Setting aside abatement of the suit.\nHeld: Without an explicit or implied prayer for setting aside abatement, courts cannot treat an impleading application as a plea to set aside abatement.\n________________________________________\n(c) Limitation Act (1908), Section 5\nKey Issue: Condonation of delay.\nHeld: Delay must be explained day-to-day to warrant condonation.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXII,R.4 Limitation Act, 1908=177,5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6 of 1992, decision dated: 8-11-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farid Khans. Sardar Zahoor Hussain Khans", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMAMD YASIN and 3 others\nvs \nAKRAM and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 386 = 1993 SLD 386 = 1993 CLC 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance (1959), Section 13\nKey Issue: Court fees on appeal against ejectment orders.\nHeld: Ad valorem court fees apply to all appeals against rent controller orders.\n________________________________________\n(b) West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance (1959), Section 15\nKey Issue: Deficiency in court fees.\nHeld: Appeals cannot be summarily dismissed without providing time to rectify fee deficiencies. Case remanded to calculate correct fees.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Court Fees Act, 1870=11 of ScheduleII West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=13,15 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3470 of 1991, decided 1st November, 1992, hearing DATE : 21st October, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ismail Choudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Naeem Chaudhry No. 1. Nemo No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "SAJJAD AHMAD\nvs \nMUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 387 = 1993 SLD 387 = 1993 CLC 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (1908) – Order XLI, Rule 31\nKey Issue: Appellate Court Judgment.\nHeld: Appellate Court must discuss evidence on record and assess the impact of trial court findings. Failure to do so invalidates the judgment. Case remanded.\n________________________________________\n(b) Practice and Procedure:\nHeld: Improperly admitted documents can still be considered if present in the record.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.31,115 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 13 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd March, 1991. dates of hearing: 18th and 19-02-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Fattah Malik for the Applicant. Respondent no in person", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF\nvs \nSyed GHULAM MURTAZA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 388 = 1993 SLD 388 = 1993 CLC 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Land Acquisition Act (1894), Sections 23 & 24\nKey Issue: Market value and compensation for acquired land.\nHeld: Market value includes potential use, inflationary trends, and depreciation. Compensation must reflect these considerations.\n________________________________________\n(b) Land Acquisition Act (1894), Sections 23 & 24\nKey Issue: Residential and commercial value.\nHeld: Evidence showed the land's shift from agriculture to commercial use. Reference Court's assessment adjusted accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Land Acquisition Act, 1894=17(4),18,4,23,24,28,34 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=96 ", + "Case #": "RYA. No. 39 of 1989, decision dated: 2-06-1991. dates of hearing: 1st and 2-06-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Tassaduque Hussain AA.G. with Akhtar Musood Akhtar. Mirza Manzoor Ahmad and Mumtaz Ahmads", + "Party Name:": "PROVINCE OF PUNJAB\nvs \nMalik ALTAF AHMED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 327 = 1997 SLD 327 = 1997 SCMR 1256 = (1996) 76 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Section 34-A\nKey Issue: Set-off of losses for subsidiary companies.\nHeld: Section applies only to companies listed on stock exchanges owning entire subsidiary share capital.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Section 65\nKey Issue: Definite Information. \nHeld: Discovery of misapplied law or differing legal opinions does not constitute definite information. ", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34A,65 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.398, 399, 400 and 401-K of 1995, decision dated: 8-12-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, PANEL 20 COMPANIES and anothers\nvs\nPAKISTAN HERALD LTD. through Director, Finance and Corporate Affairs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 645 = 1999 SLD 645 = 1999 SCMR 1881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199\nKey Issue: Constitutional jurisdiction and alternative remedies.\nHeld: High Court intervention justified only if alternative remedies are inadequate or the matter involves jurisdictional errors.\n________________________________________\n(b) Customs Act (1969), Section 156\nKey Issue: Role of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).\nHeld: FIA officers can investigate and seize goods under Federal Investigation Agency Act powers, even without specific Customs Act authority.\n________________________________________\n(c) Customs Act (1969), Section 168\nKey Issue: Time extensions for seizure notifications.\nHeld: Extensions require a written notice and valid reasons. Failure to comply grants vested rights to affected parties.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Investigation Agency Act, (VIII of 1974)=5(2) Customs Act, 1969=156(l),(8),(81),(82),161(2),168(2),171,180,196 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947=5 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2138-L of 1998, decision dated: 1st June, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "KHALID MEHMOOD \nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 167 = 2007 SLD 167 = 2007 SCMR 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Punjab Civil Servants Rules (1974), Rule 14\nKey Issue: Seniority list revision.\nHeld: Orders revising seniority lists must provide reasons and comply with natural justice principles.\n________________________________________\n(b) Natural Justice:\nHeld: These principles are inherent unless expressly barred by statute.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974=14,7 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.593 to 596 of 2003, decision dated: 21st September, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SITAKIRULLAH, JAN AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. A. Basic, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.593 of 2003)\nMrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G. along with Irfan (Litigation Officer)s Nos.] and 2 (in C.As. Nos.593 of 2003)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos.3 and 6 (in Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2003)\nDr. A. Basit, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeal No. 594 of 2003)\nMrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G.s Nos.1 and 2 (in C.As. Nos.594 of 2003)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court No. 3 (in C.As. Nos.594 of 2003)\nMrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G.s (in Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2003)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem Advocate Supreme Courts Nos.1 and 17 (in Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2003)\nDr. A. Basit, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records Nos.3 to 13 (in Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2003)\nMrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G.s (in Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2003)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED ZAFAR and others\nvs\nGOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 168 = 2007 SLD 168 = 2007 SCMR 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Displaced Persons Act (1958), Section 10\nKey Issue: Allotment of evacuee property.\nHeld: Allotment of evacuee trust property by Settlement Authorities was illegal. Only Evacuee Trust Board has jurisdiction.\n________________________________________\n(b) Void Orders:\nHeld: Government is not bound to implement orders based on forged or invalid documents.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958=10 Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975=2 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2001, decision dated: 17-10-2006, hearing DATE : 9-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in both cases)\nNajamul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court No. 1 (in both cases)\nMian Qamar-uz-Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 3 (in C.A. No. 1588 of 2001)\nIhsanul Haq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for (Respondents Nos.4-6 (in C.A. No. 1587 of 2001) ands Nos.5-7 (in C.A. No. 1588 of 2001)", + "Party Name:": "PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, LahorE\nvs\nAKHTAR ALI KHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 43 = 2009 SLD 43 = 2009 SCMR 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) — Section 5\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of dispensing with a regular inquiry in departmental proceedings.\n2.\nAdequacy of the opportunity afforded for defense.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDispensing with Inquiry: It was held that in cases involving factual controversies, dispensing with a regular inquiry undermines the fair opportunity afforded to a civil servant to rebut charges. Regular inquiries are necessary to uphold justice unless exceptional circumstances justify their omission.\n•\nOpportunity to Defend: The court found that the civil servant was adequately informed of the charges and afforded a personal hearing before a high-powered committee. This satisfied the legal requirement for a fair defense process.\n•\nCompetent Authority’s Discretion: Under Section 5(4), the authority retains discretion to decide if formal inquiries are necessary. The Supreme Court affirmed that the departmental process complied with the statutory framework.\n•\nSupreme Court’s Decision: Leave to appeal was refused as no substantial questions of public importance were raised. The Service Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal was upheld as it was based on cogent reasoning and lawful authority.\nNotable Cases Cited:\n•\nSecretary to Government of N.W.F.P. v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413\n•\nEngineer Naraindas v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 82", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)=5 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1341 of 2008, decision dated: 16-12-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M, JAVED BUTTAR AND IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM SHABBIR SHEIKH\nvs\nCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, QUETTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (QESCO), QUETTA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 843 = 2003 SLD 843 = (2002) 259 ITR 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth-tax Act (1957), Section 7, Rule 2\nKey Issues:\n1.\nProcedural impact of omitting Rule 2 and introducing Schedule III.\n2.\nWhether omission affects rights and liabilities.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nProcedural Nature of Rule 2: Rule 2, which prescribed valuation methods, was deemed procedural. The omission and replacement with Schedule III had no bearing on substantive rights. Procedural rules govern the method of implementation and do not confer substantive entitlements.\n•\nApplication of Amended Law: All pending cases were to be governed by Schedule III. Rule 2 could not be invoked after its omission. The Department’s attempt to proceed under Rule 2 was declared invalid.\n•\nNo Retrospective Application: Omitted rules cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated. In this case, Schedule III was prospective, covering pending cases.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nProcedural changes are prospective unless expressly made retrospective.\n•\nOmitted rules do not invoke Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which applies only to repeals of statutes.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "G.A. NO. 2639 OF 2002 (A.P.O.T. NO. 461 OF 2002, W.P. NO. 4256 OF 1987), JANUARY 29, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. SETH AND R.N. SINHA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Bharat Hari Singhania\nv.\nWealth Tax Officer" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 844 = 2003 SLD 844 = (2003) 261 ITR 488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1961), Section 201(1A)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether interest liability for delayed deduction or non-payment is mandatory.\n2.\nCalculation of interest under Section 201(1A).\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nMandatory Nature of Interest: The use of shall in Section 201(1A) makes the imposition of interest mandatory and absolute. The liability arises automatically upon non-payment or delay in deduction of tax at source.\n•\nRelevance of Actual Payment: The actual payment date determines the end of the liability period but does not negate the initial default.\n•\nAppeal’s Rejection: The court rejected the appeal, stating it lacked substantial legal questions and upheld the mandatory nature of the provision.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nGrindlays Bank Ltd. v. CIT (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2002, JANUARY 16, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. SETH AND R.N. SINHA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Kanoi Industries (P.) Ltd.\nv.\nAsstt. Commissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 97 = 1981 SLD 97 = 1981 PTD 168 = (1981) 44 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1922), Section 10(2)(xvi)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAllowability of gratuity provisions as deductible expenses.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDefinite Accrued Liability: Provisions for gratuity, being statutory obligations under labor laws, were considered ascertained liabilities. The absence of actual disbursement did not undermine their deductibility.\n•\nAccrual Principle: The provision was treated as a business expense incurred during the accounting year under a consistent accounting method.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi),13 West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)=12(6) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 627/K8 of 1979-80, decision dated: 26-05-1981, hearing DATE : 11-08-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Akbar G. Merchant, F. C. A.. Abrar Ahmad, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 88 = 1984 SLD 88 = 1984 PTD 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1922), Section 13\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLegitimacy of rejecting accounts based on low gross profits or the absence of a daily stock register.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nNo Arbitrary Rejection: The absence of a stock register or a lower gross profit margin cannot justify rejecting the accounts unless supported by evidence of discrepancies.\n•\nBurden on Tax Authorities: Tax officers must demonstrate material deficiencies to reject accounts. Arbitrary assessments without evidence violate legal standards.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nMuhammadi Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner (East), Karachi", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 72, 7s and 39 of 1973, decision dated: 22-12-1983, hearing DATE : 1st November, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naseem Pasha. Nasrullah A war fur Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messes ZAFAR SALEEM BROS. LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 144 = 1985 SLD 144 = 1985 PTD 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1961), Sections 32, 72\nKey Issues:\n1.\nPriority in adjusting unabsorbed depreciation versus development rebate.\n2.\nWhether depreciation can be carried forward if not claimed.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nPriority of Adjustment: Unabsorbed depreciation takes precedence over development rebates. The scheme prioritizes depreciation in offsetting current profits.\n•\nIrrevocable Election: Failure to claim depreciation in a given year forfeits the right to carry it forward. Depreciation is discretionary but, once foregone, cannot be revived.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 188 of 1974, decision dated: 30-09-1984, hearing DATE : 5th September 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HYDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN OIL MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 145 = 1985 SLD 145 = 1985 PTD 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Duty Act (1953), Section 10\nKey Issues:\n1.\nGift validity and donor's continued benefit.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nNo Includability in Estate: The mere presence of gifted amounts in a firm where the donor was a partner does not prove continued donor control. Benefits must be directly linked to the gift for Section 10 to apply.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCED v. Kamlavati 1979", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Report No. 526 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd January, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Nasrullah Await", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS M. E. J. HAZARI AND SONS\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 378 = 1994 SLD 378 = (1994) 70 TAX 251 = (1994) 206 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (1979), Section 65\nKey Issues:\n1.\nReopening assessments based on reinterpretation of existing facts.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nImproper Reopening: Reassessments require new material evidence, not a mere change in interpretation. The tax officer exceeded jurisdiction in reopening closed matters.\n•\nExhaustion of Remedies: Constitutional petitions challenging assessment actions must demonstrate inadequate alternative remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),32,72,73 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 518 OF 1977, APRIL 2, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G.S. Jetly and P.S. Jetly for the Applicant. Soli Dastur and V.H. Patil for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nPremier Automobiles Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 390 = 1993 SLD 390 = (1993) 68 TAX 209 = (1991) 187 ITR 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (1979), Section 65\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLegal standards for reopening assessments.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nImproper Jurisdiction: Without new material evidence, reopening assessments amounts to abuse of power.\n•\nFinality of Assessments: Tax officers cannot reassess previously settled matters under the guise of a different interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1953=10,64(3) ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NO. 128 OF 1979, APRIL 4,1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RATNAM AND SOMASUNDARAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Meenakshisundaram for the Applicant. C.V. Rajan for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Estate of Late M. Ayyamutu Pillai\nvs\nController of Estate Duty" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 391 = 1993 SLD 391 = (1993) 68 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) – Section 4(2-B), Section 23\nKey Issues:\n1.\nExcess stock deemed as undisclosed income.\n2.\nDefinition of income from undisclosed sources.\n3.\nBurden of proof for exemptions.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nExcess Stock as Income: Excess gram stock pledged with a bank was treated as unrecorded investment and deemed income from the previous year under Section 4(2-B).\n•\nUndisclosed Income Definition: Income from undisclosed sources includes income from a known line of business but not disclosed and income from entirely unknown sources.\n•\nBurden of Proof: The assessee must substantiate the source of income or investment. Failure allows tax authorities to presume its assessable nature.\n•\nJudicial Precedents: Established that income's source must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise, it is assessable.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nA. Gobindarajulu Madaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958)\n•\nAuto Store v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1964)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=223A,151,63,65,63(4),61,62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=44 Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=170,22 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 58 and 65 of 1992, decision dated: 21-2-1993, hearing DATE : 30-1-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Rafique Dar, Advocate, for the Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER MIRPUR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 139 = 1988 SLD 139 = 1988 PTD 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1961) – Section 80HH, Section 80HHC\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether bank interest qualifies as income derived from industrial undertakings.\n2.\nApplicability of export-related deductions.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nIndustrial Undertaking Exclusion: Interest on deposits was linked to banking activities rather than industrial undertakings and hence excluded from Section 80HH deductions.\n•\nExport Deductions Valid: The same interest income, assessed under profits and gains of business, qualified for Section 80HHC export deductions.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Jameel Leathers & Uppers (2000)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched.,32(3),22,16,17,19,22,30,SecondSched.,116 Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=11 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5727/LB to 5729/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 28-11-1987, hearing DATE : 12-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir. M. Nawaz Malik, L.A. and Nazeer Ahmad Saleemi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 454 = 2005 SLD 454 = 2005 PTD 1819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.385 of 2001, DATE 02/12/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSITCE AND BASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Habib Rafique (Pvt.) Ltd. VS Customs Appellate Tribunal" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 455 = 2005 SLD 455 = 2005 PTD 1823", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,8,14,18,199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-22 of 2005, dated 21/04/2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal \nVS \nMember (Customs) Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 456 = 2005 SLD 456 = 2005 PTD 1825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.19436 of 2004, dated 05/05/2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Haji Muhammad Ikram \nvs \nTaxation officer of Income Tax and Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 457 = 2005 SLD 457 = 2005 PTD 1826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=15,156(1),156(9),156(14),181 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 423 to 439 of 2003, dated 10/06/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALL SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 155 = 1990 SLD 155 = 1990 PTD 155 = (1990) 61 TAX 105 = 1990 PLD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (1979), Section 65\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLegal standards for reopening assessments.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nImproper Jurisdiction: Without new material evidence, reopening assessments amounts to abuse of power.\n•\nFinality of Assessments: Tax officers cannot reassess previously settled matters under the guise of a different interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-1 of 1983, decision dated: 16-05-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate on-Records. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Ghaury, Advocate on-Record and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate on-Records", + "Party Name:": "EDULJI DINSHAW LIMITED\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 156 = 1990 SLD 156 = 1990 PTD 821 = (1990) 62 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) – Section 4(2-B), Section 23\nKey Issues:\n1.\nExcess stock deemed as undisclosed income.\n2.\nDefinition of income from undisclosed sources.\n3.\nBurden of proof for exemptions.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nExcess Stock as Income: Excess gram stock pledged with a bank was treated as unrecorded investment and deemed income from the previous year under Section 4(2-B).\n•\nUndisclosed Income Definition: Income from undisclosed sources includes income from a known line of business but not disclosed and income from entirely unknown sources.\n•\nBurden of Proof: The assessee must substantiate the source of income or investment. Failure allows tax authorities to presume its assessable nature.\n•\nJudicial Precedents: Established that income's source must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise, it is assessable.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nA. Gobindarajulu Madaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958)\n•\nAuto Store v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1964)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(2B),23,22(4A),3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1977 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 6-R of 1976, decision dated: 13-06-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.H. Najfi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record. M. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs Haji MAULA BUX CORPORATION LIMITED, SARGODHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1619 = 2002 SLD 1619 = (2002) 258 ITR 749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1961) – Section 80HH, Section 80HHC\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether bank interest qualifies as income derived from industrial undertakings.\n2.\nApplicability of export-related deductions.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nIndustrial Undertaking Exclusion: Interest on deposits was linked to banking activities rather than industrial undertakings and hence excluded from Section 80HH deductions.\n•\nExport Deductions Valid: The same interest income, assessed under profits and gains of business, qualified for Section 80HHC export deductions.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Jameel Leathers & Uppers (2000)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80HH,80HHCand80-I ", + "Case #": "T.C. NO. 27 OF 1998 OCTOBER 7, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJ PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "U. Nareshkumar for the Applicant. M.P. Senthilkumar for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nN.S.C. Shoes" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1620 = 2002 SLD 1620 = (2002) 258 ITR 761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Finance Act (No. 2 of 1998) – Section 91\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope of immunity under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS).\n2.\nRefund entitlement after settlement.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nSeparate Tax Liabilities: The KVSS settlement by a company does not extend immunity to directors or officers for their separate liabilities.\n•\nNo Refund Post Settlement: Directors and officers who paid amounts under protest could not claim refunds due to statutory prohibitions in Section 93.\n•\nPending Appeal Scope: Appeals pending adjudication were treated as ongoing for KVSS applicability, ensuring co-noticees benefited equally.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nOnkar S. Kanwar v. Union of India (2001)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6260-6265 OF 2000 AND 633 TO 642 OF 2002 SEPTEMBER 27, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ganesh, Joseph Vellapally, K. Swami, Mrs. Nisha Bagchi, K.C. Kaushik, B.K. Prasad, M.P. Vinod, P.K. Ram, A.K. Jain, Deepak Prakash, Bobby Lal and Tarun Gulati for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "Union of India\nvs\nOnkar S. Kanwar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 244 = 1992 SLD 244 = 1992 PTD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) – Section 66(1)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nHigh Court’s scope in interfering with facts established by the Tribunal.\n2.\nApplication of res judicata in income-tax cases.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nFindings of Fact: High Courts cannot substitute their findings for those of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal unless irrational or based on irrelevant material.\n•\nRes Judicata Flexibility: Prior tax decisions are not strictly binding if evidence is deficient or fresh material arises.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nOmar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT (1959)\n•\nMessrs Ellahi & Co. v. CIT (1963)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.104-K to 111-K of 1984, decision dated: 23rd May, 1991. DATE bf hearing: 13-05-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, AJMAL MIAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record. Respondents. Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B\nvs\nMessrs FARROKH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 221 = 1993 SLD 221 = 1993 PTD 1172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (1979) – Sections 65 & 13(1)(aa)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAuthority of Commissioner during revision.\n2.\nDuty of the Commissioner as a judicial officer.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nProper Process for Additions: The Commissioner must delete unsustainable additions instead of remanding them for rectification.\n•\nJudicial Responsibility: Commissioners are held to high standards when exercising judicial functions, distinguishing them from administrative roles.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 80/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: 2-03-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P.. Muhammad Nawaz, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 204 = 1994 SLD 204 = 1994 PTD 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (1979) – Section 13\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRejection of books of accounts based on procedural gaps.\n2.\nValidity of inferred suppression without evidence.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nNo Arbitrary Rejection: Books cannot be rejected for lacking consumption/production details unless linked to positive evidence of income suppression.\n•\nBurden on Tax Authorities: Tax officials must substantiate claims of irregularities or discrepancies.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nIndus Textile Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1989)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.68, 69, 70 and 71 of 1990, decision dated: 12-10-1993, hearing DATE : 21st April, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "PIMPA (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 328 = 1997 SLD 328 = (1996) 75 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (1979) – Section 50(2B)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of withholding tax on call deposit receipts.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nClarification on Scope: Withholding tax under Section 50(2B) applies only where monetary transfer occurs. Call deposit receipts involving no such transfer were excluded.\n•\nLegislative Intent: Amendments in 1996 clarified and extended tax applicability, which did not apply retrospectively.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(2B) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6430 of 1996 heard on 13-11-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD OAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Iqbal Hashmi and lkramul Haq, Advocates, for the Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shahbaz Butt Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK AND OTHERS\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 329 = 1997 SLD 329 = (1996) 75 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income-tax Act (1961) – Section 186\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of a firm’s registration when minors are treated as full partners.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nInvalid Instrument of Partnership: A minor cannot assume full partner status under partnership law. Such partnerships are ineligible for registration or renewal.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Kirana Traders (1986)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=186 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 5 of 1983, decision dated: 15-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.V. Surte, S.P. Surte and Sunil Mandlol, Advocates, for the Applicant. Dr. V Balasubramaniam, J.P. Devadhar and Mrs. S. Bhattacharya, Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JEWAT LADHUBHAI SHAH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 330 = 1997 SLD 330 = (1996) 75 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income-tax Act (1961) – Sections 17, 13\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of charitable exemptions to religious trusts.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nCharitable and Religious Nature: Composite trusts combining religious and charitable purposes are exempt from Section 13(1)(b) restrictions, which apply to purely charitable entities.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. A.A. Bibijiwala Trust (1975)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=17,13,13(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 900 to 903/(AHD) of 1979 decided on 3-11-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MB. SHAH AND, J.M. PANCHAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.J. Shelat and M.R. Bhatt Advocates, for the Applicant. D.A. Mehta and K. C. Patel, Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBARKATE SAIFIYAH SOCIETY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 331 = 1997 SLD 331 = (1996) 75 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income-tax Act (1961) – Section 256\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSufficiency of a single reference application for consolidated appeals.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nConsolidated Proceedings: When appeals for a single assessee in one assessment year are disposed of together, a single reference suffices. Separate applications are required for different assessment years.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nAgents P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Original Petitions Nos. 974 and 975 of 1992, decision dated: 23-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T.L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K.K. USHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MANI AND CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 13 = 2013 SLD 13 = (2013) 107 TAX 21 = 2013 PTD 398 = 2013 PTCL 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 214-C\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of audit selection process.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nFresh Process Mandated: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) must initiate audits strictly per statutory guidelines, ensuring procedural compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=214C Federal Excise Act, 2005=42B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,23,72B ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.30786/2012, decision dated: 28-12-2012, hearing DATE ; 26th, 27th & 28-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed A. Andrabi and Javed Iqbal Qazi. Advocates, Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Shaharyar Kasuri, Shahbaz Butt, M. M. Akram Awan, Mian Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Muhammad Anwaar-ul-Haq and Mian Masood Ahmad, Advocates, for the PetitionersMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate alongwith M. Majid Qureshi, Chief (Taxpayers Audit), Islamabad, Nadim Rizvi, Commissioner Inland", + "Party Name:": "PREMIER INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 14 = 2013 SLD 14 = (2013) 107 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 122(5A)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRevisional authority of Commissioners over their own orders.\n2.\nAvailability of alternate remedies.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nCommissioner’s Authority: Section 122(5A) authorizes Commissioners to amend assessments, treating revisions as independent from prior orders.\n•\nNo Bypass of Remedies: Taxpayers must exhaust departmental remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009)", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122-(5A),122(9) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.2412/2009, decision dated: 12-4-2012, hearing DATE : 11th & 12-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Sikandar, Ali Sibtain Fazli, Sirdar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, Raja Nowsherwan Akhtar and Abid Aziz Sheikh, Advocates, for the PetitionersAyyaz Shaukat and Hafiz Munawar Iqbal and Mrs Farhat Zafar Advocates, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. ISLAMABAD\nvs\nADDL. COMMISSIONER (UNIT-II), TAXATION OFFICER, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 15 = 2013 SLD 15 = (2013) 107 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 24, 120, & 122(5A)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) expenses.\n2.\nInterpretation of intangible under Section 24.\n3.\nCondonation of delay in appeal.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nIntangible Misinterpretation: The forums below incorrectly emphasized the advantage of expenses over more than one year. Section 24 pertains only to intellectual property or incorporeal properties with a life exceeding a year.\n•\nVSS as Salary Expense: Payments under VSS qualify as salary under Section 12(2)(e)(iii) and are deductible unless they violate Section 21 (e.g., non-deduction of tax). Recharacterizing VSS expenses for amortization purposes was deemed improper.\n•\nCondonation of Delay: The Commissioner’s discretion in condoning a three-day delay was upheld as valid.\n•\nDecision: The forums were not justified in treating VSS expenses as intangibles under Section 24. Appeal accepted; departmental appeal rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12(2)(e)(iii),21,24,120,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 442/IB/2010, (Tax Year 2008) decided on 31-07-2012, I.T.A. No. 463/IB/2010, (Tax Year 2008), hearing DATE : 01-06-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND QURBAN ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Tahir Khan, DR, for the Appellant/Respondent Khalid Mehmood, FCA, for the Respondent/Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Department\nvs\nTaxpayer" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 16 = 2013 SLD 16 = (2013) 107 TAX 77 = 2013 PTD 306 = 2013 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Section 221\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRectification of mistakes in tax assessments.\n2.\nExpunction of specific paragraphs in a Tribunal order.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nStatus of Revised Returns: Returns revised before substitution of Section 114(6) gained the status of amended assessments, rendering show-cause notices invalid.\n•\nObiter Dicta Removal: Certain paragraphs (7, 8, and 9) discussing secondary appeals were deemed irrelevant and expunged under Section 221, as they were not pressed before the President.\n•\nFinal Order: The secondary appeals were marked as dismissed being not pressed, maintaining the main decision on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. Nos. 569/LB of 2011 and M.A. No. 9/LB, 10/LB & 11/LB of 2012 (Tax Years 2005 & 2006), decision dated: 25-6-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asif Hashmi, L.A. for the Appellant Imran Rashid, Advocate (as amicus curiae) for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 124 = 1996 SLD 124 = 1996 PTD 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963) – Section 2(e)(ii)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRetrospective effect of explanatory amendments.\n2.\nNature of explanations in statutes.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nClarificatory Nature: Amendments introduced via explanations in Section 2(e)(ii) were deemed declaratory and retrospective.\n•\nPrinciples of Interpretation: Legislative clarifications aim to resolve ambiguities and must be read to reflect legislative intent.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nB.P. Biscuit Factory Ltd. v. Wealth Tax Officer", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(e)(ii), ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 10195 of 1991, 12254 of 1992 and 107 of 1993, heard on 27-11-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Saqib Nisar for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan No. 1", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIJAZ (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive Riaz A. Gul, Lahore\nvs\nTHE WEALTH TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE III, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 537 = 1998 SLD 537 = 1998 PTD 1103 = (1998) 77 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax and Insurance Companies\nKey Issues:\n1.\nUnearned vs. earned income for insurance companies.\n2.\nReserve for unexpired risks and their tax treatment.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nEarned Income: Premiums are treated as earned income upon receipt, but net income is realized only after the policy's expiration.\n•\nReserve for Risks: Provisions for unexpired risks are legitimate liabilities as per the Insurance Act (Section 27-A) and Income Tax regulations.\n•\nRegulatory Compliance: Provisions for taxation and reserves were upheld, ensuring consistency with statutory requirements.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. (1981)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,FourthSched.,R.5,6,25,26(a),ThirdSched.,R.8(8)(a),12,111,80D,49 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A),10(7),25,12,24(1) Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=27A,11 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 150/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 13-08-1997. dates of hearing: 29th July and 1st August, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq Memon. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, E.U. Khawaja, Muhammad Farid, Muhammad Jawaid Khurram, Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A., arshad Siraj. Tai-yab G. Adeeb, F.C.A., Saqib Masood, C.A., Noor Muhammad. C.A., Muhammad Salecm, C.A., S.M. Sohail, A.C.A., Amin Malik, A.C.A., Tahir Muchalla, C.A., S.M. Tanauli, I.T.P., Muhammad Rafique, I.T.P. and Khaliqur Rehmans. Ali Nasir Bukhari, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 691 = 2001 SLD 691 = 2001 PTD 3090 = (2001) 84 TAX 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 62\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of show-cause notices under Section 62.\n2.\nConstitutional petitions challenging tax notices.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nJurisdiction of Notices: Show-cause notices under Section 62 were issued as part of due process, seeking clarification from the taxpayer.\n•\nExhaustion of Remedies: Constitutional petitions are discouraged when statutory remedies (appeals) are available.\n•\nPrinciple of Res Judicata: Not applicable in tax cases, as each assessment year is treated as independent.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nAttock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1999)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),55,61,62,59A,79,80C Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-324 and Miscellaneous No. 867 of 2001, decision dated: 18-06-2001. dates of hearing 19th and 26-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fatehali Vellani for Petitioner. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasis", + "Party Name:": "ROCHE PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 282 = 2003 SLD 282 = 2003 PTD 1972", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Sections 62 & 144\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRejection of taxpayer accounts.\n2.\nFailure to issue notices under Section 144.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nImproper Rejection: Accounts cannot be rejected solely on unverifiable sales without sufficient basis or issuance of a Section 144 notice to the concerned parties.\n•\nFair Process: Tax authorities must provide proper reasoning and evidence before disregarding declared income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=144,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5856/LB of 1995, decision dated: 19-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Riaz Hussain. Abdul Rasheed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 230 = 2004 SLD 230 = 2004 PTD 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) – Sections 194-A & 195\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRight of appeal for customs officers.\n2.\nDetermination of customs values and alleged misdeclarations.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAppeals by Officers: The right of customs officers to appeal under Section 194-A was introduced by the Finance Ordinance, 2000, and was not retrospective. Orders passed before this amendment attained finality.\n•\nMisdeclaration: Claims of misdeclaration require conclusive evidence of intent (mens rea) and proper classification of goods. The reliance on price lists without verifying seized goods was deemed procedurally flawed.\n•\nPrinciples of Interpretation: Substantive rights such as the right to appeal cannot be retroactively applied unless explicitly stated.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nMessrs Latif Brothers v. Deputy Collector of Customs (1982)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=194 Customs Act, 1969=25,30,32 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.40, 29 and 30 of 2002, decision dated: 21st October, 2003, hearing DATE : 6-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMAD AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.S. Athar Minallah and Qazi M. Naeem. Raja Khalid Ismail Abbasi No-3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INNOVATIVE TRADING COMPANY LTD\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1364 = 2016 SLD 1364 = 2016 MLD 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Sections 144, 151; Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.71\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRestitution under Section 144 CPC after setting aside an ex parte decree.\n2.\nTrial Court’s dismissal of restitution application.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nRestitution Principle: The judgment-debtors, having satisfied the ex parte decree, were entitled to restitution after the decree was set aside. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 144 CPC due to procedural defects.\n•\nCorrection of Defects: The Trial Court had the power to rectify procedural deficiencies, such as adding the missing party, instead of dismissing the application.\n•\nEntitlement to Restitution: Judgment-debtors must be restored to their original position prior to the decree. Delaying restitution pending adjudication of the main suit was unwarranted.\n•\nOutcome: The Trial Court's order was set aside, and the restitution application was remanded for adjudication on merits.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Code of Civil Procedure of 1882=O.VII,R.2,104,144,151,O.XLIII,Rr.1,Rr.2 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=71 ", + "Case #": "C.F.A. No. 3 of 2012, decision dated: 19-08-2015.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAHIB KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND YAR MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND 5 OTHERS \nVS\nHASSAN SADPARA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 189 = 2005 SLD 189 = 2005 PTD 14 = (2005) 91 TAX 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Sections 156 & 62; Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 221\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of limitation periods under different ordinances.\n2.\nSubstantive vs. procedural rights in tax rectifications.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nLimitation Rules: Rectifications under Section 156 of the 1979 Ordinance were subject to a four-year limitation, which had expired before the introduction of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance.\n•\nAccrued Rights: A vested substantive right attained through the expiration of the limitation period cannot be undone by subsequent legislation.\n•\nOutcome: Rectification after the prescribed limitation period under the earlier ordinance was deemed invalid, even under the extended provisions of the later ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,156,156(4),80D,118C,118D,118E oftheSecond Schedule Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,221(1A),221(4) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16021 of 2003, decision dated: 21st October, 2004, hearing DATE : 24-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAWAD TEXTILES MILLS LTD. through Director, Lahore\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 400 = 2004 SLD 400 = 2004 PTD 2246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a) Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1082 of 2003, dated 19/04/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Ltd., Lahore \nVS \nSecretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 233 = 2004 SLD 233 = 2004 PTCL 532 = 2005 PTD 152 = (2005) 92 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Sections 114, 120, 177\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAudit selection criteria and procedural fairness.\n2.\nRequirement of notice and reasons for audit selection.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAudit Selection: The Commissioner has the authority to select cases for audit under Section 177 based on criteria provided by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) or at their discretion.\n•\nNotice Requirements: Even in the absence of specific statutory provisions, the principles of fairness demand that reasons for selection be disclosed to the taxpayer.\n•\nJudicial Oversight: Audit notices issued without proper justification or disclosure of reasons are subject to challenge.\n•\nOutcome: Notices lacking justification or appearing arbitrary were declared void, ensuring accountability in audit processes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(6),120,120(b),22(4),175,176,177,177(1)(d),208,215 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.9926, 10056 to 10059, 10103, 10104, 10108, 10124, 10126, 10132, 10148 to 10150, 10238, 12280 of 2004, decision dated: 21st July, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Shahbaz Ahmed Butt, Shafqat Mehmood Chohan and Muhammad Latif Qureshi for Petitioners. Shahid Jamil Khan, Legal Advisor", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 439 = 2004 SLD 439 = 2004 PTD 2827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,53(3)(B),66A,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1004/LB of 2001, 11/10/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 433 = 2004 SLD 433 = 2004 PTD 2425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=2(s),16,156(1),156(8),156(89),157(2),181 Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3(1) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 81/PB of 2003, dated 06/05/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 455 = 2004 SLD 455 = 2004 PTD 2700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,61,62,66(1),66(1)(c),136,136(5),148,156 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=98 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect.) Nos.272 and 273/KB of 2003, dated 17/09/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN LQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 451 = 2004 SLD 451 = 2004 PTD 2741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46),2(46)(a)(i),2(46)(c),3,7(1),7(2),8(2),13(1),33,34,36 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2837-L, 2921-L, 2929-L, 2942-L, 2946-L, 2997-L to 3000-L, 3075-L, 3076-L, 3084-L, 3085-L, 3089-L, 3157-L to 3163-L, 3172-L and 3220-L of 2003 and 158-L to 163-L, 191-L of 2004, dated 11/02/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Chanar Sugar Mills Ltd. And Others \nVS \nCollector Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Faisalabad And Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 272 = 2006 SLD 272 = 2006 PTD 460 = (2006) 93 TAX 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Sections 2(4), 24(g)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDeductibility of gratuity payments.\n2.\nRequirement of an approved gratuity fund.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nGratuity Fund: To claim deductions for gratuity payments, an approved gratuity fund must exist. Mere provisions or earmarked liabilities are insufficient without formal approval.\n•\nStatutory Compliance: Non-compliance with the legal framework governing gratuity funds invalidates deduction claims.\n•\nOutcome: Claims for gratuity deductions without an approved fund were disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(4),24(g),24(h),Sixth SchedulePart-III ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 368 of 1999, decision dated: 6-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Jawaid Farooqui\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nVS\nMESSRS M. M. SILK MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 273 = 2006 SLD 273 = 2006 PTCL 268 = 2006 PTD 734 = (2006) 93 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Sections 122(5), 122(5A)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRevisional jurisdiction under Section 122(5A).\n2.\nProcedural fairness in tax assessments.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDistinct Jurisdictions: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 122(5A) is distinct from the original jurisdiction under Section 122(5) and requires the existence of an assessment order.\n•\nPreconditions for Revision: The assessment order must be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests to warrant revision.\n•\nOutcome: The procedural safeguards and jurisdictional requirements under Section 122 were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),(5A),120,114,115,153 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-378 of 2005, decision dated: 24-01-2006, hearing DATE : 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. A.R. Akhtars Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "FAUJI OIL TERMINAL AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER/TAXATION OFFICER-A, AUDIT DIVISION, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 274 = 2006 SLD 274 = 2006 PTD 2368 = (2006) 93 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S. 136---Reference to High Court---Question not arising out of order of Tribunal---Effect---Such question would not require verdict by High Court.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 50(5) & 80-DD---Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971), S.4---Edible oil import of---Collection of tax at import stage---Workers' Welfare Fund, charging of---Validity---Such tax would be deemed to be minimum amount of tax payable by assessee---Section 80-DD, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and other similar provisions had not rendered invalid charging of such fund in any manner---Income presumed to have been accrued to assessee could neither be taken to be his total income nor same could be said to have been assessed or assessable under provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Basis for computation of such Fund would vanish in case of assessee covered by presumptive tax regime---Such fund would be chargeable on real income of industrial concern, but not on presumptive income---Principles. \n \nElahi Cotton Mill's case PLD 1997 SC 852; 2002 PTD 1023; (1954) 25 ITR 79; (1071) 81 IT 807; (1998) 125 ITR 630 and (1975) 99 ITR 118 ref.\n \n(c) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Deeming provisions in a statute---Effect---Such provisions could not be spelled over other provisions in statute and would be construed strictly within four corners of their objects. \n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S. 50---Deduction of tax at source---Effect---Such deduction, if construed to be final discharge of liability of assessee under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, then any further charge with reference to provisions of another law could not be justified---Principles.\n \nWhere law expressly holds out to an assessee that in case of particular receipts, the deduction made at source in respect thereof shall be construed as final discharge of liability under the Income Tax Ordinance, then any further charge with reference to the provisions contained in another legislation cannot be justified.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,50(5),80DD Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Appeal No.13 of 2005, decision dated: 10-07-2006, hearing DATE : 5-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EJAZ AFZAL KHAN AND HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idress. Eid Muhammad Khattaks", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LATIF GHEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY ZONE, PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 170 = 2007 SLD 170 = 2007 PTD 239 = (2007) 95 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 177\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSelection for total audit.\n2.\nConfidentiality of audit selection criteria.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nScope of Audit Powers: Audit selection is at the discretion of the Commissioner based on CBR guidelines or their own assessment under Section 177(4).\n•\nConfidential Criteria: Disclosure of audit criteria in advance can undermine tax compliance. However, the selection must still be justified to prevent abuse of discretion.\n•\nOutcome: The Commissioner’s selection powers were upheld, provided they adhered to statutory and fairness requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,122,177(3),114,120 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 5471, 5472, 5473, 5398, 5417 and 6331 of 2006, decision dated: 30-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Safqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shahid Jameel Khan-Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. through Director\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 17 = 2013 SLD 17 = 2013 PTD 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----S. 177---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.25---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S.46---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Implementation of ---High Court in petitioners earlier constitutional petition had held that notices issued to petitioners by Commissioner Inland Revenue under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; under S.25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.46 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 selecting their cases for audit of their tax affairs were illegal and without lawful authority and that such authority only lay with the Federal Board of Revenue through Computer Balloting---Petitioners sought implementation of the passed by High Court in constitutional petition filed by it earlier---Validity---Held, authorities were essentially required to comply and follow passed by High Court until and unless it was reversed or some interim relief was granted by the Supreme Court in favour of authorities, which did not exist till that date---High Court directed the authorities to comply with passed by it in earlier constitutional petition---Petition was disposed of accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 Federal Excise Act, 2005=46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Sales Tax Act, 1990=25 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15432 of 2012, decision dated: 5-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Mobeen Ashraf for Petitioner. Saeed ur Rehmans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LALA MUSA FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS, GUJRAT through Managing Partner\nvs\nCHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 171 = 2007 SLD 171 = 2007 PTD 744 = (2007) 95 TAX 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Ss. 65(1), 134 & 136---Notice under S.65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Notice was alleged to be invalid for not specifying as to whether same was issued in terms of S. 65(1)(a) or (b) or (c) thereof---Raising of such question by assessee before Appellate Authority finding mentioned in its order---Appellate Tribunal dismissed appeal of assessee for not raising such question before Appellate Authority---Validity---Real matter in controversy having not been adjudicated upon by Tribunal, High Court remanded case to Tribunal to decide the same afresh after hearing parties.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(1),65(1)(b),65(1)(c),134,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.683 of 1999, decided 30-11-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt. Shahid Jamils", + "Party Name:": "MEHMOOD AHMAD\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 172 = 2007 SLD 172 = 2007 PTD 803 = (2007) 95 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S.64---General Clause Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Limitation for assessment---Service of assessment order---Annulment of assessment order by the First Appellate Authority by holding that limitation provided under S.64 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 included service up to the said 30th June---Validity---Provision of S.64 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 applied on the process of assessment which stood completed on making an entry in the relevant registers of the department on the date of passing---If entry in the relevant registers was beyond the provision of S.64 only then the case would become barred by time---If the same stood completed before two years from the end of the assessment year in which the return was first filed, its service thereafter would not make the case as barred by time---Decision given by the First Appellate Authority was unjustified. \n \n2005 PTD (Trib.) 960 per incuriam.\n \n1966 PTD 40 rel.\n \n1991 PTD (Trib.) 26; 1998 PTCL CL 372 and 1974 (93) ITR p.215 distinguished.\n \nITR 1960 Supreme Court 1313; 1966 PTD 40; M.S. Shah Jewana Textile Mills Limited v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 2023; Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423; (1977) 75 Tax 108 (Trib.); Jowwitt's Dictionary of English Law, Second Edition; Bourier's Law Dictionary; Bellentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition and Law Dictionary by Max Radin and Words and Phrses First Edn. By D. Varagarajan ref.\n \n(b) Judgment---\n \n----\"\"Per incuriam\"\"---Definition---Decision delivered in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provisions or of some authority binding on the Court is decision given per incuriam. \n \nJowwitt's Dictionary of English Law, Second Edition; Bourier's Law Dictionary; Bellentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition and Law Dictionary by Max Radin rel.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Term \"\"assessed' and \"\"communicated\"\"---Term \"\"assessed\"\" as used in S.64 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could not be equated with the term \"\"communicated\"\". \n \n(d) Precedent---\n \n----Binding ---Where there was an earlier binding in field which was never disturbed by a larger bench of the Appellate Tribunal or by the Superior Courts in terms of High Court as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Court must ignore the subsequent given in ignorance of the earlier ones. \n \n(e) Judgment---\n \n----Per incuriam---Bench of higher strength or Court having a superior authority need not hold an earlier to be as per incurriam as it had no binding force on them---Concept of per incuriam only come to surface when ratio decidendi of a bench of equal strength appears to have been ignored by the other bench of the similar strength. \n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Communication and assessment---Communication to the parties was a ministerial act and it had got nothing to do with the process and procedure of assessment. \n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Process of assessment---Process of service---Effectiveness of assessment order---Passing of an order obviously would not become effective unless the parties concerned come to know of the decision therein---Generally and more particularly in the higher Courts the s were announced immediately after the hearing and the same became effective there and then---In income tax proceedings since the concept of announcing the did not exist at all, obviously it was after communication of the order that the same became effective for all purposes---Without communication in terms of service of the said order it was not only the assessee who could not be asked to pay for the consequent responsibilities but the department also could not implement the same in terms of recovery of taxes etc., unless assessee received the order as well as demand notice---Order was complete till the day it was communicated---One view could be that L was not effective or that it could not be implemented but to say that them was no order prior to the same was not a correct interpretation---Keeping the order pending for administrative reasons or other ministerial bottleneck would. not amount to non-completion of the order---Service was entirely a separate process and procedure than assessment proceedings and was consequent to an assessment order---Such two could not be mixed so as to say that the process of assessment had not completed till the order was served---Point was only that the order did not become operative but it did not mean that it was not in existence. \n \nPer Syed Aqeel Zafar ul Hasan, Accountant Member.---\n \n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Term `making' and `finalization'--Connotations---Two terms namely, `making' and `finalization' carry every different connotations---Statute speaks of 'making' as opposed to `finalization' of an assessment.\n \n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Ineffective order---Legality of---Contention that unless a tax was communicated to an assessee, it was not effective (meaning evidently that it was not recoverable) also favours an assessee but did not undermine the legality of an assessment order which did not lead to the conclusion drawn that if, for delay in communication, an order remains ineffective same was therefore no order at all. \n \n(j) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S. 64---Limitation for assessment---Terms \"\"finalized\"\" and \"\"communicated\"\"---Perception that S.64 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 says that the assessment should be `finalized' and `communicated' was at variance with law---Neither of said two terms had been employed/ mentioned in the statute. \n \n(k) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Order became effective after service---View that order became effective only after service had not evidently negated the concept of `making' an otherwise valid order. \n \n(l) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----S.64---Limitation for assessment---Judicial act i.e. of passing an order was different from communications thereof which was a ministerial act---Order made within a given time frame, could not be said to be time-barred merely because the ministerial act of service was delayed. \n \n(m) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----Ss.64 & 62---Limitation for assessment---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Section 24-A, of the General Clause Act, 1897 neither restricts the legality of an assessment on the basis of date of service thereof nor had it otherwise been shown that the power to make an order under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had been exercised unreasonably, unfairly, unjustly or was otherwise not for advancing the purpose of enactment of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. \n \n(n) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n \n----Ss.64 & 62---Limitation for assessment---Service of an assessment order---Neither S.62 nor S.64 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 required service of an assessment order within any specific time frame and only speak of an assessment by an order in writing made within two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. \n \n1991 PTD (Trib.) 26; (1998) PTCL CL 372 and 1974 (93) ITR 215 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,64 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.283-IB, 174-IB, 180-IB, 188-IB, 189-IB, 190-IB, 192-TB, 193-IB, 204-IB to 228-TB, 235-IB to 253-IB, 385-TB to 389-IB of 2006, decision dated: 2-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR-UL-HASSAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Ullah Khan, D.R. (in all I.T.As.)\nHafiz M. Idrees (in I.T.As. Nos.283/IB, 343/IB of 2006)\nSaeed Anwar Kazmi, I.T.P. (in I.T.As. Nos.174/IB, 271/IB of 2006)\nAsad Azam, F.C.A (in I.T.A. No. 180/IB of 2006)\nNemos (in I.T.As. Nos.188/IB, 189/16, 204/IB, 205/IB, 215/IB. 222/IB, 223/IB, 225/IB, 227/IB, 235/IB, 237/IB, 267/IB, 268/IB, 272/IB, 285/IB, 287/IB, 288/IB, 291/IB, 303/IB, 307/IB, 314/IB, 318/IB, 321/IB, 331/IB to 334/IB, 336/IB, 339/IB, 342/IB, 346/IB, 349/IB and 350/IB of 2006)\nZahid Hussain, A.C.M.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos.190/TB. 216/1B, 228/IB, 304/IB, of 2006)\nSohail Sabir, I.T.P.s (in I.T.As. Nos.192/IB, 193/IB, 363/TB, 364/IB of 2006)\nKaleem Ashraf, A.C.A.s (in I.T.As. Nos.206/IB to 214/IB, 226/IB, 240/IB, 269/IB, 315/IB to 317/IB, 327/IB and 389/IB or 2006)\nAurangzeb, I.T.P. (in I.T.As. Nos.217/IB, 218/IB, 273/IB, 289/IB, 386/IB of 2006)\nSaeed Hassan Khan, Accountant (in I.T.A. No. 219/TB of 2006)\nAamer Ehsan, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. No. 220/IB of 2006)\nJehangir, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. No. 221/IB of 2006)\nAbdul Hafeez, I.T.P.s (in I.T.A. No. 224/IB of 2006)\nShakeel Ahmed, I.T.P.s (in I.T.As. Nos.236/IB, 242/IB, 243/IB of 2006)\nS.A. Kazmi, I.T.P.s (in I.T.As. Nos.238/IB, 345/IB of 2006)\nZahid Masood Chathas (in I.T.As. Nos.239/IB and 244/IB of 2006)\nWaseem Ahmed Siddiqui, F.C.As (in I.T.As. Nos.241/IB, 270/IB, 286/IB of 2006)\nFarrukh Jamil, A.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.245/IB, 251/IB to 253/IB, 256/IB to 261/IB, 280/IB to 282/IB, 301/IB, 308/IB, 328/IB, 337/IB, 338/IB 341/IB, 347/IB of 2006)\nM. Moyh-ud-Din, I.T.P. (in I.T.As. Nos.246/IB to 250/IB, 265/IB, 309/IB, 330/IB, 344/IB of 2006)\nAbdul Basil, F.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.262/IB, 274/IB, 290/IB, 306/IB, 320/IB, 329/IB of 2006)\nSajid Ali, I.T.P. (in I.T.As. Nos.275/IB, 300/1B of 2006)\nAmir Ahmed, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. No. 276/IB of 2006)\nTahir Razzaq Khan, F.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.279/IB, 313/IB of 2006)\nJawaid Anwar, F.C.A. (in I.T.A. No. 284/IB of 2006)\nZubair Ahmed, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. No. 302/IB of 2006)\nRao Shabbir Ahmed (in I.T.A. No. 305/IB of 2006)\nAzam Mehmood, A.C.A. (in I.T.A. No. 322/IB of 2006)\nKhurram Shahzad, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. No. 324/IB of 2006)\nWaked Shahzad (in I.T.A. No. 348/IB of 2006)\nShaheed Ahmed, I.T.P. (in I.T.A. 362/IB of 2006)\nAhmed Ali (in I.T.A. No. 469/IB of 2006)\nKhalid Mehmood, F.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.385/IB and 388/IB of 2006)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 173 = 2007 SLD 173 = 2007 PTD 2063 = (2007) 96 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 177\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAudit selection notices lacking reasons.\n2.\nProcedural fairness and judicial intervention.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nEssential Requirements: Notices under Section 177 must disclose reasons for selecting a case for audit. Failure to do so violates principles of fairness and transparency.\n•\nJudicial Review: The High Court invalidated notices that lacked the required disclosure, emphasizing the need for accountability.\n•\nOutcome: Notices lacking sufficient reasoning were declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17187 of 2005, decision dated: 19-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Chaudhry for Petitioner. Sajjad Ali Jafri", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NESPAK (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law &Parliamentary Affairs and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 174 = 2007 SLD 174 = 2007 PTD 2188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 177 (as substituted by Finance Act, 2004)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of CBR Circular No. 7 of 2002.\n2.\nRequirement of prior notice for audit selection under new Section 177.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAudit Selection: The requirement for a prior notice for audit selection under CBR Circular No. 7 applied only under the old Section 177 and not after its substitution by the Finance Act, 2004. The substituted provision required show-cause notices only after selection.\n•\nCirculars and Substantive Law: Subordinate legislation, such as circulars, cannot override or prevail over the substituted statutory law if it conflicts with the parent Act.\n•\nNatural Justice: The principle of audi alteram partem applies when adverse action is taken, but in this case, the new provision did not require prior notice for selection.\n•\nOutcome: Pre-selection notices were not mandatory under the new law, and the substituted Section 177 took precedence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3011 of 2006, decision dated: 12-01-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. HAKIM ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner. Masud Ashraf Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "SADIQ HUSSAIN MAJID\nvs\nSECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 195 = 2008 SLD 195 = 2008 PTD 1024", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (1990) – Section 21(4); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLegality of blacklisting and suspension of registration.\n2.\nJurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO).\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nJurisdictional Error: The Additional Collector’s order for blacklisting was invalid as it lacked the approval of the Collector or delegated authority.\n•\nFTO’s Role: In the absence of a statutory appeal against blacklisting or suspension, the FTO was justified in investigating the maladministration.\n•\nOutcome: The FTO recommended revocation of the impugned order and allowed the Collector to take lawful action if required.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1588-L of 2003, decision dated: 25-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Shahid Mehmood Sheikh for the Complainant. Mazhar Waseem, D.C. (Audit)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TRUST FABRICS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 196 = 2008 SLD 196 = 2008 PTCL 558 = 2008 PTD 1715 = (2008) 98 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Section 80-D\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of remedial legislation.\n2.\nEffect of repealed charging provisions.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nRetrospective Application: Remedial or curative laws apply to pending cases if they address ambiguity or provide relief but do not apply retroactively to repeal charging provisions.\n•\nFiscal Statutes: A repeal of a charging provision does not nullify liabilities that accrued before its repeal unless explicitly stated.\n•\nOutcome: The withdrawal of a tax provision was not considered remedial or retrospective unless expressly intended by the legislature.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D General Clauses Act, 1897=6 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.48 of 2006, heard o, 27-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Applicant/Petitioner. Ms. Shahina Akbar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALHABIB FLOUR MILLS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEDIUM TAXD4YERS UNIT, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 197 = 2008 SLD 197 = 2008 PTD 1973 = (2009) 99 TAX 35 = 2009 PTCL 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – Article 165-A; Sales Tax Act (1990)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of government-owned corporations.\n2.\nJurisdiction of High Courts in fiscal matters.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDistinct Legal Entities: Government-owned corporations are taxable regardless of ultimate income destination, and their distinct legal personality is recognized.\n•\nJurisdiction: High Courts may exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when statutory remedies are inadequate or the jurisdictional mandate is violated.\n•\nOutcome: Notices beyond the three-year limitation under Section 36(2) were declared illegal, but the tax charge itself was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,36,36(2),47 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165A,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8532 of 2008, decision dated: 30-07-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Addl. A.G. Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Cheemas", + "Party Name:": "XEN SHAHPUR DIVISION\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX (APPEALS) COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 44 = 2009 SLD 44 = 2009 PTCL 204 = (2009) 99 TAX 106 = 2009 PTD 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Sections 120(1-A), 177(7)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRetrospective application of amendments.\n2.\nConstitutional jurisdiction in audit-related notices.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nNon-Retrospective Provisions: Section 120(1-A), introduced in 2005, was held not to apply retrospectively.\n•\nAudit Proceedings: Notices for audit selection under Section 177(7) were deemed lawful, even for prior years, if procedural safeguards were met.\n•\nOutcome: Constitutional petitions challenging audit notices were dismissed as premature, emphasizing the need for actual adverse action before invoking such jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1)(A),177(7) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 4114 and 4115 of 2008, decision dated: 15-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulifqar Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HONDA FORT PVT. LTD. through Director\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 46 = 2009 SLD 46 = 2009 PTCL 397 = (2009) 99 TAX 272 = 2009 PTD 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Section 177(4)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nCriteria for audit selection.\n2.\nProcedural fairness in audit processes.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nScope of Audit: Audit selection applies to taxpayers’ overall tax affairs and is not limited to their returns.\n•\nProcedural Requirements: While prior notice is not required, taxpayers can challenge audit selection post-notice.\n•\nOutcome: The Commissioner’s authority under Section 177 was upheld, provided audit reasons were valid and non-arbitrary.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(4),133,177,120(1A),115(4),113A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 379 of 2007, decision dated: 4-12-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Irshadur Rahman for Applicant. Jawaid Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 47 = 2009 SLD 47 = 2009 PTD 841 = 2010 PTCL 364 = (2009) 99 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Sections 120, 122, 177\nKey Issues:\n1.\nOverlapping audit and reassessment powers.\n2.\nValidity of audit selection after reassessment.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDistinct Powers: Reassessment under Section 122 and audit under Section 177 serve different purposes and can coexist, even for the same tax year.\n•\nRetrospective Effect: The Commissioner’s power to select cases for audit predates Section 120(1-A), which codified this authority.\n•\nOutcome: Both reassessment and audit actions were held valid, even when based on overlapping grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122,177 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2210 of 2007, decision dated: 5-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND S. MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hassan Naqvi along with M.S. Lubna Perwaiz for Petitioners. Jawaid Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NOBLE (PVT.) LTD. through Manager Finance and Administration\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 140 = 1988 SLD 140 = 1988 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Section 136\nKey Issues:\n1.\nMisconceived reference to the High Court.\n2.\nScope of Tribunal orders.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nTribunal’s Role: Questions requiring factual determination by the Tribunal were not within the scope of High Court’s reference jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court dismissed the reference as misconceived.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 58 of 1983, decision dated: 8-09-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDAR ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Kazi", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 202 = 1989 SLD 202 = 1989 PTD 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922) – Section 10; First Schedule\nKey Issues:\n1.\nComputation of insurance business profits.\n2.\nAllowable deductions and adjustments.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nActuarial Surplus: Profits from life insurance businesses are computed based on gross incomings or adjusted actuarial surplus, whichever is greater.\n•\nAllowable Deductions: Provisions for gratuity, depreciation, and certain reserves must meet statutory criteria.\n•\nOutcome: Assessments were upheld or modified based on compliance with prescribed rules.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,,FirstSched Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(2),FourthSched.,23,25,35. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 73/KB, 78/KB to 81 /KB of 1982-83, 2900/KB to 2905-KB of 1986-87 and 182/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 5-02-1988, hearing DATE : 25-11-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQUE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dawood Khan, D.R. and Muhammad Farid, D.R.. M. Karim, Advocate and Irfan Sadat Khan, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 203 = 1989 SLD 203 = 1989 PTD 1263 = (1990) 61 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Fourth Schedule\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTax treatment of insurance company liabilities.\n2.\nNature of provisions and reserves.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nProvisions and Reserves: Only specific reserves or provisions meeting statutory definitions are deductible.\n•\nTaxable Income: Taxes paid are treated as business expenses but are not deductible for income computation.\n•\nOutcome: Adjustments to taxable income of insurance companies were based on statutory rules and Tribunal decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,FourthSched.,R.5(a),24(a),35,54,85,26(a),SecondSched,65 Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 595/KB to 603/KB 1970/KB, of 1986-87, 3530/KB to 3533/KB and 2067/KB 1987-88 and No. 4785/KB, 4786/KB, 4787/KB of 1986-87, 48/KB of 1988-89, decision dated: 2-05-1989, hearing DATE : 26-04-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALVI ABDUL RAHIM ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan. Yousuf Sharih, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "ROYAL INSURANCE PLC., KARACHI\nvs\nI.T.O. COS, CIR A-5, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 157 = 1990 SLD 157 = 1990 PTD 768 = (1990) 62 TAX 74 = 1990 MLD 1977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922) – Section 18(3-B)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLiability of agents for non-residents.\n2.\nInterpretation of “liable” in fiscal statutes.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAgent’s Liability: A person dealing with a non-resident is liable for tax deduction unless already liable as an agent.\n•\nDefinition of “Liable”: The term includes potential liability, not requiring determination by a competent forum.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court’s interpretation of “liable” was upheld, aligning with established legal principles.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18(3B),(7),42,43,3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 285 of 1980, decision dated: 13-06-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent). A.H. Najfi, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NOON SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nThe COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 245 = 1992 SLD 245 = 1992 PTD 736 = (1992) 66 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Sections 88 & 91\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope and applicability of Sections 88 and 91.\n2.\nPenalty for non-payment of tax.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nApplicability of Sections: Section 88 applies when there is a failure to pay tax with the return under Section 54, while Section 91 applies to defaults post-assessment orders.\n•\nFactual Context: Penalty under Section 91 was imposed after the return was filed but before the assessment order was passed. This was held to be invalid.\n•\nOutcome: The Income Tax Officer could only invoke Section 88 and subject the assessee to additional tax under that provision.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=88,91 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.31 of 1984, decision dated: 13-01-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sami-ud-Din Sami for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "A & B OIL INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (B Range), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 380 = 1994 SLD 380 = (1994) 69 TAX 102 = (1993) 202 ITR 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Sections 2(22)(d), 80M, 37(1), 57(iii)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nClassification of payments as deemed dividends.\n2.\nAllowability of deductions related to share trading and dividend income.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDeemed Dividend: The entire amount received by a shareholder on reduction of capital was deemed a dividend under Section 2(22)(d).\n•\nDeductions:\no\nSection 80M: Relief was allowed on deemed dividend income.\no\nSection 57(iii): Purchase price of shares was not deductible against dividend income as it was capital expenditure.\n•\nOutcome: The deemed dividend was subject to tax, and deductions were allowed as per the specific provisions of the Act.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),2(22)(d),80M,56(2)(i),57 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 308 OF 1982, DECEMBER 4 & 12, 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.K. Naha for the Applicant. J.P. Khaitan for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nJai Hind Investment Industries (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 381 = 1994 SLD 381 = (1994) 69 TAX 172 = (1993) 202 ITR 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Sections 185, 144\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRegistration of firms under Section 185.\n2.\nConsolidated orders under Section 144.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nSeparate Orders Required: Refusal of registration under Section 185 requires a separate order and cannot be consolidated with an assessment order under Section 144.\n•\nOutcome: The Tribunal rightly upheld that the Income Tax Officer's combined order was invalid. The case was remanded to reconsider the registration issue separately.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),144,185(5),246,260 ", + "Case #": "SJ CASE NO. 63 OF 1990, FEBRUARY 8, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. PASAYAT AND D.M. PATNAIK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K. Ray for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nMahabir Fancy Store" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 247 = 1992 SLD 247 = 1992 PTD 1681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Second Schedule, Clause 172; C.B.R. Circular No. 9 of 1985\nKey Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of assessment already finalized. \n2.\nApplicability of set-off provisions under Clause 172.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAssessment Finality: Assessment orders are not considered final until all appellate remedies are exhausted.\n•\nSet-Off Eligibility: In cases of reassessment pending appellate decisions, set-off benefits under Clause 172 were allowed.\n•\nOutcome: The Tribunal correctly allowed the set-off as the reassessment order was not finalized.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,SecondSched.,172, ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.263-K of 1991, decision dated: 18-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHALL AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate-on-Records. Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others\nvs\nCHANDA MOTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 392 = 1993 SLD 392 = (1993) 67 TAX 135 = (1992) 194 ITR 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Sections 28(i), 10(3)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nNature of compensation received.\n2.\nTaxability as revenue or capital receipt.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nRevenue Receipt: The amount received from an agreement to withdraw litigation was deemed a revenue receipt as it arose in the course of business activities and did not represent a loss of enduring capital.\n•\nNon-Casual Nature: The payment was not casual or unexpected, as it stemmed from a negotiated agreement.\n•\nOutcome: The amount was taxable as revenue income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),10(3) ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NO. 786 OF 1979 REFERENCE NO. 467 OF 1979, JUNE 10, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RATNAM AND ABDUL HADI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.V. Balasubramanian for the Applicant.P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nMineral Mining Co. (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 204 = 1989 SLD 204 = 1989 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Section 65\nKey Issues:\n1.\nConditions for reopening assessments.\n2.\nLimits of Income Tax Officer’s discretion.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nReopening Criteria: Reopening requires definite information and approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. A mere change of opinion does not justify reopening.\n•\nJudicial Review: The High Court upheld constitutional remedies against improper reopening of assessments.\n•\nOutcome: The reassessment was invalid as it was based on suspicion without new material evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1195 of 1987, decision dated: 13-06-1989, hearing DATE : 8-06-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C, J. AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs M.R. SONS\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 982 = 1989 SLD 982 = (1989) 60 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Treaty for Avoidance of Double Taxation (U.S.A.–Pakistan) – Articles III, VIII\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of technical assistance fees for non-residents.\n2.\nApplicability of exemption under the treaty.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nExemption Allowed: The Tribunal correctly exempted the technical assistance fee received by a non-resident company under the double taxation treaty.\n•\nOutcome: The fee was not subject to tax in Pakistan, aligning with the treaty provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 2 of 1981, decision dated: 21-03-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate, for the Appellant. Nasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGENERAL TYRE INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 983 = 1989 SLD 983 = (1989) 59 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 7687\nAssociation of Persons – Wealth Tax and Related Issues\nKey Issues:\n1.\nFormation of an Association of Persons (AOP).\n2.\nService of notice to a principal officer.\n3.\nDetermination of market value under Wealth Tax.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nFormation of AOP: Twenty-five individuals jointly purchasing property, appointing a common manager, and pooling resources for property upkeep and profit-sharing constitutes an AOP.\n•\nService of Notice: A person signing receipts, managing expenses, and submitting returns can be deemed a principal officer, making notice served on them valid.\n•\nMarket Value: Wealth Tax Officer (W.T.O.) determining market value exceeding 10 times GARV without C.B.R. approval is illegal.\n•\nOutcome: The association was validly taxed as an AOP, and the method used by the W.T.O. for valuation without proper approval was held unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(e),2(m),2(o),2(s),3,41 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "M. A. No. 43/HQB of 1988-89 (Assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83) In re W.T.A. Nos. 1232/KB to 1237/KB of 1986-87 and W.T.A. No. 1077/KB of 1986-87 (Assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83) decided on 27-8-1988, hearing DATE : 17-8-1988.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Nasim, Advocate, for the Appellant. Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R. with Hanif Akhtar W.T.O., for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 984 = 1989 SLD 984 = (1989) 59 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 13(1)(c) – Unexplained Investment\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAddition based on seized documents.\n2.\nEvidentiary link to the assessee.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nEvidence and Link: The Income Tax Officer added unaccounted amounts as income based on a seized document. The Tribunal deleted the addition as no evidence linked the document to the assessee.\n•\nOutcome: The Tribunal's deletion of the addition was justified due to the absence of concrete evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(c),136(1),135 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 47 of 1988, decision dated: 26-10-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Nemo, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nv.\nGENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 160 = 1990 SLD 160 = 1990 PTD 889", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 65 – Reopening Assessments\nKey Issues:\n1.\nUse of information to reopen assessments.\n2.\nJurisdiction under Section 65.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nReopening on Information: A mere change in opinion or reinterpretation of law by the Income Tax Officer does not qualify as information under Section 65.\n•\nJurisdiction: If a notice under Section 65 lacks jurisdiction, all subsequent orders based on it are void.\n•\nOutcome: The reopening of assessments was held invalid as it was based on a change in opinion rather than new information.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-710 of 1989, decision dated: 30-04-1990. dates of hearing: 12th February and 19-03-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javaid Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "REPUBLIC MOTORS LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 205 = 1994 SLD 205 = 1994 PTD 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Sections 2(11), 12(7), and 111\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAdventure in the nature of trade.\n2.\nDeemed interest income and penalty for fraud.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAdventure in Trade: The purchase and sale of agricultural land with the intent to resell for profit constituted a taxable business activity.\n•\nDeemed Income: Interest-free or nominal-rate loans attract deemed income provisions.\n•\nPenalty under Section 111: Penalty applies only if the failure to declare correct income results from fraud or gross negligence.\n•\nOutcome: Profits from land transactions were taxable as business income, and deemed income provisions applied where relevant.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(11),22,111 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1988, 17 of 1989 and 89 of 1992, decision dated: 19th December 1993. dates of hearing: 17th May and 5th December 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND AKHTAR ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant in person. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Syed AKHTAR ALI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 393 = 1993 SLD 393 = (1993) 67 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 185(5), 186(2) – Firm Registration\nKey Issues:\n1.\nCancellation of registration under Section 185(5).\n2.\nProcedural requirements under Section 186(2).\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAutomatic Continuation of Registration: Section 185(5) does not apply to firms already registered and seeking continuation. Cancellation must follow Section 186(2) procedures.\n•\nOutcome: The Income Tax Officer’s cancellation of registration without following Section 186(2) was invalid, and the order was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=184,185,142(1),264,144,139 Income Tax Act, 1922=23(4),26A Income Tax Rules, 1962=24 ", + "Case #": "CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13802 OF 1989, SEPTEMBER 5, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N.K. SODHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B.K. Jhingan for the Petitioner. A.K. Mittal for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K.K. Kakkar & Associates\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 394 = 1993 SLD 394 = (1993) 67 TAX 158 = (1992) 194 ITR 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 45 – Capital Gains\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of self-generated assets.\n2.\nCapital gains on sale of route permits.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nSelf-Generated Assets: Route permits were self-generated assets acquired without cost, making them non-taxable under capital gains provisions.\n•\nOutcome: The sale proceeds from route permits were not subject to capital gains tax, favoring the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=41(2),55(2),48,45 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 1980, MAY 28, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.S. SODHI AND N.K. KAPOOR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajay Kumar Mittal for the Applicant. G. C. Sharma, Anoop Sharma and S. S. Mahajan for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nNew Suraj Transport Corpn. (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 395 = 1993 SLD 395 = (1993) 67 TAX 162 = (1992) 194 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 22, 23, and 56 – House Property Income\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of arrears of rent.\n2.\nClassification of additional rent.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nImmutability of Rent Character: Arrears of rent retain their character as house property income and are taxable in the year to which they relate, not the year of receipt.\n•\nOutcome: Arrears were taxable under the head of house property for their respective years and not as income from other sources.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),22,23 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 63 OF 1990, OCTOBER 1, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Chopra for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Hamilton & Co. (P.) Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1621 = 2002 SLD 1621 = (2002) 258 ITR 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 142 and 158BC – Appointment of Auditor\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of appointing an auditor during block assessment.\n2.\nSatisfaction of procedural requirements.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nBlock Assessment Pending: Proceedings under Section 158BC constituted pending proceedings, satisfying the requirement for appointing an auditor.\n•\nSatisfaction of Authority: The High Court cannot interfere with the satisfaction of the assessing authority in writ jurisdiction unless there is a clear legal infirmity.\n•\nOutcome: The appointment of an auditor was upheld as valid.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=142(2A),158BC,143,144 ", + "Case #": "C.W.J.C. NO. 10300 OF 2002 SEPTEMBER 12, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAGENDRA RAI AND P.N. YADAV, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D.V. Pathy for the Petitioner. L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Kumar Films (P.) Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1622 = 2002 SLD 1622 = (2002) 258 ITR 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for False Estimate or Non-Payment of Advance Tax (Section 273)\nKey Issues:\n•\nAssessee declared a loss; AO computed positive income disallowing carried-forward depreciation.\n•\nPenalty imposed under Section 273; later, court allowed set-off of depreciation.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nSet-Off Allowed: High Court ruled carried-forward depreciation could offset income, reducing taxable income to nil.\n•\nPenalty Unjustified: Without tax liability, there’s no obligation to pay advance tax, invalidating the penalty.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty under Section 273 was overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=273,212(3) ", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2001 SEPTEMBER 11, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Santosh K. Aggarwal for the Appellant. R.D. Jolly for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Escorts Electronics Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1623 = 2002 SLD 1623 = (2002) 258 ITR 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off of Unabsorbed Depreciation (Section 32(2))\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether unabsorbed depreciation from prior years can offset income under Income from Other Sources. \nJudgment Summary:\n•\nSet-Off Permissible: Unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off against any income, including Income from Other Sources. \n•\nOutcome: The ruling favored the assessee, allowing the set-off.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 505 OF 1992 SEPTEMBER 11, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Santosh K. Aggarwal for the Applicant. R.D. Jolly for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Escorts Electronics Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1624 = 2002 SLD 1624 = (2002) 258 ITR 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest for Default in Advance Tax (Section 234B)\nKey Issues:\n•\nPartial waiver of interest by Chief Commissioner; full waiver sought by assessee.\n•\nJudicial review of administrative discretion.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDiscretionary Power: The Chief Commissioner acted within discretion in granting a 75% waiver. Courts cannot compel how discretion is exercised unless there's arbitrariness or error.\n•\nOutcome: No legal or factual infirmity was found in the order; the writ was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=119(2)(a),234A,143(1)(a),148 ", + "Case #": "CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1974 OF 2002 SEPTEMBER 11, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rajiv Tyagi for the Petitioner. Sanjeev Khanna and Ajay Jha for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Sita Holiday Resorts Ltd\nvs\nChief Commissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1625 = 2002 SLD 1625 = (2002) 258 ITR 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Investments (Sections 11 and 13)\nKey Issues:\n•\nTrust invested Rs. 25,000 in a private company, violating permissible investment modes under Section 11(5).\n•\nExemption under Section 80G denied.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAbsolute Compliance Required: Section 13 prohibits investments outside Section 11(5). The trust’s violation rendered it ineligible for exemption.\n•\nOutcome: Exemption denial upheld; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80G,154,13(1)(d),11(5) Companies Act, 1956=617 ", + "Case #": "O.P. NO. 32719 OF 2000 (T) SEPTEMBER 5, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Balachandran, John Ramesh and K.I. John for the Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mundakapadam Mandirams Society\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1626 = 2002 SLD 1626 = (2002) 258 ITR 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Interest and Compensation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nInterest on IDBI Bonds: Taxed in the year of receipt or accrual?\n2.\nCompensation for Termination of Selling Agreement.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nInterest Taxable on Receipt: Interest received on IDBI Bonds was taxable in the year of receipt, not accrual.\n•\nCompensation as Revenue: Termination compensation was taxable as revenue, not capital receipt.\n•\nOutcome: Both rulings favored revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=5 ", + "Case #": "T.C. NO. 72 OF 1996 SEPTEMBER 4, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Appellant. T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1627 = 2002 SLD 1627 = (2002) 258 ITR 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Renting Warehouses (Section 22)\nKey Issue:\n•\nRental income from warehouses leased to FCI: Business income or property income?\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nProperty Income: Rental income from warehouses is taxable under Income from Property, not Business Income. \n•\nOutcome: Assessee’s appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=6,10 Income Tax Act, 1961=22,28 ", + "Case #": "T.C. NOS. 198 TO 202 OF 1996, SEPTEMBER 2, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. Ravikumar for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nIndian Warehousing Industries Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1628 = 2002 SLD 1628 = (2002) 258 ITR 717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation of Salary (Section 64)\nKey Issue:\n•\nSalary taxed in the hands of assessee and spouse.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nNo Double Taxation: Tribunal ruled that the salary taxed in the wife’s name (not protectively) could not be taxed again in the assessee’s hands.\n•\nOutcome: Assessee prevailed.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),64(1)(ii) ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 547 OF 1983, AUGUST 29, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.D. Jolly and Rajeev Awasthi for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax Officer\nvs\nVinod Kumar Soni" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1629 = 2002 SLD 1629 = (2002) 258 ITR 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Case by Commissioner (Section 127)\nKey Issue:\n•\nProcedural validity of case transfer under Section 127.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nReasoned Order Required: The Commissioner must issue a detailed speaking order considering objections.\n•\nOutcome: Transfer order quashed; matter remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=127 ", + "Case #": "W.P. NO. 11467(W) OF 2002, AUGUST 28, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.H.S. ANSARI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, Swapan Banerjee and Kishore Dutta for the Petitioner. Dipak Kumar Shome and Soumitra Pal for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Parameshwar Nath Rai\nvs\nChief Commissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1630 = 2002 SLD 1630 = (2002) 258 ITR 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rental Income Classification (Section 28(i))\nKey Issue:\n•\nRental income from a leased property rented out to a bank: Business income or income from other sources?\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nBusiness Income: Systematic activities and profit margin indicated a business venture.\n•\nOutcome: Rental income taxable as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=255(4),57,28 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 79 OF 1988, AUGUST 28, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.R. DAVE AND D.A. MEHTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nAmora Chemicals (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1631 = 2002 SLD 1631 = (2002) 258 ITR 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Deduction and Reassessment (Sections 80HHC & 147)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nNon-realized export proceeds in turnover and deduction.\n2.\nValidity of reassessment.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDeduction Denied: Non-realized export proceeds cannot be included in profits or turnover.\n•\nReassessment Valid: AO can initiate reassessment even after Section 143(1)(a) intimation.\n•\nOutcome: Rulings favored revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143(3),148,80HHC,147 ", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NOS. 91 OF 1999 AND 150 OF 2000, AUGUST 28, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. SANKARASUBBAN AND K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for the Applicant. P. Balakrishnan for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nAbad Fisheries" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1632 = 2002 SLD 1632 = (2002) 258 ITR 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Deposit Allowance (Section 32AB)\nKey Issue:\n•\nDeduction eligibility if machinery was purchased but not installed.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDeduction Allowed: Section 32AB focuses on purchase, not installation, of machinery.\n•\nOutcome: Deduction granted.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),32AB(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 35 OF 1997, AUGUST 27, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJOY NATH RAY AND MS. INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dutta for the Applicant. Dr. Pal for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nTribeni Tissues Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1633 = 2002 SLD 1633 = (2002) 258 ITR 573", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Markets Development Allowance (Section 35B)\nKey Issue:\n•\nEligibility for deduction after law amendment.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nDeduction Disallowed: Post-1983 amendment, deductions for expenditures incurred after 1-3-1983 were prohibited.\n•\nOutcome: Ruling favored revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=35B ", + "Case #": "T.C. NOS. 190 OF 1994, AUGUST 27, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Applicant. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nBharat Overseas Bank Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1634 = 2002 SLD 1634 = (2002) 258 ITR 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax on Business Transfer (Gift-Tax Act)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of gift tax on firms.\n2.\nBusiness transfer without consideration.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nTaxable Gift: Transfer of business without consideration constituted a taxable gift under the Gift-Tax Act.\n•\nOutcome: Tax liability upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=5(1)(xiv),2(xviii) ", + "Case #": "T.C. NO. 960 OF 1992, AUGUST 27, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Applicant. T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Ramesh Enterprises\nvs\nCommissioner of Gift-tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1635 = 2002 SLD 1635 = (2002) 258 ITR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nInterest paid to partners representing their HUF.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nAllowable Deduction: Interest paid on personal funds of partners (representing HUF) was allowable.\n•\nOutcome: Deduction upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147,40,10(4)(b),30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 205 OF 1983, AUGUST 26, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.K. SEN, C.J. AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Additional Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nRam Prasad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 558 = 2000 SLD 558 = 2000 PTD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes (Section 156)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApparent mistake from record.\n2.\nTreatment as an AOP.\nJudgment Summary:\n•\nNo Apparent Mistake: Disputed findings required reappraisal of evidence, beyond Section 156’s scope.\n•\nOutcome: Rectification denied; constitutional petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,,12(13),19,21,136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-556 of 1991, heard on 9-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "ISLAMUDDIN and 3 others\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 145 = 1960 SLD 145 = 1960 PTD 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 66(2): Reference and High Court Powers\nDirection to state case and High Court jurisdiction. Conclusion: The High Court cannot revise its own order requiring the Tribunal to state a case under section 66(2). If dissatisfied, the party's remedy lies in appealing to the Supreme Court. The High Court’s role is limited to deciding questions of law referred to it and cannot evaluate the propriety of its prior orders. Citation:\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 4-A(c): Residency of Assessee\nDetermination of residency based on control and management. Conclusion: An assessee with its head office in India but earning greater income outside Pakistan is not considered resident in Pakistan for the relevant year. Citation: Imperial Tobacco Company of India Limited v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, South Zone, Karachi 1959 PTD 21 fol.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 66(2)(5): Jurisdiction of High Court\nStatement of case by Appellate Tribunal. Conclusion: The High Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with Tribunal findings on factual matters unless the findings are reckless, unsupported by evidence, or based on incorrect principles. Questions must be reframed if unfairly raised. Citation: Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore AIR 1944 Lah. 353 (FB); New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1959) 37 ITR 11 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),4A(c) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 40 of 1959, decision dated: 22nd March 1960. dates of hearing : 1st, 2nd and 21st March 1960", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): F. AKBAR AND M. ASIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. R. Guha and N. L. Das for Applicant. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and A. M. Khan Choudhury fore Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS UNITED BANK OF INDIA LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1707 = 2000 SLD 1707 = 1999 PTD 4144 = (2000) 81 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Second Schedule, Part I, Clause 12(1): Exemption Claims\nClaim of exemption despite no appeal in earlier year. Conclusion: Statutory exemptions can be claimed in any year irrespective of appeals filed or not filed in earlier years. Citation: 1994 PTD 25 distinguished.\n________________________________________\n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Second Schedule, Part I, Clause 12(1): Residential House Exemption\nExemption for a share in a residential house. Conclusion: The law permits exemption for a portion of a self-occupied house if the claim does not exceed one house. Demarcation of the house is not required to claim the exemption. Citation: PLD 1991 SC 329 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.12(1) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1687/LB and 1688/LB of 1998, decision dated: 9-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan. Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 4 = 1957 SLD 4 = 1957 PLD 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Federal Court of Pakistan Jurisdiction\nAppeals from Revenue Court decisions. Conclusion: The Federal Court can hear appeals from Revenue Courts under specific tenancy laws when dealing with ordinary civil rights, not special rights. Citation: The Will of Wi Matua 1908 AC 448 rel.; Yaqub Khan v. King Emperor 74 IA 8 distinguished.\n________________________________________\n(b) NWFP Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), Section 70: Civil Court Decisions Binding on Revenue Courts\nBinding nature of civil court decisions. Conclusion: A civil court’s decision on a question under tenancy acts is binding if a suit was filed before approaching the Revenue Court.\n________________________________________\n(c) NWFP Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), Section 56(4)(5): Expediency in Revision\nExpediency in judicial revisions. Conclusion: Expediency under tenancy laws relates to the interest of justice, allowing interference in revisions only on judicial grounds.\n________________________________________\n(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXII, Rule 9(2): Sufficient Cause\nSetting aside abatement. Conclusion: Bona fide doubts based on legal advice can constitute sufficient cause to set aside abatement. Citation: Rajendra Bahadur v. Rai Rajeshwar Bali AIR 1937 PC 276 ref.\n________________________________________\n(e) NWFP Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), Section 56(5): Revision Competence\nMisapprehension of application content. Conclusion: Courts failing to consider specific prayers, such as setting aside abatement, result in substantial injustice, warranting revision. Citation: Lala Atma Ram v. Lala Beni Prasad 62 IA 257 rel.; Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh 11 IA 237 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=160 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1956, decision dated: 15th April 1957. (On appeal from the order of the Revenue Commissioner, N.W. F. P., Peshawar, dated the 14th November 1953, in Revenue Court Case No. 67 of 1952-53)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmad, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, (Ihsanul Haq, Advocate, Supreme Court with him), instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorneys. Mahmud Ali Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by M. Siddique, Attorneys. Under Order XLV rule (1) Supreme Court Rules, 1956. Faiyaz Ali, Attorney General of Pakistan (Abdul Haq, Advocate, Supreme Court with him), instructed by 4ftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney.", + "Party Name:": "Sardar MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHAN and OTHERS\nVs\nK. B. ABDUL HAYEE KHAN and OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 560 = 2000 SLD 560 = 2000 PTD 2872 = (2000) 82 TAX 417 = (2001) 83 TAX 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 134(5): Mandatory or Directory Provisions\nInterpretation of mandatory and directory provisions. Conclusion: Failure to comply with Section 134(5) is not penalized, making it directory, not mandatory. Citation: 1997 CLC 1724; PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 134(5): Fiscal Statutes\nRevenue and taxpayer favor. Conclusion: Fiscal statutes favor taxpayers when interpretations are possible. Citation: 1993 CLC 1666 rel.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 134(5): Appeal Fee Compliance\nProcedural lapses in fee deposit. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal must allow rectification for procedural lapses. Section 134(5) is directory, not mandatory. Citation: 1997 CLC 1724 ref.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,134(5),129 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10, decision dated: 19-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAJ CHAUDHARY AND MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHARY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Liaquat Afzals (in all Appeals). Haji Muhammad Afzals", + "Party Name:": "ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., AZAD KASHMIR BRANCHES, MIRPUR Through Inam Elahi Azhar, EVP and Provincial Chief, PHQ (Punjab)\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AJK COUNCIL, MUZAFFARABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 693 = 2001 SLD 693 = 2001 PTD 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 136: Reference to High Court\nPersonal questions of law. Conclusion: References need not be made for isolated, non-recurring issues. Citation: Lungla Tea Co. v. CIT, 1970 SCMR 872 ref.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 136: Tribunal and High Court Guidance\nAdvisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Conclusion: High Court references aim to guide all parties involved in assessments and restrict unnecessary litigation.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Self-Assessment Scheme\nImmunity eligibility. Conclusion: Questions on immunity under self-assessment schemes are too specific for High Court references.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Ahmed Shuja Khan", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER oF Income Tax, LAHORE\nvs\nMESSRS IMMION INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 472 = 2004 SLD 472 = 2004 PTD 2644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b),59(1),59A(2),59(3),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.329/LB of 2003, dated 23/12/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HNTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 473 = 2004 SLD 473 = 2004 PTD 2641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),13(1)(d),13(2),59(1),62,65,Rule,207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4430/LB and 4425/LB of 2000, 03/12/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 482 = 2002 SLD 482 = 2002 PTD 804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a): Interpretation of Issued and Received under Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59-D - Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000\nConclusion:\nThe terms issued and received in para. 10(3) of the Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000, have distinct connotations.\n•\n Issued refers to the Assessing Officer's duty to issue acceptance or rejection letters.\n•\n Received implies the declarant's receipt of a show-cause notice, signifying the completion of issuance.\nBoth terms underscore the involvement of the Assessing Officer and the declarant in procedural steps.\nReference: Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000 (C.B.R. Circular No.4, dated 1-3-2000), para. 10(3).\n________________________________________\n(b): Acceptance of Declarations under Tax Amnesty Scheme\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 13 & 59-D - Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\nPetitioners argued their declarations were deemed accepted as no rejection was communicated by the deadline (31-12-2000). The High Court ruled:\n•\nRejection orders issued after the deadline were invalid.\n•\nDeclared assets/income were protected under para. 8 of the Scheme, but undeclared assets were not immune.\n•\nThe Department retains the right to act on undeclared assets with definite information.\nReference: C.B.R. Circulars No. 4, No. 9 (dated 31-5-2000), No. 1 (dated 29-1-2001); Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963); Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.\n________________________________________\n(c): Preliminary Examination and Timeframe for Acceptance/Rejection\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 13 & 59-D - Deficiency in Declarations\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessing Officers are limited to preliminary examination of declarations.\n•\nDeficiencies must be rectified by declarants by the specified deadline (31-12-2000).\n•\nFailure to issue acceptance/rejection letters by the deadline results in deemed acceptance under para. 10(2).\n•\nThe Department is barred from conducting full-fledged assessments for declared assets but may act on undeclared assets with definite information.\nReference: C.B.R. Circulars No. 4, No. 9, and No. 1 of 2001; Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963).\n________________________________________\n(d): Maintainability of Constitutional Petitions\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 129 & 59-D - Amnesty Scheme\nConclusion:\nConstitutional petitions challenging rejection orders under para. 10(4) of the Amnesty Scheme are maintainable, as no appeal mechanism is provided under the Scheme.\nReference: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.\n________________________________________\n(e): Interpretation of Statutory Provisions\nStatutory Interpretation - Holistic Consideration of Scheme\nConclusion:\nNo provision in a statute should be interpreted in isolation unless it constitutes a complete code. A Scheme should be understood in its entirety to ensure proper application.\nReference: General Principles of Statutory Interpretation.\n________________________________________\n(f): Interpretation of Clear Language in Statutes\nStatutory Interpretation - Clear Language\nConclusion:\nStatutes or legal documents with unambiguous language must be implemented as written without deviation.\nReference: General Principles of Statutory Interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,13,59D,129 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-639 and 640 of 2001, heard on 30-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner. Muhammad Farid", + "Party Name:": "A. REHMAN alias ABDULLAH and another\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1362 = 2004 SLD 1362 = (2005) 91 TAX 289 = 2004 PTD 2686", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,Second SchedulePart1stClause122C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A.No.631/KB/DB of 2000-2001, (Assessment year 1997-98) and I.T.A. No.1201/KB DB of 1997-98, (Assessment year 1996-97), decision dated: 6-03-2003, hearing DATE : 25-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Nadeem Naseem and Mr. Irfan Saadat Khan Khan, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Shaikh Mohammad Hanif, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1363 = 2004 SLD 1363 = (2005) 91 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #7719: Diversion vs. Application of Income\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 4 and 60\nConclusion:\nThe distinction between diversion of income by overriding title and application of income:\n•\nDiversion occurs when a third party is entitled to the income before it reaches the assessee.\n•\nApplication happens when the income is passed on to a third party after receipt by the assessee.\nIn this case, the share of income assigned to a trust was deemed an application of income, not a diversion, and was included in the assessee's total income.\nCase Review:\nHigh Court decision reversed; Tribunal order reinstated.\nReferences:\n•\nSunil J. Kinariwala v. CIT [1995] 211 ITR 127\n•\nRaja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 135 (PC)\n•\nP.C. Mullick v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 206 (PC)\n•\nCIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 41 ITR 367 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),60 Partnership Act, 1932=29(1) ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5720, 6148-6157, 6375-6412 OF 1998, 3792, 3827, 3829, 3830 OF 1999, 3373, 5020 OF 2000 AND 1899 OF 2002, DECEMBER 10, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PREETESH KAPUR, RANBIR CHANDRA, K.C. KAUSHIK, MS. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, MS. SUNITA SHARMA, MS. NEERA GUPTA, B.V.B. DAS AND MS. SUSHMA SURI FOR THE APPELLANT. U.U. LALIT, H.A. RAICHURA AND S.H. RAICHURA FOR THE RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name": "Preetesh Kapur, Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Kaushik, Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Neera Gupta, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant. U.U. Lalit, H.A. Raichura and S.H. Raichura for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nSunil J. Kinariwala" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1364 = 2004 SLD 1364 = (2004) 90 TAX 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Advance Tax and Settlement Commission’s Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to consolidated disclosed and undisclosed income until the Settlement Commission issues an order under Section 245D(4). Interest charged under Section 245D is separate and not a duplication of the earlier sections. The Settlement Commission's jurisdiction is exclusive post-admission of the application, but it must follow the Act's provisions, including tax and interest determination. Assessees disclosing income later cannot benefit over those who disclosed honestly.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1\n•\nCIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 443\n•\nVarious decisions of Settlement Commissions and High Courts.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(4),234A,234B,234C,234B,245D,143(1),143(2),143(3),144,142(1),148,147,245D(4),245C,2(40),ChapterXIXA,140A,210,154,155,250,254,260,262,263,264,208,119,139(8),215(4),216,220(2A),245H(1) ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7966, 7967 OF 1996 AND 7248 OF 1999, DECEMBER 17, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.B. SHAH, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Soli J. Sorabjee, S. Ganesh, Ranbir Chandra, Ms. A. Subhashini, K.C. Kaushik, Rajiv Tyagi, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sanjiv Sen, Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Meera Gupta, B.V. Balram Das and Sushma Suri for the Appellant. P. Chidambaram, Bhaskar V. Desai, Mrs. Sobha Jagtiani, Ms. Vanta Mehta, Vijay Kakwani, Vishwajit Singh (N.P.), Arun Sathe and Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nHindustan Bulk Carriers" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1365 = 2004 SLD 1365 = (2005) 91 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Assets Distributed by Companies in Liquidation\nConclusion:\nAgricultural lands, while excluded from capital assets under Section 2(14) for capital gains purposes, are included as assets under Section 46(2) when distributed by a company in liquidation. The market value of these assets, whether capital or non-capital, is taxable as per Section 46(2).\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. N. Bhagavathy Ammal [1999] 107 Taxman 189\n•\nCIT v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 45", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=46(2),2(14),148,45,48,47(viii),256(1),2(14)(c),45(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=12B ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2606 AND 2607 OF 2001, JANUARY 27, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T.L.V. Iyer, Subramonium Prasad, Abhay Kumar and R. Gopalakrishan for the Appellant. Rajiv Tyagi and B.V. Balramdas for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "N. Bagavathy Ammal\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1369 = 2015 SLD 1369 = 2015 PTD 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income and Source Verification\nConclusion:\nUnexplained investments, such as property purchases, require substantial proof. Claims of income from agricultural sources or jewelry sales must be supported by verifiable evidence. Amendments in the law (Section 111(2)) apply retrospectively, aligning with changes in procedural timelines.\nCitations:\n•\n2012 PTD (Trib.) 1978\n•\n2011 PTD (Trib.) 168", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1)(b),111(2),122(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1690/LB of 2012, decision dated: 17-04-2014, hearing DATE : 17-04-2014.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Hussain. Ms. Shabana Aziz, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD\nVs.\nC.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 283 = 2003 SLD 283 = 2003 PTD 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes and Dividend Taxation\nConclusion:\nInterpretation of fiscal statutes must rely on the exact language of the law without extending its scope. Dividend tax deductions occur upon payment, not declaration, and legal fictions in the Income-tax Ordinance are confined to specific sections. Substantial questions of law, not resolved or ambiguous provisions, justify references to the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nRelevant provisions under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1),32,50(6A),18,24,31,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 103 and 104 of 2002, decision dated: 13-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIESI, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 286 = 2003 SLD 286 = 2003 PTD 1076 = (2003) 87 TAX 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Income on Business Deposits\nConclusion:\nInterest income from deposits kept as Letter of Credit margins for industrial machinery qualifies as business income if directly related to business activities. Even if classified as other sources, related interest expenses are deductible.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Eastern Bank Limited PLD 1982 Kar. 680\n•\n1998 PTD 369", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31(1)(b),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.810/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R.. Jawed Zakaria and Jan-e-Alam, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 485 = 2004 SLD 485 = 2004 PTD 2604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25 ", + "Case #": "CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. D-4 OF 2004, dated 07/04/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALQamar Imports (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahroe Through Attorney \nVS \nIslamic Republic Of Pakistan, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 4 Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 486 = 2004 SLD 486 = 2004 PTD 2601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1017 to D-1020, D-1128, D-1129, D-1508, D-1509, D-2373 of 1992, D-118, D-120, D-12.1, D-122, D-459 D-460 and D-461 of 1993, dated 05/09/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND GHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs Afshan Traders \nVS \nCentral Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 487 = 2004 SLD 487 = 2004 PTD 2599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=168(2) ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-42 of 2004, dated 30/03/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Haji Sultan Muhammad \nVS \nGovernment of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Ministry and Another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 488 = 2004 SLD 488 = 2004 PTD 2592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25,81(2),179,193,202 ", + "Case #": "CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 651 OF 1993, dated 14/06/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND GHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Karachi Bulk Storage and Terminal (Pvt.) Ltd. \nVS \nController of Customs (Valuation), Karachi and Another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 489 = 2004 SLD 489 = 2004 PTD 2589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16)(a),2(16)(b),50(2A),50(3),50(4),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2142/KB to 2145/KB and 2255/KB to 2258/KB of 1994-95, dated 19/09/2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED IQBAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 236 = 2004 SLD 236 = 2004 PTD 1014 = (2003) 88 TAX 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time Limits and Wealth Tax Exemptions\nConclusion:\nAssessments under the Wealth Tax Act have a two-year limit if returns are filed, while a four-year limit applies if not filed. Exemptions apply to properties held for public purposes, including Stock Exchanges maintaining infrastructure for financial operations.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd. (1967)\n•\nCIT, Madras v. Andhra Chambers of Commerce (1965)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17A(i)(b),5(1)(i),SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1667/LB to 1674/LB of 2002, decision dated: 3rd June, 2003, hearing DATE : 8-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Afzal, FCA. Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2508 = 2007 SLD 2508 = (2008) 97 TAX 427 = (2007) 290 ITR 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=68,271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.C. NO. 148 OF 1998, FEBRUARY 8, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H.L. DATTU AND H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.V. Seshachala for the Applicant. S.P. Parthasarathy for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nM.M. Gujamgadi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2509 = 2007 SLD 2509 = (2008) 97 TAX 419 = (2007) 290 ITR 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=4,37(2) ", + "Case #": "ITA NO. 328 OF 2004, AUGUST 17, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nVarinder Agro Chemicals Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 438 = 2004 SLD 438 = 2004 PTD 2830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3087/LB of 2001 and 284/LB of 2002, decision dated: 8-11-2003, hearing DATE : 5-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs Tekg Gemini, Rawalpindi \nVS \nSecretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 435 = 2004 SLD 435 = 2004 PTD 2842", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No 5706/LB of 2003, dated 04/05/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 434 = 2004 SLD 434 = 2004 PTD 2845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10(2),10(3),36,36(3),45A,45B,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),2(3)(i)(a),9(2)(b) Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992=4(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1181-K of 2003, dated 14/01/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs Decent Exports office No.1014, Karachi \nVS \nSecretary Revenue Division Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1363 = 2016 SLD 1363 = 2016 MLD 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Custody of Minors under Criminal Procedure Code\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 491 of the Cr.P.C., the court prioritizes the welfare of minors, emphasizing the mother’s preferential rights for custody, particularly for young children. Temporary custody decisions do not prejudice final rulings by guardian courts.\nCitations:\n•\nMst. Tayyaba Khan v. Syeda Begum PLD 1994 Kar. 204\n•\nMst. Khalida Parveen v. Sultan Mahmood PLD 2004 SC 1", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=491 ", + "Case #": "Cr. M.A. No. S-298 of 2015, decision dated: 22-06-2015, hearing DATE : 22-06-2015.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Shabbir Ali Bozdar for Applicant.\nMuneer Ahmed Bijaranis Nos. 5 and 6.\nSardar Ali Shah A.P.G. for the State.", + "Party Name:": "KARAM KHATOON \nVS\nSENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT KHAIRPUR AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 450 = 2004 SLD 450 = 2004 PTD 2749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),59(1),61,62,65,65(2),80C,80C(2),80C(2)(a)(1),80C(4),85,132,143B,153,153(a)(e),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1850/KB to 1852/KB of 2002, dated 24/05/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 275 = 2006 SLD 275 = 2006 PTD 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.27(1)---Remand order of Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Such order would not give rise to a question of law to be considered by High Court.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963-----S.8(3)---Open industrial plot---Value of such plot, determination of---High Court disapproved valuation of properties on basis of cost of construction and rates of land notified by District Collectors for charging stamp duty---Assessing Officer, in absence of such notified rates, would, apply rates of residential land to such industrial plot.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27,27(1),8(3) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No.291 of 1999, decision dated: 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2510 = 2007 SLD 2510 = 2007 PLJ 942", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (XI of 1963)--\n----S. 17(4)(b)--Ejectment from lease agreement--Challenge to--Gifted by their father--Permission of Central Government or Cantonment Board is not necessary--Transfer of old grant--Required for their personal use--Bona fide--Required by two respondents whereas requirement of son is relatable to a point of time after the institution of the ejectment petition--The tenor of statement is in perfect accord with such provisions being relied upon by counsel--Held: Landlord is not supposed to remain on the streets till such time that his ejectment petition is finally adjudicated upon--Even if land lord leave the country for doing some job in such interregnum, it does not derogate from his bona fide personal requirement if otherwise proved--Respondents have any other shop in any other urban area--There is no evidence on record that respondents are doing any business or some other job--FAO was accordingly dismissed.\n[P. 944] A & B", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963=17(4)(b) ", + "Case #": "FAO No. 199 of 2005, heard on 22-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate.\nMr. Munir Ahmad Malik, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "SHAKIL AHMAD\nvs\nMUHAMMAD HANIF and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2511 = 2007 SLD 2511 = 2007 PLJ 949", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(i) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--\n----S. 302(b)--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), Ss. 382-B & 410--Conviction and sentence awarded to accused, assailed--Benefit of doubt--Compensation was reduced--Unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR--Possibility of due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out--No denying the fact that injuries on the persons from accused side--Right of self defence--Question of--Held: Conviction & sentence of main accused was maintained--Sentence given by trial Court would run concurrently with benefit of 382-B Cr.P.C. instead of consecutively with modification in sentence--Conviction & sentence recorded by trial Court for causing injuries on the persons of injured PWs maintained in toto--Sentences would however run concurrently with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C.--Order accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Petroleum (Refining Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971=302(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=382B,410 ", + "Case #": "Crl. A. Nos. 1037, 1161 of 2002 and Crl. Rev. No. 670 of 2002, heard on 24.1.2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, Advocates.\nCh. M. Abdus Saleem, Advocate for Complainant.\nSh. Khalid Habib, Advocate for State.", + "Party Name:": "IMRAN and 5 others\nvs\nSTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2512 = 2007 SLD 2512 = 2007 PLJ 945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001)--\n----S. 10--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 151 & O.XLI, R.33 & O. IX, R. 13--Application of leave to defend--Question for adjudication--Determination--Question of law and fact--Fulfill the requirements--Duty of Banking Court, to consider the plaint--Grant leave conditional or unconditional or reject the application--Banking Court, therefore, was required to consider and decide the application on merits--Dismissal for non-prosecution of appellants PLA, was without jurisdiction and patently illegal--Appeal was allowed.\n[Pp. 948 & 949] A & B\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----S. 151 & O.XLI, R. 33--Ample powers--Dismissal for non-prosecution was completely without jurisdiction--Validity--Order for dismissal of PLA for non-prosecution was completely without jurisdiction, therefore, the entire structure built upon it is bound to fall, even High Court has ample powers to pass appropriate orders--Appeal was allowed. [P. 949] C", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151O.XLI,R.33,O.IX,R.13 ", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 363 of 2006, heard on on 17.4.2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWAR UL HAQ AND SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Shahid Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate.\nMr. Ghulam Haider Al Ghazali, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "ABID AZIZ KHAN and 2 others\nvs\nBANK OF PUNJAB through its BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2513 = 2007 SLD 2513 = 2007 PLJ 979", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Second Schedule, Part-I, Cl. 77-C [as amended vide S.R.O.1135(I)/91, dated 7-11-1991 & S.R.O. 1012(I)/99, dated 3-9-1999], C1.77-C(a) [as inserted by S.R.O. 1343(I)/99, dated 16-12-1999] & C1.78-E---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.151, 159 & 239 (14) [as amended by Finance Act (I of 2003)] & Second Sched. Part-I, C1.(83)---S.R.O. No.100(I)/93, dated 2-2-1993---Profit/interest accrued on National Saving Schemes---Investment made in such Schemes on or before 1st July, 2001---Deduction of income tax from such profit/ interest---Validity---Such profit would 'enjoy continuous exemption from levy of income tax under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Such exemption would be available in case of Mahana Amdani Account , where monthly instalment does not exceed Rs. 1000---Any person paying such profit/interest would not be obliged to deduct tax at source nor recipient thereof would be required to produce exemption certificate under S. 159 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=27(b) ", + "Case #": "RSA No. 46 of 1999, heard on 14.11.2006, DATE of hearing: 14.11.2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocates.\nRana Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another\nvs\nSOHRAB KHAN & others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 277 = 2006 SLD 277 = 2006 PTD 402 = (2006) 93 TAX 394 = 2005 PTR 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Second Schedule, Part-I, Cl. 77-C [as amended vide S.R.O.1135(I)/91, dated 7-11-1991 & S.R.O. 1012(I)/99, dated 3-9-1999], C1.77-C(a) [as inserted by S.R.O. 1343(I)/99, dated 16-12-1999] & C1.78-E---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.151, 159 & 239 (14) [as amended by Finance Act (I of 2003)] & Second Sched. Part-I, C1.(83)---S.R.O. No.100(I)/93, dated 2-2-1993---Profit/interest accrued on National Saving Schemes---Investment made in such Schemes on or before 1st July, 2001---Deduction of income tax from such profit/ interest---Validity---Such profit would 'enjoy continuous exemption from levy of income tax under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Such exemption would be available in case of \"\"Mahana Amdani Account\"\", where monthly instalment does not exceed Rs. 1000---Any person paying such profit/interest would not be obliged to deduct tax at source nor recipient thereof would be required to produce exemption certificate under S. 159 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Second Schedule,Part-I,Cl.77C Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=151,159,239(14) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1803, 5511, 5486, 6483 and 4993 of 2004, heard on 26-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq, Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed and Qamar Riaz Hussain Basra \nRespondent(s) by: Dr. Danishwar Malik, D.A.G., Tariq Shamim, Standing Counsel and Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS PROSPERITY WEAVING MILLS LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 278 = 2006 SLD 278 = 2006 PTD 2256 = (2007) 95 TAX 17 = 2007 PTR 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----S. 136---Question already decided by High Court---Not to be entertained again.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S. 23---Deductions---Expenditure incurred or extra amount paid on account of infraction of law---Not to be allowed as admissible deduction---Exceptions stated.\nAny expenditure on account of infraction of law is not to be allowed. This principle is not to be applied when an extra amount is paid in pursuance of an administrative direction and not in pursuance of infraction of any statute law or rules framed thereunder.\nIf there is no infringement, transgression, violation or infraction of law and an excess amount has been paid on account of some , executive/administrative orders or in accordance with the terms of a contract between the two private parties and the course adopted is on account of business expediency, the expenditure so made must be treated as wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. If infringement or violation of any law is such that any commission or omission is not warranted in law at all and the course adopted is not permissible under any provision of law, then any penalty and fine imposed by competent authority shall not be treated as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and shall not be an admissible expenditure, as infraction of law cannot be held to be for the business purposes. However, if the provision of law itself envisages different courses of action and option is available to a person to adopt any one of the courses, then it would not amount to infraction or violation of law, but would come within the precincts and premises of law. Adoption of any one of the courses open to a person under the law shall be deemed to be a compliance of the law and not the infraction or violation thereof. If any extra amount is paid on account of any delayed payment, such extra amount is in the nature of compensation and not in the nature of penalty or fine. For the purpose of fine or penalty, there should be a separate proceeding initiated and conducted by an authority competent in law. An extra amount paid in ordinary course and automatically without any intervening order passed by competent authority as penalty and fine, shall not be treated on account of infraction of law for the simple reason that the law or administrative act itself provides for payment of extra amount. Likewise any interest/mark-up paid on account of delayed payment of principal amount shall not be treated as fine or penalty. Such extra payment by whatsoever nomenclature charged shall not become a fine or penalty imposed by competent authority for infraction of law, but actually it would be in the nature of compensation, though described differently, and may be loosely termed as penalty or fine. The reason being that mere use of a particular term or a nomenclature is not the final determining factor, but the substance of the matter is to be examined.\nThe facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined for ascertaining, whether the extra amount paid is in the nature of fine or penalty on account of infringement of provision of law or it was for business expediency and if so, it shall be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and shall be treated as admissible deduction. However, if it is not for business consideration, and in fact it is in the nature of penalty or fine, the expenditure is not to be allowed.\nIf an amount paid is automatic and in contemplation of the parties, then notwithstanding the describing of excess amount as fine or penalty or penal interest or use of any word or nomenclature, shall not change the nature of transaction, which is to be determined and gauged on the basis of the substance of the matter. The reason being that the penalty and fine was not within the contemplation of the parties, but a competent authority on account of infraction of some law imposed it.\n1991 PTD 669; Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Companies-V, Karachi PLD 2001 SC 201 and Commissioner of Income Tax Companies-1 Karachi v. Premier Bank Limited 1999 PTD 3005 rel.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----S. 23---Deductions---Expenditure incurred on account of or in nature of tine or penalty for delayed payment---Kinds of fine or penalty and their admissibility as business expenditure---Principles.\nAn expenditure incurred on account of fine or penalty or in the nature of fine or penalty is not to be allowed as deduction.\nAn expenditure, which although has been incurred by an assessee on account of infringement of a provision of a statute, but not in the nature of fine or penalty, can be allowed as admissible deduction, provided it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.\nThe question, whether any expenditure on account of infringement of any provision of law is for the purpose of business and is an admissible expenditure shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.\nIf any expenditure is claimed on a transaction in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in any law and the transaction, act/omission is liable to the levy of fine or penalty by way of criminal or civil sanction and the competent authority has imposed civil or criminal penalty provided in the law, then expenditure incurred on illegal transaction as well as penalty for indulging in such illegal transaction both shall be inadmissible expenditure.\nIf there are various provisions in any law providing for automatic enhanced/excess payment on commission of a default or delay and there is a provision for imposition of penalty/tine as well with the discretion of authorities competent under a law and the provisions for imposition of fine or penalty within the discretion of competent authorities have not been invoked and an enhanced/excess amount is charged for any default/delay, such enhanced/excess amount shall be deemed to be part and parcel of original liability and not a fine or penalty.\nIf the excess amount paid by an assessee in the normal course of business purposes on account of any delay or default is within the contemplation .of the parties and the excess amount paid is automatic, which requires mere calculation, it would be in the nature of compensation paid for delay or default and it shall not be deemed as penalty or fine, or in the nature of penalty/fine or akin to the penalty or fine.\nIf any excess amount is paid by an assessee for any delay or default in performance of an act and in excess charge is fixed and not in the discretion of any competent authority in law and no separate proceeding is required for charging the excess/enhanced amount and no separate order is required to be made and there is no requirement of framing any charge or confronting the defaulting party and seeking explanation, then the amount so charged would not be deemed to be penalty/fine.\nMere use of word penalty or fine shall not make an amount to be in the nature of penalty or fine, until and unless in substance, the amount charged is penalty or fine or in the nature of penalty or fine.\nThe payment of only such amount shall be treated as penalty/ fine, which is charged as a result of infraction, transgression or violation, which is imposed by an authority competent in law. An amount paid by an assessee on its own volition/discretion/option available in law for the consideration of business purposes in pursuance of commercial expediency and not with the intention of flouting the mandatory provision of law shall not be deemed to be penalty/fine and shall be deemed to be extension of liability permissible in law and/or compensation for delay/default contemplated by the parties and permissible in law.\nThe demurrage paid to the Port and Railway authorities, which is in excess of the original liability, likewise surcharge for delayed payment of utility bills such as electricity bill, gas bill, telephone bill, property tax, water tax, municipal taxes, motor vehicle taxes, arms licence fee, late payment fee for examination, late payment fee for renewal of various licences so on and so forth, are not in the nature of penalty or fine, as all of these payments are automatic, without initiation of any separate proceedings and without any separate order and exercise of any discretion by any competent authority on the consideration of facts and circumstances of each case.\n1991 PTD 669; Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Companies-V, Karachi PLD 2001 SC 201; Commissioner of Income Tax Companies-1 Karachi v. Premier Bank Limited 1999 PTD 3005; ACIT v. Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd 1976 103 ITR 298; Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 429; 1972 85 ITR 320 and CIT Karnataka v. Mandya National Paper Mills Limited 1984 150 ITR 27 Karnataka High Court rel.\n(d) Law---\n----Connotation---Such expression would include legislative Act, subordinate legislation in nature of Rules and notifications issued under authority of legislative Act---Executive directions issued from time to time would not fall within purview of "law".", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No.154 of 2005, decision dated: 8-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION) LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI\nvs\nBAWANY METALS LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 175 = 2007 SLD 175 = 2007 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S. 62(1)---Assessment on production of accounts, evidence etc.---Rejection of books of accounts along with the sales tax record without confronting the assessee through notice under S.62(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---Proper books of accounts were produced before the Assessing Officer---Notice under S.62(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 after having examined the same was not issued---Returned version had been rejected without any cogent reasons---Assessments framed were void ab initio illegal---Since notice under proviso to S.62(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not issued pointing out specific defects in the books of accounts and no intention was shown to make add-back from Profit and Loss accounts, the rejection of accounts and add-backs made were illegal and unjustified---Assessing Officer was directed by the Appellate Tribunal to accept the returned version declared by the assessee.\nPTCL 1990 CL 70(9) and (2003) 87 Tax 129 (Trib.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2266/LB to 2268/LB of 2005, decision dated: 17-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz-ul-Hassan. Muzammal Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 177 = 2007 SLD 177 = 2007 PTD 1757 = (2007) 96 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----S. 136---Remand order of Appellate Tribunal generally would not give rise to a question of law.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S. 19---Income Tax Rules, 1982, Rr. 4 & 5---Self-hired house by a salaried owner---Receipt of 80% of basic pay by assessee as rent from employer---Such receipt treated as income from property after allowing 1/5th thereof on account of repair etc.---Addition in such receipt of 15% of basic pay of assessee on account of unfurnished accommodation provided to him by employer---Validity---If such receipt was treated as income from property, assessee as employee was still entitled to exemption of 45 % of basic salary as admissible house rent allowance contemplated in R.4 of Income Tax Rules, 1982---Such addition would amount to tax same amount twice---Such self-hired house could not be treated as rent free unfurnished accommodation provided by employer.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----S. 136---Jurisdiction of High Court under S.136 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Nature, purpose and scope---Such jurisdiction was not that of a court of appeal---Such jurisdiction being advisory in nature and its purpose being resolution of problematic or debatable legal question of substantial nature and of general application to a sizable class of assessee---Tribunal must refuse to make reference, if not certain, as to whether question framed raised a substantial legal issue---Principles.\nJurisdiction of High Court under section 136, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is advisory nature and is required to be invoked only when the issues raised before and decided by Tribunal were of substantial nature and general application to a sizable class of assessees. The nature of jurisdiction of High Court is clearly distinguishable from its appellate or the revisional jurisdiction. The most important difference is that during the pendency of a reference, the appeal before the Tribunal is deemed pending and in case the view adopted by the Tribunal is varied, it is again listed before them and then decided in the light of the opinion expressed by High Court. The purpose of reference is not to get a decision for or against a party before the Tribunal. It is only the resolution of a problematic or debatable legal question. A point of law , cannot be equated with the expression question of law , and that the question referred must be a disputed or disputable question of law. The object of reference is to get decision from the High Court on a problematic or debatable question and not on an obvious or simple point of law. Accordingly, the reply to a question affirmative or negative should settle a pattern of guidance both for the revenue as well as the assessee besides the Tribunal, who had sought the advice in the first instance. Therefore, the practice on the part of the revenue or the assessees, which at times is aided by the Tribunal to treat High Court as a court of appeals needs to be disapproved. Factual controversies should not be allowed to be converted into legal issues only by dint of draftsmanship or employment of legal language in style, which is usual to the framing of such questions. In case, the Tribunal is not certain if the question framed raises a substantial legal issue, it must refuse to make a reference as in that case, the assessed or the revenue will have to approach High Court under subsection (2) of section 136 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and satisfy, before admission, that the question raised/ framed is of substance. Therefore, unless a question framed by the Tribunal at the instance of an assessee or the revenue under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 fulfils the aforesaid standard of general interest, application and relevancy to the over all assessment, it shall be deemed to be question of fact. The principle that an advice should never be given unless asked for also has another angle. With regards to reference proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it means that an advice should not be sought unless it is absolutely necessary for the guidance of the parties and for smooth and effective flowing of the assessment stream.\nC.I.T. v. Messrs Immninon International, Lahore 2001 PTD 900; Lungla (Sylhet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 and C.I.T. v. Basanta Kumar Agarwalla (1983) 140 ITR 418 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Income Tax Rules, 1982=4,5 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 94 of 1999, decision dated: 29-11-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Malik. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT ZONE\nvs\nMessrs MAQBOOL AHMED GILL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 198 = 2008 SLD 198 = 2008 PTCL 448 = 2008 PTD 1087 = (2008) 98 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S.136(1)---Advisory jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction can only give opinion on the questions of law, arising from order of Income Tax Appellate. Tribunal and those questions of law which were proposed in the application under S.136 (1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, filed in the Tribunal for referring the same for opinion of High Court.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----S. 12(5)(a)---Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between Government of Pakistan and Government of USA, Art.III(1)---Income deemed to accrue in Pakistan---Exemption---Applicant was a non-resident company, which had provided service of updating the pre-investment feasibility to its client in Pakistan---Applicant claimed exemption under Art.III(1) of Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between Government of Pakistan and Government of USA, to its income received for providing service in Pakistan---Validity---Amount received by applicant fell within the definition of Industrial and Commercial Profits---Applicant having no permanent establishment in Pakistan, therefore, its income was exempted under the provisions of Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between Government of Pakistan and Government of USA---Income generated by applicant was not taxable in Pakistan---Appeal was allowed accordingly.\nCommissioner Income Tax v. Messrs Unilever PLC UK. 2002 PTD 44 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,12(5)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.55 of 1990, decision dated: 24-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LAGHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghaffar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MOUNTAIN STATES MINERAL ENTERPRISES INC., through duly constituted attorney, Karachi\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) ZONE3, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 199 = 2008 SLD 199 = 2008 PTD 1491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax---\n---Proration of expenses---Deviation from past treatment without solid reasons---Department had itself accepted the stance that assessment was prorating the expenses on the same pattern as in the preceding as well as succeeding years---Expenses should be prorated on reasonable basis taking account of the relative nature and size of activities and the department itself had accepted the stance of the assessee in the preceding as well as succeeding years---Assessing Officer having not given any solid reasons for deviating from the past treatment deviation was not justified.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n---S. 122(5A)---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.66-A---Amendment of assessment---Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner---Under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner had the powers to make necessary inquiries as he deemed fit but under S.122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, these powers were not there.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n---S.122(5A)---Amendment of assessment---Show-cause notice issued were merely calling for evidence rather than inquiries---Such notices were not within the jurisdiction/powers of the amending authority.\n(d) Income Tax ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---S. 122(5A)---Amendment of assessment---Notice calling for details and fishing enquiries---Validity---Revenue issued show-cause notice calling for details and then subsequently fishing enquiries were made and no proper findings for amending the order were given in the notices---Action of the Revenue was ab initio illegal as there was no proper/legal basis for invoking provisions of S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Amended order in question was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal restoring the original one.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.653/LB of 2007, decision dated: 4-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farooq Ejaz, I.T.P.. Sardar Masood Raza Qazlibash, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 200 = 2008 SLD 200 = 2008 PTD 1517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Substantive law and procedural law---Retrospective effect---Principles---Statutes dealing with substantive law are prospective and those dealing with procedural law are retrospective---In certain cases if procedural law affects vested right it operates prospectively and not retrospectively.\n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Statutory rules and notifications---Comparison---In case of conflict between statutory rules and notifications, statutory rules prevail---lf statute conveys clear meaning, it is not necessary to introduce any other policy by way of administrative order diminishing efficacy of statute.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 31 (A) & 179 (1)---S.R.O. 696 (I)/2006, dated 1-7-2006---Import Policy Rules, 2005-06, R. 3 (4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), . Art.199---Constitutional petition---Date of import---Determination---Rate of duty---Applicability---Retrospective effect of S.R.O. 696 (I)/2006, dated 1-7-2006---Petitioners intended to clear vehicles in question on the basis of authority letter issued by importers in their favour---Plea raised by petitioners was that invoice of consignment, bill of lading, export permission certificate and goods declaration were prior in date to 1-7-2006, therefore, provisions of S.R.O. 696 (I)/2006, dated 1-7-2006, were not applicable retrospectively---Validity---Clearance of subject vehicles was examined after presentation of G.D. on 30-6-2006, and importers had qualified the scheme under Import Policy Rules, 2005-2006 because condition inserted in Policy Order 2005-2006 by amendment through S.R.O. 696 (I)/2006, dated 1-7-2006 would apply to vehicles arriving on or after 1-7-2006.and not retrospectively-Even otherwise S.R.O. 696(I)/2006, dated 1-7-2006, by virtue of its clause (2) was made effective on 1-7-2006---High Court directed the authorities to examine subject vehicles in terms of law prevailing at that particular point of time considering all aspects of date of invoice, bill of lading, export permission certificate and G.D. filed by importers and if there was no prohibition in law for import of subject vehicle then duty and taxes payable be assessed as soon as possible---High Court further directed the authorities to examine status of importers under R.3 (4) of Import Policy. Rules, 2005-06, and authority given by importers to petitioners---Petition was disposed of accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=31(A),179(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Import Policy Order, 2005=3(4) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1250 and 1251 of 2006, decision dated: 2-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND FARRUKH ZIA SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Ch. Waseem Iqbal, Sohail Muzaffar and Ms. Fozia Rasheed for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "NIAZ MUHAMMAD through Attorney\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 201 = 2008 SLD 201 = 2008 PTCL 590 = 2008 PTD 1563 = (2008) 98 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes---\n----Fiscal statute---Fiscal laws are to be interpreted and applied in their natural meanings---In case of doubt about charging provision, beneficiary is the assessee and in case of an exemption provision the benefit goes to State---Where, however, the language of law is clear and without any ambiguity, the principle of interpretation, in case of doubt, is not relevant.\nDawood Hercules Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax, Lahore 2007 PTD 1161 and Messrs Sterling Engineering Corporation v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi and another PLD 1986 Kar. 211 ref.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss. 153(6-A), (6-B) 53 & Second Sched., Part IV, Cls. (46-A), (46-B)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24A---S.R.O. 847(I)/2007 dated 22-8-2007---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Payments for goods and services---Refusal to grant exemption certificate---Interpretation, scope and application of S.153(6-A), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and effect of S.R.O. 847(I)/2007, dated 22-08-2007 elaborated---Refusal to grant exemption certificate was a result of misreading and non-reading of the relevant provision of law which was against the settled principle that every word and sentence used by the legislature had to be given meaning and significance and thus was illegal and of no legal effect---S.R.O. 847(I)/2007, dated 22-8-2007 also being without any lawful authority was void and of no legal effect---Directions given in the present case shall apply in respect of all constitutional petitions being on the basis of similar and same circumstances.\nThe provision of law in terms of section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 leaves no doubt that it is in respect of `manufacturers' only. The term `any' used before `manufacturer' further enlarges its scope and the same means `all'. Phrase any person being a manufacturer leaves no doubt that all the manufacturers can avail the benefit of this provision. Section 153(6B), which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, in fact has not curtailed or reduced or superseded earlier provisions. It is an independent provision of law and its language makes clear that it is applicable only on the `persons', who are dealing in goods. It does not have any reference to manufacturers in any form whatsoever. For all practical purposes, it has enhanced the scope of the provision of section 153(6A). It has further excluded, in addition to manufacturers, the local traders, who though are not manufacturers but are doing the business of sale as individual or an association of persons. This is an addition through this. .new clause in the said facility and the same has not curtailed the powers available in the earlier section.\nThe issue became complicated when Central Board of Revenue, through a Notification dated 22nd August, 2007, under S.R.O.847(I)/ 2007, inserted clauses, in terms of clauses (46A) & (46B) in Part-IV of Second Sched. clause (46A) says that the provisions of subsection (6B) of section 153 shall not apply to any payment received by a manufacturer of iron and steel products relating to sale of goods manufactured by him. This Notification in addition of the provision is for the reason of some misconception in the minds of Central Board of Revenue. Section 153(6B) does not deal with manufacturers at all. There is, therefore, no question of providing any exemption to manufacturers of iron and steel from the charge created under section 153(6). The Central Board of Revenue could provide such benefit if earlier there was a charge thereon, However, since exemption has already been given by the provision i.e. section 153(6A), which is dealing with all the manufacturers clearly and unequivocally, further exemption to only iron and steel manufacturers is like bringing to charge the other manufacturers, which is beyond the jurisdiction of Federal Board of Revenue. It is a clear case of misunderstanding of the provisions of law. Similarly clause (46B) speaks of non-application of section 153(6B) on manufacturers if they are individual or Association of persons while it has nothing to do with manufacturers. Both the provisions of subsections of section 153 are separate and independent and are not interconnected at all. Moreover, the earlier deals with `manufacturers' and the later deals with `traders'. There was, therefore, no need of issuance of notification like the one referred above. Since the said notification has been issued by misunderstanding, it shall not have any effect being without any lawful authority. This is where reference to section 53(2) shall be of help.\nSection 53(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 grants power to the Federal Government to issue Notification in the official Gazette and make amendments in the Second Schedule by adding any clause or condition therein or omitting any clause or condition therein or to make any changes in any clause or conditions therein, as Government thinks fit. Thus Federal Government does have the power to amend the Second Schedule by addition or omission and thus is delegated with the legislation power to the said extent. The purpose of this delegation is to reduce the rigours of law by way of addition in the Second Schedule wherever need arises. Similarly, the Federal Board of Revenue is entitled to omit any clause or condition that has provided exemption in the Second Schedule. For all practical purposes, the Federal Government does have the power to issue or withdraw an exemption in the Second Schedule. Through notification under the garb of providing an exemption in the Second Schedule, the Federal Board of Revenue in its understanding has reduced the effect of the provision of section 153(6A) while practically it has curtailed the effects of section 153(6A) and has increased the application of section 153(6). Section 153(6A) makes the provision of section 153(6) inapplicable to all the manufacturers while clause (46A) makes it applicable only to manufacturers of iron and steel products. Thus the power exercised was not within the lawful authority available to the Federal Government. Again, through clause (46B) the Federal Government has made the provision of section 153(6B) as inapplicable in respect of individual or association of persons being manufacturer of such goods while said section does not deal with manufacturers at all. This Notification, therefore, is based upon misunderstanding and misapplication of the relevant provisions of law.\nMaxim: Delegatus non potest delegare , means when a power is conferred on a particular person then that person could neither transfer its exercise to another person nor could exercise it without application of his mind to facts and circumstances of that case---Such person has to exercise that power with application of his independent mind to the facts and circumstances of that case regardless of any extraneous/dictative influence .\nThe direction in S.24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897 is binding on all the authorities. Seen from the angle that whether the authority available to the Commissioner of Income Tax while rejecting the application for issuance of exemption certificate as well as issuance of the S.R.O. No.847(I)/2007 has been exercised 'reasonably', `fairly', 'justly' and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment, the answer shall readily be an empathetic No . Neither section 153(6A) speaks of any discrimination amongst the manufacturers nor in section 153(6B), any reference of subsection (6A) of section 153 is appearing. Both the sections have separately made the provision of subsection (6) of section 153 inapplicable firstly on suppliers who have manufactured the said goods and to sellers of goods if they are individuals or an Association of persons, respectively.\nThe power available with the Federal Government is to add any clause or condition or omit any clause or condition in the Second Schedule but that obviously cannot be allowed if the same is in conflict with the main provision. The deduction under the provision of section 153(6) has been made as a final discharge, which means the assessee shall neither be required to pay any tax in addition to the amount deducted in his case nor he shall be exposed to the rigours of audit and assessment etc. In its subsequent subsections i.e. 6A & 6B, respectively, exemption from this final discharge has been given. In subsection (6A), subsection (6) has been made inapplicable by saying that the provisions of subsection (6) relating to the payment on account of supply of goods in respect of a person, who is manufacturer of such goods, shall not apply. This exception from subsection (6), 'above, is, therefore, applicable to any person, who is a manufacturer and supplier of any item. Regarding subsection (6B) here again, reference is to subsection (6) and not to subsection (6A). In the second line the provision reads so far as they relate to payments on account of sale of goods wherefrom the phrase `manufacturer' is being read by the departmental official is not understandable. This new additional clause, in addition to subsection (6A), makes subsection (6) inapplicable to individuals and association of persons, who are in the business of local purchase and sale of goods of any kind. The contention that subsequent legislation supersedes earlier, if accepted,' would mean that only the last clause of last section would apply. This obviously cannot be the intention of law makers. Subsequent legislation on the same subject would, by necessary implication, repeal the earlier law to the extent of mutual inconsistency or repugnancy. The fact of the matter is that sections 153(6A) and 153(6B) are two separate and independent provisions being in respect of manufacturer and trader and there is no mutual inconsistency in the two provisions.\nThe refusal to grant exemption certificate for the reasons mentioned in the letter is a result of misreading and non-reading of the concerned provisions of law. This action is against the settled principle that every word and sentence used by legislature has to be given meaning and significance, hence the same was held to be as illegal and of no legal effect. The Notification, through an S.R.O. also being without any lawful authority, was held to be void and of no legal effect. The, above direction shall apply in respect of all the writ petitions being on the basis of similar and same circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153(6A),(6B)53,SecondSched.,PartIV,Cls.(46A),(46B) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7918, 7252, 7253, 7256, 7257, 7258, 7394, 7396 and 10483 of 2007, decision dated: 20-06-2008. dates of hearing: 7th and 9-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Ahmad Butt, Javed Iqbal Qazi and Qari Habib-ur-Rehman Zubairi for Petitioners. Shahid Jamil,-Department. Muhammad Nawaz Waseem, Federal Counsel. Jan Muhammad Chaudhry, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Messrs T.A. INDUSTRIES through Proprietor\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 202 = 2008 SLD 202 = 2008 PTD 1982 = 2009 PTCL 60 = (2009) 99 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----Ss. 50 & 52---Liability of person failing to deduct or pay tax---Deduction of tax at source---Scope and application of Ss. 50 & 52, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nPlain language of section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 reflects that the advance tax, at the time of making of payment at a specified rate, is liable to deduction, by a person responsible for making payment to another, on account of supply of goods, services rendered or execution of the contract. His failure to deduct or collect or failure to pay tax so collected or short collection of tax entail penal consequence of declaring him, deemed assessee. Reading sections 50 and 52, together it appears that withholding tax agent, has not been authorized to take upon him the responsibility to ascertain that recipient is tax payer and in that capacity, might have paid the tax. It is for the authorities of the income tax department to examine the case of such assessee and satisfy themselves as to whether the recipient subjected to advance tax has already paid the tax liable to collection under section 50(4). This exercise can be done, by obtaining necessary orders from the concerned Commissioner, who, on his satisfaction that advance tax stands already paid, can give appropriate directions under section 50(4)(b). The person responsible for payment, till such time such order/direction is accorded, will not make payment without deducting advance tax. Withholding agent, is neither vested with any power to ascertain that tax by recipient has been paid, nor absolved of his responsibility of deducting or collecting advance tax. Collection/deduction cannot be avoided on assumptions.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 50, 52, 86 & 156---Deduction of tax at source---Liability of person failing to deduct or pay tax---Scope---Assessee in default---Determination---Principles---Where the recipient had discharged his liability, after inclusion of the payment from the assessee in default in the total income and such amount had already suffered the incidence of tax, the payer could not be held to be an `assessee in default' and the department could not demand further tax from the payer by recourse to the provisions contained in S.52, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Additional tax under S.86 of the Ordinance would however, remain chargeable from the payer for his failure to deduct tax, while making payment as had been provided in S.52, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---If, however, a liability under S.52 had been created against the assessee in default and it was proved by him with evidence that certain payments made by him had already suffered the incidence of tax in the hands of the recipient, he may approach the assessing officer for rectification as stipulated under S. 156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Principles.\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2605; Continental Chemicals (Private) Ltd. v. Pakistan and others 2001 PTD 570; (1982) 137 ITR 230; (1983) 140 ITR 818, 832 and (1989) 176 ITR 282 ref.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---\n----Ss. 50, 52 & 76---Deduction of tax at source---Liability of person failing to deduct or pay tax at source---Scope---Assessee in default---Determination---Assessee/payer cannot be held an assessee in default, for non-deduction from a tax payer, before whom an exemption certificate is produced or an order of an authority in hierarchy of Income Tax department is produced---Recipient, who has not produced the certificate, his payment shall be amenable to deduction of advance tax---Recipient, who has himself paid the taxes, the withholding against cannot be held as defaulter to the extent of non-deduction, however, he is subject to penalty under S.86, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2605; Continental Chemicals (Private) Ltd. v. Pakistan and others 2001 PTD 570; (1982) 137 ITR 230; (1983) 140 ITR 818, 832 and (1989) 176 ITR 282 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,86,156,76 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.416 of 2007, heard 27-03-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zaidi. Nemo of Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEC, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs MARGALLA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 48 = 2009 SLD 48 = 2009 PTCL 188 = (2008) 98 TAX 283 = 2009 PTD 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]......S. 23(2)(xviii)---Allowable deduction---Expenditure claimed on the encashment of assessee's performance bonds by the Government on allegation of non-completion of work having been expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, was allowable under S.23(2)(xviii) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCommissioner of Income v. Premier Bank Limited, Karachi (1999) 79 Tax 589 distinguished.\nKarachi Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1967) 15 Taxation 73 fol.\nHind Mercantile Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Mardas (1963) 8 Tax 343; Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Madras, v. Inden Biselers (1973) 91 ITR 427 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mihir Textiles Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 112 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(2)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 293 of 1992, decision dated: 16-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED AND DR. QAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi along with Ms. Lubna Pervez for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HASSAN ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 49 = 2009 SLD 49 = 2009 PTD 1473 = 2010 PTCL 898", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---S. 235---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 & Fourth Schedule Federal Legislative List, Item 47---Constitutional petition---Vires of S.235, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.--Three stages of imposition of tax i.e. declaration of liability; assessment and recovery---Said three stages need not necessarily occur in any particular order---Recovery of tax whether directly from the assessee or indirectly through collection from expenditure or deduction from receipts, as the case may be, did not amount to assessment of tax, nor created any liability to pay said amount---Advance tax was merely a provisional payment---Mode of recovery of tax was not the sole determining factor in ascertaining the subject-matter of tax--- Collection of tax and its levy or chargeability , distinguished---Mode of collection of tax through advance tax was valid and legal, challenge thereto on the grounds of being violative of fundamental rights/or beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament was rejected---Provision for collection of advance tax was within legislative competence of Parliament in view of Fourth Schedule Item 47 of Federal Legislative of the Constitution---Collection of advance tax on the amount of bills did not affect the essential subject-matter of tax which remained tax on income, however, in case of companies subject-matter of the tax remained the income of the assessee and not the electricity bill---Principles.\nWhiteny v. Inland Revenue Commissioners AIR 1926 AC 37; Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. PLD 1997 SC 582; Call Tel and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 833 and Call Tel Pvt. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2004 PTD 3032 ref.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n----Ss. 235 & 169---Companies---Contention was that some companies may be entitled to final discharge under S.169, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; hence, S.235 of the Ordinance could not be applied to them---Held, in case of presumptive tax regimes where there was a final, discharge of liability under S.169 of the Ordinance, said discharge was limited to the transaction or the income covered by such provision of the presumptive tax regimes which were enunciated in S.169 of the Ordinance; it did not extend to any other income of the assessee under the same or different head---Tax collected under S.235 of the Ordinance thus could be adjusted against any tax due with regard to other income of the assessee not covered under the separate presumptive tax regime, and where no such liability of tax existed, then the amount collected under S.235(1) of the Ordinance would be refunded to the company under S.235(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---So far as applicability of S.235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 qua companies was concerned, no exception could be taken thereto, as said provision did not offend against any fundamental right of the assessee and was also well within the legislative competence of the Parliament.\n(c) Income tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n---Ss. 235 & 169---Treatment being meted out by S.235, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 with reference to persons other than companies, is dramatically different---Presumptive minimum tax has been levied on the basis of the electricity bill which is an expenditure and is valid especially as there is a direct nexus between the energy consumed, and the economic activity conducted resulting in generation of income or the capacity to earn and pay---Mere fact that the basis of the levy is the electricity bill; does not detract from the essential nature of the tax i.e. a tax on the income of the assessee---Contention of the assessees was that some of such assessees which were not companies, were subject to other presumptive tax regimes envisaged by the Ordinance, in terms whereby, collection made on deductions effected were a complete discharge of their tax liability under S.169, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereby, recoveries effected under the provisions mentioned therein were treated as final tax, and therefore, the assessees could not be subjected to S.235 of the Ordinance---Validity---Held, in this regard, it was for the assessees to establish on a case to case basis as to which of such assessees was subject to which particular presumptive tax regime of the Ordinance mentioned in S.169 of the Ordinance and therefore, there existed a final discharge of liability---Such information supported and substantiated by verifiable material was conspicuous by its absence in the present case---In such an eventuality, the collections made under S.235 of the Ordinance in respect of persons other than companies would at best encroach into the territory of double taxation and there was no constitutional guarantee against double taxation, nor was there a constitutional bar upon the legislative for imposing the same---Principle applicable merely was that double taxation should not be presumed in the absence of clear, express and unequivocal provision---Provisions of S.235, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were crystal clear leaving no room for doubt as to its applicability with the rate leviable spelt out in Part-IV of the First Schedule of the Ordinance---Contention of the assessee was repelled---Principles.\nElahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582 and Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance 1992 PTD 576 ref.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n----S. 235---Provision of S. 235, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is not confiscatory, in view of the quantum of tax levied---Reasons.\nElahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad PLD 1998 SC 582 ref.\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n----S. 235---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4 & 24---Surplus advance tax---Surplus amount after adjustment of minimum tax in case of persons other than companies in law and in fact belongs to and vests in the assessee and is the property of the assessee which can only be appropriated by the department if the said amount can be brought within the mischief of a charging provision in respect whereof---By virtue of S.235(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in case of persons other than companies, the department is retaining and the assessess are being deprived of the funds and the properties in violation of the law---Such act of the department is not only violative of Art.4 of the Constitution, it manifestly offends against the fundamental rights of the assessees as guaranteed under Art.24 of the Constitution---Section 235, inasmuch as it purports to deal with the surplus advance tax after the adjustment of the minimum tax up to a bill of Rs.20,000 per month it is ex facie in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the assessees---Principles.\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. and others 1993 PTD 342 and Lt. Col Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan Karachi and another PLD 1962 SC 335 ref.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n----S. 235---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Vires of S.235, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Section 235, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to the extent that it applies to companies, is intra vires the Constitution, however, tax collected from the person other. than a company under S.235(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 after deduction of minimum tax charged/levied under S.235(4) of the Ordinance, though in the custody of the department, in law and in fact, is the property of the assessee, and is available for adjustment against any other charge under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the surplus, if any, thereafter is liable to be refunded to the assessees---Principles.\nElahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad PLD 1997 SC 582 ref.\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n----S. 234-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Vires of S.23-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Section 234-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is intra vires the Constitution and no exception can be taken thereto---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=47,52,169,234A,235,235(1),235(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,24,25,77,199,FourthSchedule ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8872 of 2008, decision dated: 15-05-2009, hearing DATE : 11th, 12th, 13th, 30th and 31st March, 2009, 1st 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th and 10-04-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, Ch. Anwar ul Haq-I, Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Mian Tabasam Bashir, Mr. Shahbaz Butt, Mian Mehmood Rashid, Mr. Siraj ud Din Khalid, Musthaq Ahmed Mughal, Muhammad Aslam Khan Dhakar, Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan, Javed Iqbal Qazi, Akbar Ali Sheikh, Zafar Iqbal Chuhan, Shehzad Ahmed Durrani, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Sh Naveed Masud, Shafqat Mehmood Chuhan, Muhammad Naveed, Barrister Zargam Lakhser, Ch. Mumtaz ul Hasan, Muhammad Farooq Sheikh, Ijaz Ahmed Awan, Shahbaz. Siddique, Waqar Azeem, Shahid Mehmood Bhatti, Shahzada Mazhar, Javed Mazhar Dhoon, Ijaz ul Ahsan, Ustad Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Akram Shahid, Ch. Mumtaz ul Hasan, Qamar uz Zaman Akhtar Tarar, Rana Munir Hussain, Muhammad Akhtar Rana, Khalid Nawaz Ghuman, Malik Imran Nazir Awan, Kh. Saeed uz Zafar, Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Ijaz Ali Bhatti, Irtaza Ali Naqvi Muhammad Arif Yaqub Khan, Muhammad Jamil ur Rehman, Muhammad Waseem, Aamir Umar Khan, Zahid Farani Sheikh, Abdul Razaq Mirza, Asif Masud Khan, Ali Mansur Malik, Muhammad Nadeem, Umar Alvi, Abdul Qadoos Mughal, Ghulam Abbas Sandhu, Aamir Ali Khan, Agha Sarfraz, Muhammad Saqib Sheikh, Muhammad Hussain Chutia, Tariq Saleem Sheikh, Muhammad Aamir Malik and Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Legal Advisor Income Tax, Shahid Jamil Khan, Jan Muhammad Chaudhri, Tahir Mehmood Khokhar and Fayyaz Sangeras", + "Party Name:": "INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 18 = 2013 SLD 18 = (2013) 108 TAX 359 = 2013 PTD 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss. 182(1) & 133---Penalty for failure to furnish a return or statement----Reference to High Court--- Tax payable meaning of----Penalty under S. 182(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had been imposed upon the taxpayer which was set aside concurrently inter alia on the ground, that there was no tax payable by the taxpayer therefore, no penalty could be imposed---Validity----Penalty had been provided by the legislature in cases where any person, without reasonable excuse, failed to furnish return of income or wealth statement for any tax year within the time allowed under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Amount of such penalty was required to be calculated on basis of tax payable in respect of that tax year, and there was no reference to chargeability of tax in the said section---In the present case, it was on record that since there was no tax payable along with return by the taxpayer, thus the provision of S. 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not applicable to the facts of the case---Forums below had correctly decided in favour of the taxpayer---Reference was dismissed. SLD #: 7739\nEjectment from Lease Agreement – Bona Fide Requirement\nConclusion:\nThe court held that ejectment based on the bona fide personal need of the landlord is valid even if the landlord temporarily leaves the country for work. The landlord is not required to remain homeless during litigation. Evidence showed no alternative property or businesss, supporting their claim of bona fide need. The FAO was dismissed, upholding the landlord's rights.\nCitations:\n•\n[P. 944] A & B", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182(1),133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 80 of 2012, decision dated: 4-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHARTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Siddiq Mirza for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-III, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 283 = 1978 SLD 283 = (1978) 111 ITR 943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Distribution of Assets During Liquidation\nConclusion:\nThe relevant date for valuing shares received during liquidation for capital gains computation was the date of the resolution for voluntary winding up (19-12-1959), not the date of physical transfer or registration. The Tribunal held that ownership of the shares vested with the assessees on 19-12-1959, and all actions by the liquidator thereafter were on behalf of the assessees.\nCitations:\n•\nCompanies Act, 1956, Sections 484(1)(b) & 486", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=46 ", + "Case #": "I.T. REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 1967, NOVEMBER 12, 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TULZAPURKAR AND DESAI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nD.M. Turner" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 50 = 2009 SLD 50 = 2009 PTCL 197 = 2009 PTD 41 = (2009) 99 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Proceedings Under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nConclusion:\nWhere a taxpayer revises a return under a specific C.B.R. circular and makes payments accordingly, further audit proceedings under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot be initiated. The proceedings against the assessee were declared void and canceled.\nCitations:\n•\nWrit Petition No. 9266 of 2004\n•\nCh. Muhammad Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2005 PTD 152", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4200 of 2008, heard on 10-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Ijaz Hotiana for Petitioner. Mian Yusuf Umar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BISMA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman F.B.R. and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 135 = 2012 SLD 135 = (2012) 106 TAX 253 = 2013 PTD 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Tax Notifications\nConclusion:\nThe court held that concessionary tax notifications, such as S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, can be applied retrospectively if they benefit taxpayers. Goods confiscated prior to the notification could be redeemed under the new terms. Customs authorities were directed to allow redemption of goods per the amended S.R.O.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector of Customs v. A.A. Corporation, 2004 PTD 2738\n•\nMessrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 582", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=156,157 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21507 of 2011, decision dated: 22-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IJAZ UL AHSAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema along with Asad Khan Inspector ASOs", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM NABI and 3 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Member Customs (Legal) Revenue Division FBR, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 136 = 2012 SLD 136 = (2012) 106 TAX 455 = 2013 PTD 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Bank Entries and Peak Credit\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal directed that only peak credit entries, and not total deposits, be added to income. The case was remanded for proper examination of reconciliation between bank deposits and declared income.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 122\nTopic 2: Salaries Paid in Cash Exceeding Allowable Limit\nConclusion:\nSalaries paid in cash exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month are not deductible as business expenses under Section 21(m) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 21(m)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,21(m) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A, No.232/KB of 2011, decision dated: 2-05-2012, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Siddiqui, D.R.. Iqbal Yousuf, FCA", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., LD, LTU, KARACHI\nvs\nDr. ZULFIQAR H. TUNIO, Proprietor LASInn Aesthetic Centre, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 19 = 2013 SLD 19 = (2013) 108 TAX 392 = 2013 PTCL 457 = 2013 PTD 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Statutes\nConclusion:\nStatutory provisions are prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was not applicable to assessments finalized before its enactment on 1-7-2003.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilay Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., 2009 SCMR 1279\n•\n2005 PTD 1621", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 24 of 2007, decision dated: 2-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAQAR AHMAD SETH AND ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Raza. Syed Muddasir Aemer", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES, PESHAWAR\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN REFRIGERATION (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 20 = 2013 SLD 20 = 2013 PTD 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Remand Order Parameters\nConclusion:\nA remand order sets the boundaries for subsequent adjudication. Parties must operate within the specified parameters during reevaluation.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XLI, Rule 23\nTopic 2: Ex Parte Tax Orders\nConclusion:\nFailure to issue proper notices or pass judicious orders amounts to maladministration. Arbitrary actions by tax authorities without proof of service are void.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Section 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.23 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.501/LHR/IT(374)/961 of 2012, decision dated: 5-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Syed Ali. Imran Rizvi, Authorized Representative. Ms. Fauzia Adil, DCIR and Talat Chaudhry, DCIR Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHERAZI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 137 = 2012 SLD 137 = (2012) 106 TAX 317 = 2013 PTD 246 = 2012 PTR 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Best Assessment Under Income Tax Ordinance\nConclusion:\nThe insertion of Section 177(10) could not be applied retrospectively to finalized assessments. The Tribunal addressed merits alone for the tax year 2009, emphasizing procedural fairness.\nCitations:\n•\nFinance (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010\nTopic 2: Taxation on Securities\nConclusion:\nInterest on securities must be taxed on actual receipt, not accrual. This principle aligns with settled precedents.\nCitations:\n•\nHabib Bank Ltd. v. CIT, 2009 PTD 443", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,177(10),205,161,21c,120,32,100A,99,FourthSched.&SeventhSched,20,67,70 State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=46B&54A Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=35,91A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5115/LB, 3580/LB, 3581/LB, 4063/LB, 4064/LB of 2004, 4581/LB, 4582/LB, 5061/LB to 5064/LB of 2003, 242/LB of 2009 and 33/LB of 2011, decision dated: 15-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Tahir, D.R.s. Dr. Ikramul Haqs", + "Party Name:": "ALLIED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 21 = 2013 SLD 21 = 2013 PTD 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Best Assessment and Exemption for Young Taxpayers\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer, under 25 years old and an orphan at the time of acquiring a motor vehicle in tax year 2009, was exempt from filing a return per Section 115(3)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The amendment to Section 114(1)(vi), requiring owners of motor vehicles to file returns, applied prospectively from tax year 2010. Invocation of Section 121 for assessment was declared maladministration.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 121, 115(3)(b), 114(1)(vi)\nTopic 2: Maladministration Due to Insufficient Notice\nConclusion:\nFailure to provide adequate time (less than the 15-day requirement) to respond to statutory notices constituted maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Section 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,121,115(3)(b),114(1)(vi) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.585/LHR/IT(435)/1086 of 2012, decision dated: 31st October, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP Authorized Representative. Muhammad Qaswar Hussain, DCIR Departmental", + "Party Name:": "USMAN MAJEED CHOHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 22 = 2013 SLD 22 = 2013 PTD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Ex Parte Assessment and Deficient Information\nConclusion:\nThe assessment under Section 121, based on incorrect information about vehicle ownership, was declared maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revising the assessment under Section 122A.\nCitations:\n•\n2012 PTD (Trib.) 170\nTopic 2: Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman in Pending Appeals\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman could hear complaints filed before an appeal was initiated with the First Appellate Authority.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Sections 9(2)(a), 9(2)(b)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,122A,122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.225/LHR/IT(166)441 of 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP Authorized Representative Muhammad Saeed Ansari, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL RASHEED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 23 = 2013 SLD 23 = (2013) 108 TAX 403 = 2013 PTD 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Adjustment and Limitation\nConclusion:\nA refund becomes due on the date of the Appellate Authority's order. Principles for determining refund timelines were clarified.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 171", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 43 of 2012, decision dated: 15-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHARTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqi for Applicant. Abid H. Shaban", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-IV\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN SERVICES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 24 = 2013 SLD 24 = 2013 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": " Definite Information in Tax Assessments\nConclusion:\nInformation from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, lacking supporting evidence and accuracy, did not qualify as definite information under Section 122(5). The assessment order was annulled.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 122(5), 177(10)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,122(5),177(10) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1249/LB of 2011, decision dated: 2-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Niaz Ahmad Khan and Zafarul Islams. Asif Rasool, DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IMTIAZ AHMAD ROOHANI, MULTAN\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 25 = 2013 SLD 25 = 2013 PTD 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Security Pay Order Theft\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the refund of a stolen pay order and recommended disciplinary action against officials. Delay and inefficiency were declared maladministration.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Sections 2(3), 10(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10,10(3),9,2(3) Customs Act, 1969=81 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 438/KHI/CUST(164)/1383 of 2012, decision dated: 19th October,2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer. Ahmed Danish, Authorized Representative. Muhammad Qasim Khokar, DC and Ali Shah, AC Departmental", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALI SHAN ENTERPRISES, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 26 = 2013 SLD 26 = 2013 PTD 452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Status of Taxpayer and Withholding Obligations\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer was determined to be an individual, not an Association of Persons (AoP), during the relevant tax years. Provisions applicable to AoPs under Section 153(7) were inapplicable. Orders under Sections 161/205 were annulled.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 161, 205, 153(7)(h)(i), 117", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,153(7)(h)(i),153(1)(a),117 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1103 and 1105 of 2012, decision dated: 11-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHARTI, CHAIRMAN AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed Sh.. Farrukh Majeed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAMZAN STEEL INDUSTRIES, Proprietor Khalid Mahmood, Gujranwala\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS), R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 27 = 2013 SLD 27 = 2013 PTD 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\nConclusion:\nRecommendations made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman against a customs official were declared void due to procedural violations and lack of natural justice.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Sections 9, 10", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,161,205,153(7)(h)(i),153(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1876/LB of 2012, decision dated: 19-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHARTI, CHAIRMAN AND SAHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Ayesha Imran Butt, D.R.. Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., ZONE1, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs T.K. STEEL MILLS, SIEII, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 28 = 2013 SLD 28 = (2013) 108 TAX 414 = 2013 PTD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\nConclusion:\nRecommendations made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman against a customs official were declared void due to procedural violations and lack of natural justice.\nCitations:\n•\nEstablishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Sections 9, 10", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10,9 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2899 of 2010, decision dated: 28-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Kaukab Sabah-ud-Din for Petitioner. Asaf Vardag and Dilawar Hussain, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Syed NUSRAT NASIR\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 29 = 2013 SLD 29 = 2013 PTD 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Tax Orders\nConclusion:\nRectification under Section 221 is limited to errors apparent on record. Long-drawn reasoning cannot justify rectification. The reference application was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 221, 133", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,133 ", + "Case #": "l.T.R.A. No. 304 of 2010, decision dated: 20-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Altaf Mun for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs E.N.I. PAKISTAN (M) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 30 = 2013 SLD 30 = 2013 PTCL 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Section 122C\nConclusion:\nSection 122C, introduced in 2010, is a beneficial provision allowing provisional assessments. It applies retrospectively to prior tax years.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 120, 121, 122C", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(a),116(2A),121,121(1),121(1)(a),122C ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 4/2012, heard on 13.11.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FURRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Advocate alongwith Khalid Javed Additional Commissioner and Farooq A. Nasir, Additional Commissioner\nRespondent by M/s. Hafiz Muhammad Idrees Advocate and Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nVs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 31 = 2013 SLD 31 = (2013) 107 TAX 41 = 2013 PTCL 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "OGRA Formula as Definite Information \nConclusion:\nThe OGRA formula, requiring variables and calculations, was deemed insufficient as definite information. Amendments to deemed assessments based on it were invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 122(5)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5),176 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R No. 31/2012, decision dated: 12-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: G.M. Chaudhry and Qazi Ghulam Dastgir, Advocates, Khalid Javed, Additional Commissioner and Farooq A. Nasir, Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Rawalpindi\nRespondent(s) by: Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Atif Waheed, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nvs\nKHAN CNG & FILLING STATION, etc." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 32 = 2013 SLD 32 = (2013) 107 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessments and Retrospective Application of Section 122C\nConclusion:\nSection 122C provides an additional facility for provisional assessments and applies retrospectively due to its beneficial nature.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 116, 121, 122C", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,116,121(1)(2),122(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.No.4/2012, decision dated: 13-11-2012, hearing DATE 12-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Manzoor Hussain, Advocate along M/s. Khalid Javed, Additional Commissioner and Farooq A. Nasir, Additional Commissioner, for the PetitionerHafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocate and Ch. Naueem-ul-Haq, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nvs\nISLAM UD DIN, etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 33 = 2013 SLD 33 = (2013) 107 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendments to Deemed Assessments\nConclusion:\nBefore 2010, deemed assessments under Section 120 could not be annulled or amended under Section 121. Amendments were declared invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 120, 121, 177", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,(1)(d),177(4),177(6),177(10) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.41/2011, decision dated: 12-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Shahina Akbar, Advocate alongwith Khalid Javed Additional Commissioner and Farooq A Nasir, Additional Commissioner, for the Petitioner Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEAL), etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 34 = 2013 SLD 34 = (2013) 107 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction to Amend Assessment Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Islamabad High Court upheld the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioners to amend assessments under Section 122(5A). Cases were remanded for further review.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 122(5A)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 813/LB to 815/LB of 2010 (Tax Years 2004 to 2006), decision dated: 22-6-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Shazia Gull, DR, for the Appellant Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate, FCA, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 35 = 2013 SLD 35 = (2013) 107 TAX 151 = 2013 PTD 1385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Section 122\nConclusion:\nAmendments to assessments under Section 122 of the 2001 Ordinance cannot apply retroactively to orders under the repealed 1979 Ordinance. The amended order was annulled.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 122", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1155/LB to 1157/LB of 2011, (Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1998-99), decision dated: 18-7-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND M. B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arshad Waseem Ch. Advocate, for the Appellant. Shahid Sattar RTO, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 36 = 2013 SLD 36 = (2013) 107 TAX 164 = 2013 PTD 1313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability for Non-Deduction of Tax\nConclusion:\nThe responsibility for tax deduction lies with the person making the payment, not the contracting party. The Assessing Officer failed to establish default properly, rendering the order void.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 150, 161\n•\nReferences: 2012 PTD 122; 2000 PTD 3396; PLD 2008 SC 779", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=150,161 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4291/LB of 2001 (Assessment Year 1993-94), decision dated: 23-7-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Tahir, DR, for the Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, Adv., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 37 = 2013 SLD 37 = (2013) 107 TAX 176 = 2013 PTD 1239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Revising Orders\nConclusion:\nOrders revised under Section 66-A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, after the limitation period of four years, were void.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 66(1), 66-A\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548; 2009 SCMR 1279", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 579/LB and 580/LB of 2010 (Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2002-03), decision dated: 20-6-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arshad, Advocate, for the Appellant. Karamat Ullah Ch. D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 38 = 2013 SLD 38 = (2013) 107 TAX 188 = 2013 PTD 1288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals)\nConclusion:\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand cases under existing provisions. The case was referred back to the Taxation Officer for reevaluation.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 161, 205; Income Tax Rules, 2002, Rule 44(4)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205 Income Tax Rules, 2002=44(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 779/LB of 2011 (Tax Year 2009), decision dated: 19-6-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "None, for the Appellant. Jalal Ahsan, FCA, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 39 = 2013 SLD 39 = (2013) 107 TAX 197 = 2013 PTD 1159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Amendment of Limitation Period\nConclusion:\nAmendments extending limitation periods cannot apply retrospectively to cases where a vested right had already accrued.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 120, 122(4), 122(5-A)\n•\nReferences: 1963 PTD 633; 1996 SCMR 237", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),120,122(4) Finance Act, 2009=122(5A),127,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1393/LB of 2010 (Tax Year 2004), decision dated: 30-3-2012, hearing DATE : 29-2-2012 I.T.A. No. 1409/LB of 2010 (Tax Year 2004)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal Qazi, Advocate, for the Appellant/Respondent. Muhammad Tahir, DR, for the Respondent/Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 40 = 2013 SLD 40 = (2013) 107 TAX 205 = 2013 PTD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Workers' Welfare Fund\nConclusion:\nThe High Court declared amendments to the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance unconstitutional, invalidating the levy. Disallowed expenses on customs duty were reinstated as legitimate revenue expenses.\nCitations:\n•\nWorkers' Welfare Funds Ordinance, 1971; Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 60-A, 122(5-A)\n•\nReferences: East Pakistan Chrome Tannery v. Federation of Pakistan 2011 PTD 2643", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,60A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 38/IB, 136/IB and 138/IB of 2012, (Tax Years 2009 & 2010), decision dated: 21-05-2012, hearing DATE : 7-5-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Khan, DR, for the Appellant. Tahir Razzaque Khan, RCA/AR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 41 = 2013 SLD 41 = (2013) 107 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction Responsibility\nConclusion:\nThe person making payments, not the contracting party, is responsible for tax deductions. Orders treating the contracting party as liable were void.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 52, 86\n•\nReferences: 2000 PTD 3396; PLD 2008 SC 779; 2012 PTD 122", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 3407/LB to 3411/LB of 2004 (Tax Year 1994-95 to 1998-99), decision dated: 23-07-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Fouzia Fakhar, DR, for the Appellant Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, Adv. and Qadeer Ahmad, ITP, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 42 = 2013 SLD 42 = (2013) 107 TAX 283 = 2013 PTD 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Merger and Capital Gains\nConclusion:\nNo capital gain arises from a merger of companies when approved by the High Court. Additions made under Section 37 were void.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 37, 97, 97A, 122(5A)\nTopic 2: Delegation of Power for Amendment\nConclusion:\nThe delegation of power under Section 122(5A) to the Additional Commissioner was valid.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 122(5A)\nTopic 3: Expenses on Employee Benefits\nConclusion:\nLack of details for repair and maintenance expenses of vehicles provided to employees led to a valid disallowance of the claim.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 21(k)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=37,97,97A,75,122(5A),21(k) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1165/LB of 2011, decision dated: 4-12-2012, hearing DATE : 18-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Awais, FCA, for the Appellant. M. Tahir, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., Zone-I, LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1972 3 = 1972 SLD 3 = 1972 SCMR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Appreciation of Evidence\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, agreeing that there was no reason to interfere with its appreciation of evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, Sections 302, 323, 452/34", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302,323,452/34 ", + "Case #": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 2 and 102 of 1972 decided on 1-11-1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD AHMAD, WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner\nHamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record and Mobashir\nLatif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos. 14\nIhsanul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record No. 5\nMubashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner\nNemos", + "Party Name:": "Mst. FAIZ ELLAHI\nvs\nGUL MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS\nP. S. L. A. No. 102 of 1972\nGUL MOHAMMAD\nvs\nWAHID BAKHSHAND 10 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1973 1 = 1973 SLD 1 = 1973 SCMR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowance for Collection Costs\nConclusion:\nCesses are excluded from allowances under clause (7) of Section 6 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. Fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly by their letter.\nCitations:\n•\nBengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, Section 6(7)\n•\nReferences: Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Pratap Udl Nath Sahi Deo", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "(Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1951, decision dated: 16th December 1952. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1951 against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Dacca in East Bengal in Reference Case No. 14 of 1949, dated the 29-05-1950)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL RASHID, C, J., SHAHABUDDIN AND A. R. CORNELIUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Asir, Senior Advocate with Modaris All instructed by A. B. Mahmud Hussain, Attorney. A. K. M. Baquer, Senior Advocate with M. Fazlul Huq, instructed by K. Hussain, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, EAST BENGAL\nvs\nB. W. M. ABDUR RAHMAN, MANAGER, TAKI BARA TARAF WARDS ESTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1974 1 = 1974 SLD 1 = 1974 SCMR 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Renewal of Registration\nConclusion:\nThe High Court justifiably refused to refer the case for opinion, finding no reason to overrule the Income-tax Officer's discretion.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 22(4), 23(2)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(4),23(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 23 of 1973, decision dated: 3-10-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Lone, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ifiikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMESSRS PUBLIC MEDICAL HALL, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1974 2 = 1974 SLD 2 = 1974 SCMR 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction Objection\nConclusion:\nA party cannot object to a tribunal's jurisdiction in writ proceedings if the objection was not raised earlier.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1962, Article 98", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=98 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1969, decision dated: 31-10-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Saidar Khan, Advocate-on-Record. Respondents ..ex parte", + "Party Name:": "Sh. MUHAMMAD ANWAR\nvs\nCh. SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 2 = 1977 SLD 2 = 1977 SCMR 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Policy Interpretation\nConclusion:\nPipes and tubes are distinct items under import policies. Misinterpretations by the Ministry of Commerce do not hold legal weight.\nCitations:\n•\nImports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, Section 3(1); Import Policy Order, 1974", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3,3(1) Customs Act, 1969=156(9) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. K-23 to K-27, K-36 to K-64 of 1976 and Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K-299 to K-312 of 1976, decision dated: 9th July 1977. dates of hearing : 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th May 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND QAISAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Yaliya Bakhtiar, Attorney General for Pakistan, M. Afzal Lone, Advocate instructed by Yousaf Rafi, Advocate-on-Records /Petitioners (in all the Appeals and Petitions)\nSyed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate, Ch. Fazal Hussain, Advocate-on-Record and Sharaf Faridi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate-on-Records (in C. As. Nos. K24 to K26 of 1976)\nSyed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Shafique Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record and K. A. Ghani, Advocate-on-Records (in C. As. Nos. K60 to K64, K23 and K36 to K59 of 1976)\nNemos (in C. Ps. Nos. K312, K299, K290, K301 and K305 to K311 of 1976)", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) KARACHI AND OTHERS\nvs\nMESSRS ABDUL MAJEED KHAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 3 = 1977 SLD 3 = 1977 SCMR 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Void Orders and Review\nConclusion:\nA void order is illegal but need not always be struck down depending on equity or statutory provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199\n•\nReferences: Conforce Ltd. v. Syed Ali", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules=46 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1963, decision dated: 2nd April 1965", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Zullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 28 and 30 to 55 . Ex parte. Respondents Nos. 12, 15, 29 and 56 . Struck out", + "Party Name:": "M. N. RIZVI, P. C. S.\nvs\nPROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 55 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 2 = 1978 SLD 2 = 1978 SCMR 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Evident Errors in Review\nConclusion:\nReviews must address evident errors, not differing opinions. Courts have discretion in addressing void orders based on consequences.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)= ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petition No. 17-R of 1976, decision dated: 2nd July 1978, hearing DATE : 13th May 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C, J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND DORAB PATEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner in person Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate -on-Records", + "Party Name:": "S. SHARIF AHMAD HASHMI \nvs\nCHAIRMAN, SCREENING COMMITTEE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 2 = 1979 SLD 2 = 1979 SCMR 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal and Revision Flexibility\nConclusion:\nCourts should favor adjudication over procedural technicalities. Objections not raised promptly cannot be entertained later.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXI, Rule 58", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=100 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 387 of 1978, decision dated: 28th September 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C, J. AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Asghar Khadim, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo No. 1. Fazal-i-Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record No. 2", + "Party Name:": "THE THAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. \nvs\nTIE BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 3 = 1979 SLD 3 = 1979 SCMR 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Process on Counsel\nConclusion:\nService of notice on counsel is deemed service on the client unless counsel is permitted to withdraw formally.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order III, Rule 4", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.III,rr.4(2),5,O.V,r.17,.IV,O.VII8,r.4. ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1974, decision dated: 5th April 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALAHUDDIN AHMED, MUHAMMAD GUL, MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA AND MUHAMMAD HALEEM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Habibullah Advocate-on-Record M. Bilal, Advocate instructed by S. Wahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL LATIF \nvs\nJAMAL DIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 4 = 1979 SLD 4 = 1979 SCMR 555", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Territorial Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nA High Court cannot assume jurisdiction when the authority taking action resides outside its territory, and no direct relief is sought within its jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)= ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 127/P of 1979, decision dated: 25th June 1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. SAFDAR SHAH, ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (Peshawar) for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "SABIR DIN \nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY Of DEFENCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 96 = 1980 SLD 96 = 1980 SCMR 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) \n \n O. XLI, r. 5 Appeal to Supreme Court Stay order¬ Stay order granted by Supreme Court on undertaking given by petitioner Deliberate violation of such undertaking Held, can be taken serious notice of. [Supreme Court Stay order Appeal (civil). \n \nMuhammad Salim Khan Yusafzai v. K. Mohiuddin 1968 S C M R 557 ref.\n \n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) \n \n O: XXXIX, r. 2 (3) read with S. 151 Injunction Party against whom injunction order passed doing something for its own advantage and to disadvantage of other party Court can, under its inherent jurisdiction bring back such party to original position Plea that since tad interim order was later discharged, violation of such order was no longer cognisable Held, without substance. [Jurisdiction--Injunction].\n \nWhen by contravening an injunction order the party against whom the order is passed has done something for its own advantage to disadvantage of the other party, it is open to the Court under its inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood, as if the order had not been contravened. The exercise of this inherent power is based on the principle that no party can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong in spite of the order to the contrary passed by the Court.\n \nAyyammal and another v. Thangavelu Padayachi A I R 1950 Mad. 317 ; Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. A. H. Forbes A I R 1922 Pat. 382 ; The State of Bihar v. Usha Devi and another A I R 1956 Pat. 455 ; Magna and another v. Rustam and another A I R 1963 Raj. 3 and B. F. Varghese v. Joseph Thomas A I R 1957 Trav Co. 286 ref.\n \nIt was argued that since ultimately the ad interim order of status quo was later discharged by the Court, violation of such order was not cognisable:\n \nHeld, such plea has no substance.\n \nBagga and others v. Saleh and others A I R 1915 P C 106 and Ottapur ak¬kal Thazath Suppi and others v. Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunhi Koya A I R 1917 Mad. 448 ref.\n \n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 58 and O. XXXI, r. 2 (2) read with S. 36 & O. XXI, r. 32 (1) Securing compliance and execution of an order of injunction by directing arrest and detention of debtor Held, a matter different from punishing a debtor for violation of injunc¬tion of status quo Object and application of S. 58 and O. XXXIX, r. 2 (3). [Injunction].\n \nSecuring compliance and execution of an order of injunction by directing arrest and detention etc. of (as this term is usually used) A debtor is an independent subject by itself whereas punishing a debtor for violation of the injunction of status quo is quite a different matter altogether though in certain respects apparently they may look to be overlapping but that is only in¬cidental. The object of first is to seek compliance by a Court of its orders as otherwise these orders would be a mere farce. The aim of the second machinery is the punishment of the defaulter. The former is regulated by section 58, C. P. C, whereas the latter by Order XXXIX, rule 2 (3), C. P. C. The former is applicable when stage for execution has not passed out or in other words the order is still capable of execution whereas the latter is attracted at all stages.\n \nThe Advocate General of Bombay v: Gangii Akhat I L R 19 Bom. 152 ; Kishore Bun Mohunt v. Dwarkantah Adhikari and others 21 I A 89 (P C) ; Nari Chinnabba Chetty v. E. ' Chengalroya Chetty and others A I R 1950 Mad. 237 ; Mool Chandra Jain v. Jagdis Chandra Joshi A I R 1955 All. 385 ; Dulhin Janak Nandini Kunwari v. Kedar Narain Singh A 1 R 1941 All. 140 and Bendakayala Abdul Rajack v. Vastad Abdul Latheef A I R 1961 Andh. Pra. 482 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151,O.XLI,r.5,O:XXXIX,r.2(3),O.XXXI,r.2(2),36&O.XXI,r.32(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 245 of 1979, decision dated: 31st December, 1979, hearing DATE : 19-12-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Aziz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Qamar-ud-din, Advocate, Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "BAKHTAWAR ETC.\nvs\nAMIN ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 98 = 1981 SLD 98 = 1981 SCMR 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Delay Condonation\nConclusion:\nThe government cannot claim special treatment for condonation of delays compared to ordinary litigants. Each day of delay must be satisfactorily explained. Internal departmental deliberations do not justify delay.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908, Sections 3, 5\n•\nReferences: 1970 SCMR 558; 1979 SCMR 45; 1979 SCMR 191", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=3,5 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petitions Nos. 109 to 112 of 1975, decision dated: 19th February 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Haque Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions). Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax-\nvs\nRais PIR AHMAD KHAN\nC. P. No. 110 of 1975\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nRais SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN\nC. P. No. 111 of 1975\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nRais WAZIR AHMAD KHAN\nC. P. No. 112 of 1975\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE \nvs\nRais PIR AHMAD KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 99 = 1981 SLD 99 = 1981 SCMR 364 = (1984) 50 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disciplinary Proceedings and Natural Justice\nConclusion:\nStudents accused of using unfair means must receive fair opportunities to defend themselves. Malice must be proven by students, and detailed procedural safeguards apply only when malice is established.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab University Calendar Regulations, 13, 18(3)\n•\nReferences: PLD 1965 SC 90; PLD 1966 SC 536.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1972, decision dated: 2-06-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM, DORAB PATEL AND G. SAFDAR SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Q. M. Salfm, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record. Muhammad Farooq, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI\nvs\nTHE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 100 = 1981 SLD 100 = 1981 SCMR 1061", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Notices and Allotment Cancellations\nConclusion:\nFailure to issue statutory notice under Section 24 renders cancellation of allotment void. Subsequent hearings cannot cure this defect.\nCitations:\n•\nColonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, Section 24", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912=24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 869 of 1974, decision dated: 6th February 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASFM HASSAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "FATEH MUHAMMAD\nvs\nMUSHTAQ AHMAD AND 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 101 = 1981 SLD 101 = 1981 SCMR 1145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay Due to Lack of Vigilance\nConclusion:\nDelays caused by failure to monitor court schedules or delayed filing of appeals are not excusable.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908, Section 5", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 502 of 1981, decision dated: 16th,May, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "AHMAD KHAN AND others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SHAFI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 102 = 1981 SLD 102 = 1981 SCMR 1192 = (1982) 45 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability and Hearing Rights\nConclusion:\nDemand notices issued to one widow for the deceased's tax liability without affording her a hearing were prima facie illegal, and recovery was stayed.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 185(3); Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 24-B(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24B(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 87 to 92-R of 1980, decision dated: 21st June, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL, ASLAM IAZ HUSSAIN AND ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussain and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocates and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Bilal, Advocate and Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Civil s for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 87 to 92-R of 1980, decided on 21st June, 1980\nBEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO-\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 90 = 1982 SLD 90 = 1982 SCMR 489 = (1982) 46 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Questions in Appeals\nConclusion:\nOnly questions of law arising directly from tribunal orders can be considered in appeals. Grounds not pressed are deemed abandoned.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 66(1)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-18 of 1973, decision dated: 15-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C, J. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim A. Faruqi, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Shabbir Ghauri, Advocate-on-Record. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with V. A. Kidwai, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Civil Appeal No. K-18 of 1973, decided on 15th September, 1981\nMESSRS AHMAD KARACHI HALVA MERCHANTS & AHMAD FOOD PRODUCTS\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 91 = 1982 SLD 91 = 1982 SCMR 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fraudulent Orders and Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nFraudulent High Court orders should be challenged through applications to the same court rather than separate suits.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 2(2); Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 204", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2,2(2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1926=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=204 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1982 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 335 of 1981, decision dated: 18-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN ACTG. C, J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND M.S.H. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record, Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate and M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 and 2. Nemo No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SAFIA BIBI \nvs\nMst. AISHA BIBI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 92 = 1982 SLD 92 = 1982 SCMR 673", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Appeals and Procedural Errors\nConclusion:\nRestoration of appeals dismissed for default must address procedural lapses, and short orders for restoration are valid.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XLI, Rule 19", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,r.19&O.XX,r.4(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 889 of 1981, decision dated: 19-04-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) for Petitioner. Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "Mst. BAIGAN\nvs\nABDUL HAKEEM AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 79 = 1983 SLD 79 = 1983 SCMR 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Resumption of Land Allotments\nConclusion:\nSubsequent claims cannot reopen earlier land allotments. Once resumption and allotment occur, subsequent accretion is irrelevant.\nCitations:\n•\nDisplaced Persons Act, 1958, Sections 10, 11, 14", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958=10,11,14 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1974 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 308 of 1973, decision dated: 2-03-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record Respondent No. I . Ex parte Ch. Muhammad Hassan and M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 2 to 7", + "Party Name:": "UMRA AND 8 Others \nvs\nSETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LAND), MULTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 80 = 1983 SLD 80 = 1983 SCMR 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Convictions Based on Statements\nConclusion:\nAccused statements under Section 342 must be fully considered if no other evidence exists. Statements are evaluated entirely.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, Section 302/34; Criminal Procedure Code, Section 342", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=342 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302/34 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1980, decision dated: 27-06-1982. dates of hearing : 26th and 27-06-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C, J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, S. A. NUSRAT AND M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Yaseen Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Mahtab Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s. M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the Stat", + "Party Name:": "FAIZ AND Others \nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 81 = 1983 SLD 81 = 1983 SCMR 869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Stay Orders and Service of Notice\nConclusion:\nStay orders take effect upon issuance, regardless of service. The burden of proving the order's timing lies on the respondent.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,rr.1,2,O.XXXI,r.3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1980, decision dated: 27-06-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, M. S. H. QURAISHI AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "Haji ABDUL JALIL \nvs\nJAVID AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 82 = 1983 SLD 82 = 1983 SCMR 1092", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Appeals and Procedural Compliance\nConclusion:\nDismissal of appeals for non-prosecution requires proper service to the appellant. Readers cannot fix hearing dates independently.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Orders XVII, XLI", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,r.17,O.XLI,rr.1.7&19,O.XV,O.XLIC.P.C ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 162 of 1978, heard on 5-06-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): -ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record. Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "NOWSHERI KHAN \nvs\nSAID AHMAD SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 146 = 1985 SLD 146 = 1985 SCMR 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reserved Vacancies for Practicing Lawyers\nConclusion:\nCivil Judges cannot apply for vacancies reserved for practicing lawyers, as they do not qualify under the criteria.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 185(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos.743 and 850 of 1984, decision dated: 12-08-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, SHAFIUR REHMAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Civil s for Special Leave to Appeals Nos.743 and 850 of 1984, decided on 12th August, 1984\nMUHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 147 = 1985 SLD 147 = 1985 SCMR 284 = (1986) 53 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification and Investments\nConclusion:\nStray investments not forming part of stock-in-trade do not qualify as business income. Investments in allied concerns are not deemed speculative.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 10, 2(4), 4(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4),4(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.K-40 of 1972, decision dated: 5-12-1984, hearing DATE : 30-01-1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, SHAFIUR REHMAN AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court. Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court and Yousaf Rafi, Advocate-on-records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (C) KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs HABIB BANK EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES CO., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 148 = 1985 SLD 148 = 1985 SCMR 758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nOrders by the Registrar and Copyright Board affect the entire country and grant jurisdiction to the High Court where the affected party resides.\nCitations:\n•\nCopyright Ordinance, 1962, Sections 45, 76", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 Copyrights Ordinance, 1962=45,76 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.42 of 1983, decision dated: 13-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFAZAL ZULLAH, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Qamar-ud-Din Meo, Advocate-on-Record (absent). Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Attorney-Generals Nos. 1 and 2. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALIBLAGH LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nTHE COPYRIGHT BOARD, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 149 = 1985 SLD 149 = 1985 SCMR 786 = (1985) 51 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Judgment Assessments\nConclusion:\nAssessments made under Section 23(4) must be fair, not punitive. Refusal to renew firm registration must involve separate, reasoned discretion.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 23(4), 26-A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,22(4),23(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 181 and 182 of 1972, decision dated: 13-02-1985, hearing DATE : 30-01-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record. Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record and Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK COMPANY, SARGODHA\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 134 = 1986 SLD 134 = 1986 SCMR 443 = (1980) 42 TAX 119 = 1986 PTCL 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts – Sufficiency of Evidence under Section 13 of Income-tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nMessrs Choudhri Brothers, a registered firm engaged in wholesale and retail trade of machine tools, filed a return for the assessment year 1962–65 declaring sales of Rs. 13,81,326 and a profit of Rs. 1,49,526 (profit rate of 10.8%). The Income-tax Officer rejected the books under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, citing:\nLack of stock register\nNon-exhaustive and unverifiable sales list\nHe estimated sales at Rs. 14,15,000 and applied a profit rate of 12.5%, increasing income by Rs. 27,349. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) scaled the addition down to Rs. 10,000. Dissatisfied, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the AAC’s findings.\nThe assessee then sought a reference under Section 66(1) of the Act, which the Tribunal refused. The assessee approached the Lahore High Court under Section 66(2), and the court decided the legal question itself (due to change in law), answering it in the negative, i.e., the rejection of accounts under Section 13 was not justified.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing:\nThe lack of a stock register and unverifiable sales justified rejection of books.\nThe High Court erred in evaluating factual findings differently than the tax authorities.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, holding:\nThe High Court rightly found that rejection of accounts solely due to lack of a stock register or certain unverifiable retail sales was not justified.\nThe Tribunal’s own findings acknowledged bona fides and consistent profit trends.\nNo question of public importance was involved.\nCitations:\nHigh Court Judgment Dated: 23-02-1976\nHeld:\nThe petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The rejection of accounts under Section 13 was not justified under the facts.\nNo legal error or public importance warranted Supreme Court intervention.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 611 of 1976, decision dated: 4-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "St.. Abdul Haque and Riazul Haq Sh. Advocate, Supreme Court and Iftakhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record, for the Petitioner Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nCHOUDHRI BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 135 = 1986 SLD 135 = 1986 SCMR 916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Rules and Departmental Orders\nConclusion:\nDepartmental orders must adhere to their stated reasoning. Principles of fairness and vested rights apply to import controls.\nCitations:\n•\nImports and Exports Act, 1950, Section 3", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=31,3(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1983, decision dated: 12-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C, J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munir A. Shaikh, Deputy Attorney-General and Ch. Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate-on-Records Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali. Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS\nvs\nCh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 136 = 1986 SLD 136 = 1986 SCMR 968 = (1986) 53 TAX 122 = 1986 PTCL 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Deductibility of Interest – Alleged Diversion of Borrowed Funds to Director\nDetails:\nThe respondent-company, a private joint stock company engaged in the business of ginning cotton, claimed deductions for interest paid on bank overdrafts for the assessment years 1966–67, 1967–68, and 1968–69. During the same period, the company’s Managing Director, Mian Aziz A. Sheikh, had received substantial interest-free advances from the company. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the interest expenses—Rs. 43,559, Rs. 99,935, and Rs. 84,691 respectively—on the ground that borrowed funds had been diverted for personal use.\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the disallowance, but on appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the additions. It found no evidence that borrowed funds were used for personal advances, holding instead that the company had sufficient own funds to make such advances, and borrowings were used for business needs.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax filed a Reference Application under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, raising the legal question of whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowed interest under Section 10(2)(iii).\nThe High Court dismissed the reference, upholding the Tribunal’s decision as one based on findings of fact, which could not be reopened unless specifically challenged.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals and upheld the High Court’s reasoning:\nUnder Section 10(2)(iii), interest on borrowed capital is allowable if the borrowing is for business purposes.\nThe Tribunal had recorded a clear finding—not challenged in the reference—that the borrowed funds were used in business, and no evidence showed they were diverted for personal use.\nThe High Court could not go behind findings of fact unless such findings were challenged in the Reference Application, which they were not.\nThe function of the High Court under a reference is advisory and limited to the questions referred.\nThe Court also noted that under the then-current law, there was no statutory bar on making interest-free advances to directors, though such provisions had since been introduced via Section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\nRajal Bahadur Sir Rajendra Narayan Bhanj Deo v. CIT, AIR 1940 PC 158\nSajawal Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, PLD 1968 Lah. 527 (indirectly relevant on factual findings)\nHeld:\nAppeals dismissed. Tribunal’s deletion of disallowed interest sustained. The High Court rightly refused to reappraise facts not challenged via proper legal question.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2),10(2)(iii),23(3),33,33(6),66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 148, 149 and 150 of 1972, decision dated: 5-09-1985, hearing DATE : 2-07-1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (in all Appeals). Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (in all Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nM/s SHAIKH MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & C0. Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 137 = 1986 SLD 137 = 1986 SCMR 1114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Oilseeds and Levy of Cesses\nConclusion:\nMaize qualifies as an oilseed for cesses. Processes altering the structure of oilseeds for extraction do not change their classification.\nCitations:\n•\nOilseeds Committee Act, 1946, Section 3", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Oil Seeds Committee Act, 1946=2(e),2(6),3(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1977, decision dated: 10-03-1986", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record. Munir A. Sheikh, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan and Ch. Fazle Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) No. 1. Respondent No. 2. Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS C0. Ltd.\nvs\nPAKISTAN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 111 = 1987 SLD 111 = 1987 SCMR 1119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Laches in Constitutional Petitions\nConclusion:\n•\nLaches cannot bar a constitutional petition unless the respondent raises it specifically and the petitioner is given adequate time to respond.\n•\nLaches and statutory limitation differ; laches operate as an equitable bar, whereas statutory limitation is a legal bar.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Article 199; Limitation Act, Sections 3, 5\n•\nReferences: 1970 SCMR 558; 1978 SCMR 367", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7-P of 1981, decision dated: 11-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raza A. Khan, Deputy Advocate-General instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate- on-Record. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 . Ex parte. M. Rafiq Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record No. 4", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN POST OFFICE\nvs\nSETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 112 = 1987 SLD 112 = 1987 SCMR 1254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax and Method of Accounting\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessees can choose their method of accounting but must follow it consistently.\n•\nRevisions in accounts that do not alter the net profit should be treated based on historical patterns.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, Sections 10(2)(v), 10(2)(xv), 13A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,13A,66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 570 and 571 of 1980, decision dated: 3rd June, 1985", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACT. C, J. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND S.A. NUSRAT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate- on-Record (absent)s. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate- on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIAN MUHAMMAD SHARIF & Co.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 113 = 1987 SLD 113 = 1987 SCMR 1403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gifts under Muhammadan Law\nConclusion:\n•\nGifts under Muslim law do not require written instruments or registration if the required conditions (declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession) are met.\nCitations:\n•\nTransfer of Property Act, Sections 123, 129\n•\nReferences: 1977 SCMR 154", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=123,129 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.455 of 1980, decision dated: 18-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, ACTG. C.J., NASIM HASSAN SHAH AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Maulvi ABDULLAH and OTHERS\nvs\nABDUL AZIZ and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 114 = 1987 SLD 114 = 1987 SCMR 1543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Nullity of Decrees and Limitation\nConclusion:\n•\nA decree passed in violation of mandatory legal provisions is a nullity, and no limitation applies to challenging such a decree.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, Section 3; Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185(3)\n•\nReferences: 1986 SCMR 962", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 61-Q of 1986, decision dated: 19-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record No. 1", + "Party Name:": "Malik KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD and 24 OTHERS\nvs\nMARDUMAN BABAR KAHOL and 29 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 115 = 1987 SLD 115 = 1987 SCMR 1840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Currency and Customs Law\nConclusion:\n•\nConfiscation orders must adhere to show-cause notice grounds. Convictions under criminal proceedings do not influence independent customs adjudications.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, Sections 2(5), 156(1)(89), 180; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Sections 4, 8, 9, 23", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=2,2(5),156(1)(89),180 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947=4,8,9,23 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.44-Q of 1986, decision dated: 11-04-1987", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record with Yakub K. Eusufzai, Advocate-General for Petitioners. Yahya Bakhtiar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "THE COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and OTHERS\nvs\nRAHM DIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 194 = 1991 SLD 194 = 1991 SCMR 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Provisos under Industrial Relations Ordinance\nConclusion:\n•\nA proviso must qualify the preceding section and cannot operate as an independent clause. Lists under Section 22 pertain to voters, not total workmen.\nCitations:\n•\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance, Section 22", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=22,22(9), ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petitions Nos. 64 to 66 and 98 of 1990, decision dated: 11-02-1991, hearing DATE : 7-02-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Obaidur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.R.P. 64 of 1990)\nMushtaq A. Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.R.Ps. 65 and 66 of 1990)\nM.A.I. Oarni, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (C.R.P. 98 of 1990)\nRaja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muzafar Hasan, Advocate-on-Records (in C.R.P. 64 of 1990).\nA.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Records (in C.R.Ps. 65 and 66 of 1990)\nA.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Records (C.R.P. 98 of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "K.E.S.C. PROGRESSIVE WORKERS UNION through its Chairman and OTHERS\nvs\nK.E.S.C. LABOUR UNION through its General Secretary and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 195 = 1991 SLD 195 = 1991 SCMR 968", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Preemption and Market Value\nConclusion:\n•\nA remand for market value reassessment is futile when the issue was not contested in earlier proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nLand Reforms Regulation, Para. 25", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Land Reforms Regulation, 1972=25 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 621 and 622 of 1990, decision dated: 28-01-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL\nvs\nFAIZ AHMED and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 196 = 1991 SLD 196 = 1991 SCMR 1810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prejudice in High Court Remand\nConclusion:\n•\nLeave to appeal was granted to assess if remand orders caused prejudice to the petitioner.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Articles 185(3), 199", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.138-F of 1989, decision dated: 13-01-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH AND S. USMAN ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yunas Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Inamullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Jan Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s", + "Party Name:": "ZAHIR SHAH\nvs\nNAZIR AHMAD and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 197 = 1991 SLD 197 = 1991 SCMR 2114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Abuse of Litigation by Ex-Civil Servants\nConclusion:\n•\nProlonged litigation for unearned gains at public expense is condemned. Courts must prevent such abuse by focusing on substantive justice.\nCitations:\n•\nReferences: PLD 1984 SC 95; PLD 1991 SC 1051", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.84 of 1991, decision dated: 2-07-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner in person. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Ch. AKBAR ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 666 = 1991 SLD 666 = 1991 PLC 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Back Benefits in Reinstatement Cases\nConclusion:\n•\nBack benefits cannot be waived without clear and credible evidence of the petitioner’s consent. Case remanded for reevaluation of back benefits.\nCitations:\n•\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance, Section 51", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Revision No. 75 of 1991, decision dated: 6-03-1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "ZAHID MIRZA\nvs\nDIRECTOR (ADMN) WASA, L.DA. LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 667 = 1991 SLD 667 = 1991 PLC 834", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Grievance Petitions\nConclusion:\n•\nA grievance petition filed after significant delay (5 years from dismissal and 2 years after the departmental appeal) was rightfully barred by time.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal's decision to permit raising the limitation plea and concluding the grievance as time-barred was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance, Sections 25-A, 38\n•\nReference: 1972 SCMR 359", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1082 of 1989, decision dated: 27-02-1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HARDER ALI PIRZADA AND ALLAH DINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "KAMAL AHMAD KHAN\nvs\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "0000 0 =", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 668 = 1991 SLD 668 = 1991 PLC 811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Evidence\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court cannot reassess evidence already evaluated by Tribunals unless a significant error in jurisdiction or law is evident.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Article 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutionals Petition No. D-1052 of 1988, decision dated: 4-04-1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD.\nvs\nTHE CHAIRMAN, SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 669 = 1991 SLD 669 = 1991 PLC 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax and Capital Gains\nConclusion:\n•\nImmovable property and compulsory acquisitions fall outside the ambit of capital gains for taxation.\n•\nDistribution of compensation for compulsory land acquisition to shareholders retains its capital nature and is non-taxable.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, Sections 27, 28", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.58 of 1988, heard on 10-01-1989.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, DR. A.G. QAZI AND MOBEEN AHMAD KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "WAJID ALI\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 248 = 1992 SLD 248 = 1992 SCMR 250 = 1992 PTCL 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreement to Sell vs. Mortgage\nConclusion:\n•\nAgreements purporting to sell but effectively serving as conditional mortgages cannot be enforced as sale agreements.\n•\nPleadings must align with the correct legal interpretations based on established facts.\nCitations:\n•\nTransfer of Property Act, Sections 53-A, 58", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,27,28,151 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,Fourth Schedule, Income Tax Act, 1922=5(8) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.84-K, 85-K and 86-K of 198,1 decided on 30-01-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar,.Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records (in all Appeals). Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Records (in all Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JULIAN HOSHANG DINSHAW TRUST and others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE XVIII SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 249 = 1992 SLD 249 = 1992 SCMR 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Tribunal's Findings\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court should rely on facts established by the Income Tax Tribunal.\n•\nRes judicata applies flexibly in tax matters; prior decisions may be revisited based on fresh evidence or errors.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, Section 66", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=53A,58,54 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,R.1 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.487 of 1990, decision dated: 21st December, 1991. dates of hearing: 1st and 2-12-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate instructed by Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-.on-Record. Syed Munir Hussain, Advocate instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 to 5", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR\nvs\nMst. SARDAR BEGUM and 12 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 250 = 1992 SLD 250 = 1992 SCMR 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Back Benefits on Reinstatement\nConclusion:\n•\nEmployees reinstated on technical grounds are not entitled to back benefits unless explicitly awarded.\nCitations:\n•\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance, Section 25-A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1),(2),16,29,23(1)&23(4) Finance Ordinance, 1961=ThirdSched., Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.246-K, 248-K to 253-K and 291-K to 296-K of 1980, decision dated: 2-05-1989, hearing DATE : 25th January 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, SAAD SAOOD JAN AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record ands (in all Appeals). M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos.248 to 250 of 1980). Nemos (in all Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nANWERALY HAJI NOOR MOHAMMAD \nCivil Appeals Nos.248K to 250K of 1980\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nSeth GHULAM ABBAS ADAM ALI \nCivil Appeals Nos.251K to 253K of 1980\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nSeth SAIFUDDIN GHULAM HUSSAIN \nCivil Appeals Nos 291K to 293K of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A KARACHI\nvs\nMir YUSUF ALI \nCivil Appeals Nos 294K to 296K of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nQazi MUHAMMAD ISMAIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 251 = 1992 SLD 251 = 1992 SCMR 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Partnership Deeds in Tax Matters\nConclusion:\n•\nQuestions about the genuineness of partnership deeds involve factual determination and are not referable as questions of law.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, Section 66", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)­ ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.104-K to 111-K of 1984, decision dated: 23rd May, 1991, hearing DATE : 13-05-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, AJMAL MIAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate -on-Record. Respondents. Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B\nvs\nMessrs FARROKH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 670 = 1991 SLD 670 = 1991 PLC 790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Pleadings\nConclusion:\n•\nAmendments to plaints are permissible if they do not change the suit's character or prejudice the defendant's rights.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, Section 153", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1382 and 5051 of 1985, heard on 23rd February, 1991.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.\nvs\nPUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1969 1 = 1969 SLD 1 = 1969 SCMR 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Divisibility of Properties in Settlement Matters\nConclusion:\n•\nProperties consisting of separate units cannot be arbitrarily treated as one without substantive evidence.\n•\nArbitrary decisions by Settlement Authorities are subject to review in writ jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nDisplaced Persons Act", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,26 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 179 of 1968, decision dated: 17th October 1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND ABDUS SATTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Rana, Attorney for Petitioner. Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SHAH NAWAZ KHAN & Co., MULTAN \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NORTH ZONE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 1 = 1970 SLD 1 = 1970 SCMR 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Existence of Partnership\nConclusion:\n•\nDetermining whether a partnership existed before a deed is a factual matter and does not raise a legal question for High Court intervention.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, Section 66", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=153,O.VI,r.17 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 61-D of 1970, decision dated: 23rd June 1970", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J. AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Sobhan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Aminul Huq, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "DELWAR HOSSAIN\nvs\nMaulvi ABDUL JALIL CHOWDHURY AND others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 2 = 1970 SLD 2 = 1970 SCMR 872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue Receipt and Limitation in Tax References\nConclusions:\n•\nThe question of whether an amount constitutes a revenue receipt is factual and not referable as a legal question.\n•\nLimitation issues must be explicitly raised before the Tribunal; otherwise, they cannot be entertained at higher courts.\n•\nAssessing income based on its allocation in the balance sheet is permissible if justified.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 66(1)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 54-D of 1968, decision dated: 3rd June 1970. dates of hearing : 2nd and 3rd June 1970", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SAJJAD AHMAD, WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Md. Nurul Huq, Advocate-on-Record. Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "THE LUNGLA (SYLHET) TEA Co. LTD., SYLHET-\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA CIRCLE, DACCA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 3 = 1970 SLD 3 = 1970 SCMR 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Nature of Property in Settlement Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Courts can examine the nature of property (e.g., whether it is appurtenant to a main house) under writ jurisdiction.\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to review the High Court's jurisdiction in such inquiries.\nCitations:\n•\nDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (1958), Schedule, Part 1", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958=SchedPart1 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 227 of 1967, decision dated: 3-10-1967", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. A. RAHMAN, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner. Zaki-ud-Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Rana, Attorney No. 1. Nemo No. 2", + "Party Name:": "LT. COL. A. H. MINHAS\nvs\nGHULAM AHMAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 4 = 1970 SLD 4 = 1970 SCMR 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Divisibility of Properties and Writ Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nProperties with separate entities cannot be treated as one unless supported by evidence.\n•\nThe High Court can review arbitrary decisions influenced by incorrect deductions.\nCitations:\n•\nDisplaced Persons Act (1958), Schedule, Part 1\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1962), Article 98", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958=SchedPart1 Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=98 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1963, heard on 25th and 26th June 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Attorneys. Respondent No. 1 . Ex parte. Mahmud Ali and Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, Senior Advocates Supreme Court (Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with them) instructed by Siddiq & Co., Attorneys No. 2", + "Party Name:": "N. M. KHAN AND ANOTHER\nvs\nTHE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER. PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 5 = 1970 SLD 5 = 1970 SCMR 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Existence of Partnership\nConclusions:\n•\nWhether a partnership existed before executing a deed is a factual issue and does not involve a question of law for High Court review.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 66(2)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 41 of 1970, decision dated: 10th April 1970", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD AHMAD AND WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMESSRS ZAMINDARA FLOUR MILLS, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 1 = 1971 SLD 1 = 1971 SCMR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds and Sales Tax Law\nConclusions:\n•\nGovernment directives cannot retrospectively alter statutory definitions (e.g., duty paid value ).\n•\nWrit petitions challenging appealable orders should first exhaust appellate remedies.\n•\nDelays in filing writ petitions must be adequately explained.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act (1951), Sections 2(5), 3(3)(ii), 5(3), and 27(2)\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1962), Article 98", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(5),3(3)(ii),5(3),27(2),7(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=98 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 68-D of 1966, decision dated: 4th June 1970", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SAJJAD AHMAD AND WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. M. Subhan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Nurul Huq, Advocate- on-Record. A. M. Khan Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Respondent No. 3 Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "NIZAMUDDIN AHMAD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 2 = 1971 SLD 2 = 1971 SCMR 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax and Retrospective Application\nConclusions:\n•\nAmendments to taxing statutes are not retrospective unless explicitly stated.\n•\nCourts cannot imply provisions not expressed in the statute.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act (1951), Sections 2(16), 3(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(16),3(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No: K-50 of 1964, decision dated: 24th March 1966", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. F. Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdullah Faruqi, Attorney on behalf of Yousuf Rafi, Attorney- on-Record. S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by K. A. Ghani, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HIRJINA & Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 3 = 1971 SLD 3 = 1971 SCMR 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance in Taxation\nConclusions:\n•\nMachinery transferred to a newly formed company is not treated as second-hand for depreciation purposes if already adjusted as share capital.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Rules (1922), Rule 8(2)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=R-8 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-21 of 1971, decision dated: 23rd August 1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI EAST, KARACHI\nvs\nMESSRS AMSONS DAIRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 4 = 1971 SLD 4 = 1971 SCMR 657", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of Sentence in Criminal Appeals\nConclusions:\n•\nAppellate courts have discretion to grant bail under Section 426 of CrPC, even before reviewing case records, based on illness or similar considerations.\nCitations:\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code (1898), Sections 426 and 497(1)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=426,497 ", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 183 of 1971, decision dated: 8th October 1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J. AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Khalid Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "MAQSOOD\nvs\nALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 5 = 1971 SLD 5 = 1971 SCMR 681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notices in Dismissal Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nFailure to issue a mandatory statutory notice before dismissal renders the act void ab initio.\n•\nDefects at the initial stage of proceedings are not curable later.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1962), Article 177(1)(b)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=177(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1970, decision dated: 13th October 1971. dates of hearing : 12th and 13th October 1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Dilawar Mahmood, Additional Advocate-General Punjab (Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Records. Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL and 2 others\nvs\nMOHAMMAD AKHTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 125 = 1996 SLD 125 = 1996 SCMR 1688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes: Omission vs. Repeal\nConclusions:\n•\n Omission in amending statutes erases the provision as if it never existed, similar to repeal. \n•\nPending proceedings are governed by the law as it existed before the amendment.\nCitations:\n•\nGeneral Clauses Act (1897), Section 6", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "General Clauses Act, 1897=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXIII,R.1 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.51-Q and 52-Q of 1994, decision dated: 7-12-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR, MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate.Supreme Court and M.W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record No. 2. M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Records Nos.3 to 6", + "Party Name:": "DAD MUHAMMAD and anothers\nvs\nADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEI, QUETTA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 647 = 1999 SLD 647 = 1999 SCMR 1379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fundamental Rights of Northern Areas\nConclusions:\n•\nNorthern Areas residents are entitled to governance through elected representatives and access to independent judiciary.\n•\nSupreme Court directed legislative and administrative measures to ensure their fundamental rights.\n•\nFundamental rights must align with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 1, 2A, 8–28, 184(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=184(3),9,10,11,12,13,14,21,22&24,1,2A,17&Part11,Chap.1,PartII,Chap.I(Arts.8to28)& ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. and 17 of 1994, decision dated: 28-05-1989, hearing DATE : 12-05-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C, J., MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI,MEMOON KAZI, CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Wahab al-Khairi, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 11 of 1994). Sh. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. P. No. I I of 1994). Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Attorney-General for Pakistan and Ch. Akhta Ali, Advocate-on-Record No. 1 (on Courts Notice)", + "Party Name:": "ALJEHAD TRUST through Habibul Wahab AlKhairi, Advocate and 9 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 161 = 1990 SLD 161 = 1990 SCMR 2744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Role and Recommendations of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Mohtasib's recommendations, being quasi-judicial, cannot be arbitrarily set aside without valid reasoning.\n•\nThe President of Pakistan must apply judicious mind and record reasons while rejecting such recommendations.\n•\nHigh Court's decision to exclude the President's arbitrary order was upheld by the Supreme Court.\nCitations:\n•\nWafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 (Arts. 11, 32)\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art. 185(3))", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)=11,32 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.49 of 1999, decision dated: 22-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Yawar Ali, Deputy Attorney-General instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record No. 1", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division Government of Pakistan, Islamabad\nvs\nMUHAMMAD TARIQ PIRZADA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 223 = 1993 SLD 223 = 1993 SCMR 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Assessment and Set-Off under Clause 172 of the Second Schedule\nConclusions:\n•\nClause 172 provides for set-offs against unassessed income up to a specified cut-off date (29-07-1985).\n•\nAssessment is not finalized until all appeal or revision forums are exhausted.\n•\nReassessment cases are treated distinctly and may qualify for set-offs if they remain pending.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Second Schedule, Clause 172)\n•\nRelevant case laws (e.g., Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.172, ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.263-K of 1991, decision dated: 18-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate-on-Records Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others\nvs\nCHANDA MOTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1636 = 2002 SLD 1636 = (2002) 258 ITR 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Assets and Estate Duty for Wealth Tax\nConclusions:\n•\nConflicting precedents require clarification on whether probable estate duty diminishes property valuation for wealth tax.\n•\nIssue referred to a larger Supreme Court bench to resolve inconsistency between prior rulings.\nCitations:\n•\nWealth Tax Act, 1957 (Section 7)\n•\nCase precedents: Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT, CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family Trust", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=7(1) Wealth Tax Rules, 1957=1D ", + "Case #": "CA NOS. 4316, 4703, 4912, 4914, 4918, 4962, 5616, 5636, 6074, 7102, 5688 AND 6170 OF 1999, 820, 1794, 1809-11, 2354, 2519, 2640 AND 7459 OF 2000 NOVEMBER 1, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.L. Verma, S. Ganesh, Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Kaushik, Pritish Kapoor, Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Neera Gupta, B.V. Balram Das, J.B. Dadachanji, P. Muralikrishna, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, A.V. Rangam and A. Ranganadhan for the appearing parties", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of Wealth Tax\nvs\nTrustees of Heh. etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1637 = 2002 SLD 1637 = (2002) 258 ITR 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) and Prima Facie Adjustments\nConclusions:\n•\nTax disputes pending at the time of KVSS declaration remain eligible for the scheme.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer's post-facto deletion of disputes to deny KVSS benefits was held to be malicious and quashed.\n•\nArrears include both disputed and admitted liabilities at the time of declaration.\nCitations:\n•\nFinance (No. 2) Act, 1998 (Section 90)\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (Section 154)\n•\nRelevant case law: Shaily Engg. Plastic Ltd. v. Designated Authority", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=154 ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2118 OF 2000 OCTOBER 31, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Ahuja, Ranbir Chandra and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant. M.L. Verma, Mayur R. Shah and Ajay Kumar Jain for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nShaily Engg. Plastic Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 253 = 1992 SLD 253 = 1992 SCMR 539 = (1992) 65 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Computation of Insurance Company Profits for Taxation\nConclusions:\n•\nAccounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance are the basis for assessing non-life insurance companies.\n•\nEntire rejection of accounts is unjustified unless proven fraudulent. Adjustments can be made under Rule 6 of the First Schedule.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (First Schedule, Rules 6 & 8)\n•\nCase precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,6,8 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.8-K of 1985, decision dated: 5-09-1991, hearing DATE : 1st September, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shiek Hyder, Advocate. Supreme Court instructed by Muraffar Hussain, Advocate- on-Record. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs QUEENSLAND INSURANCE CO. LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 254 = 1992 SLD 254 = 1992 SCMR 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Prevention and Constitutionality of Provisions\nConclusions:\n•\nProvisions of the Foreign Exchange Prevention Act (1972) were declared arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional under Article 25.\n•\nEqual protection under the law mandates that discriminatory application of legislation must fail judicial scrutiny.\nCitations:\n•\nForeign Exchange Prevention Act, 1972 (Sections 2, 6, 6-A)\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 25)\n•\nRelevant case laws: Jibendra Kishore v. Province of East Pakistan, Waris Meah v. The State", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),184(3),25,2 Foreign Exchange (Prevention of Payments) Act, 1972=2,6,6A, ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.8-K of 1978. decided on 29-07-1991. dates of hearing: 12th,13th & 16-06-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Zaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Naeemur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and AA. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record No. 1. Saeed A. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and AA. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record No. 2. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate -on-Record No. 3", + "Party Name:": "INAMUR REHMAN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 255 = 1992 SLD 255 = 1992 SCMR 663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Sales Tax and Tax Exemption Interpretation\nConclusions:\n•\nSales tax exemptions must be strictly interpreted; burden of proof rests on the claimant.\n•\nExemptions from sales tax remove goods from the taxable net entirely.\n•\nCourts are bound to apply the plain language of statutes without introducing extraneous considerations.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1951 (Sections 3, 7, 27)\n•\nCase precedents: Noorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer, Ayurvedic Pharmacy (Dacca) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,3,17,8(2),8 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No.112-K to 114-K of 1985. decided on 15-05-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, AJMAL MIAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Records. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/SALES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 256 = 1992 SLD 256 = 1992 SCMR 687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Errors and Income Tax Assessment Conclusions:\n•\nHigh Court can reframe questions referred by the Income-tax Tribunal to address real issues.\n•\nRectification under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act requires mistakes to be apparent on the record without investigation or new evidence.\n•\nSuccessor officers cannot invoke rectification to reassess or reinterpret decisions of their predecessors.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1922 (Ss. 35, 66)\n•\nIncome-tax Ordinance, 1979 (S. 136)\n•\nCase laws: Shaikh Muhammad Iftikharul Haq v. Income-tax Officer, Bhawalpur", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,35,2,3 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No-380 of 1991, decision dated: 31st October, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANYS II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL FOOD LABORATORIES\nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nvs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "0000 0 =", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 258 = 1992 SLD 258 = 1992 SCMR 891", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Duties and Taxation under the Constitution\nConclusions:\n•\nExcise duties on services are distinct from duties on goods and can be imposed by Federal Government under constitutional provisions.\n•\nAlcoholic liquor excise duties are reserved for Provincial Governments under specific constitutional entries.\n•\nFederal Government's exemption notifications are discretionary but subject to judicial review for adherence to statutory conditions.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Ss. 3, 12-A)\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art. 279)\n•\nRelevant precedents: Government of Pakistan v. Hashwani Hotel Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6c),3,55,4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=ThirdSched., ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.123-K of 1983, decision dated: 8-10-1991, hearing DATE : 29-08-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record. Shaikh Haider and Ali Ahmed Fazeel, Advocates Supreme Court with Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 224 = 1993 SLD 224 = 1993 SCMR 1342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Promissory Estoppel in Taxation\nConclusions:\n•\nPromissory estoppel applies against the government, subject to limitations such as legality and absence of fraud.\n•\nExemptions granted through notifications can create vested rights but can be rescinded by legislative action, not executive orders.\n•\nRetrospective withdrawal of exemptions is impermissible unless expressly authorized by law.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Ss. 3, 12-A)\n•\nCase laws: Molasses Trading & Exports v. Federation of Pakistan, Al-Samrez Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3,3(1),4(3)(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=ThirdSched.,Item43(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=279 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 101-K to 107-K, 137-K, 138-K and 149-K of 1982 and 14-K and 15-K of 1984, decision dated: 7-10-1991, hearing DATE : 22-08-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeal No. 101K of 1982)\nShahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s. (in Civil Appeal No. 101K of 1982)\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeal No. 102K of 1982)\nMuzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeal No. 102K of 1982)\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos.103K and 104K of 1982)\nMuzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeals Nos.103K and 104K of 1982)\nFaizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos.105 to 107 of 1982)\nMuzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) and Yousaf Raft Advocate-on-Record for (in Civil Appeals Nos.105K and 106K of 1982)\nA.A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeal No. 138K of 1982)\nYousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 137K of 1952 and M. Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1982)\nAbbas Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 149K of 1982)\nYousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeal No. 149K of 1982)\nShahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeal No. 14K of 1984)\nKhalidIshaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 14K of 1984)\nMahmood lqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A..Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record (in Civi. Appeal No. 15K of 1984)\nMuzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeal No. 15K of 1984)", + "Party Name:": "HIRJINA & CO. \nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 259 = 1992 SLD 259 = 1992 SCMR 1652 = 1993 PTCL 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions, Excise Duties, and Government Notifications\nConclusions:\n•\nExemptions under Section 12-A are discretionary and revocable but must not impair vested rights retrospectively.\n•\nNotifications withdrawing exemptions should adhere to statutory conditions and cannot be arbitrary.\n•\nVendors can recover increased taxes from purchasers under Sales of Goods Act provisions unless contractually restricted.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Ss. 12-A, 3-C)\n•\nSales of Goods Act, 1930 (S. 64-A)\n•\nRelevant precedents: Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT, Amin Soap Factory v. Government of Pakistan", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3(1),3C,12A,38,41,First Schedule General Clauses Act, 1897=21 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.100-K to 119-K of 1991, decision dated: 26-04-1992. dates of hearing: 22nd, 24th and 25-03-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos.100K and 101K of 1991)\nCh. Ijaz Ahmed, Dy. Attorney General with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.100K & 101K of 1991)\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeals Nos. 102K to 108K and 116K all of 1991)\nCh. Ijaz Ahmed Dy. Attorney General with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in CAs. Nos.102K to 108K and 116K all of 1991)\nNoorul Arfin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in CA. 109K of 1991)\nRasheed A. Akhund, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in C.As. Nos.110K and 111K of 1991)\nSyed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court; Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in C.As. Nos.112K and 113K of 1991)\nRaja Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.I. Memon Advocate-on-Records (in CA. No. 114K of 1991)\nMansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in CA. No. 115K of 1991)\nCh. Ijaz Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in CAs. Nos.117K to 119K of 1991)\nCh. Ijaz Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General, with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.109K to 1.16K of 1991)\nMansoor Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in CA. No. 117K of 1991)\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Courts. (in CA. No. 118K of 1991)\nRasheed A. Akhund, Advocate Supreme Courts (in CA. No. 119K of 1991)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARMY WELFARE SUGAR MILLS LTD and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 260 = 1992 SLD 260 = 1992 SCMR 1744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Administration of Justice and Procedural Laws\nConclusions:\n•\nProcedural laws must advance justice, not suppress remedies.\n•\nCourts prioritize adjudication on merits over technical dismissals.\n•\nEven if a plaint is misclassified, it can be treated as an application under S.12(2) CPC to set aside a decree.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (S.12(2))\n•\nCase laws: Safia Bibi v. Aisha Bibi, Karamat Hussain v. Muhammad Zaman", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12,12(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.58-P of 1992, decision dated: 26-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shah Badshah, Advocate Supreme Court and Z. Mahfooz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mian Shaukat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakurullah Jan, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 to 5 Nemo for the Remaining Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NOORUL AMIN and anothers\nvs\nMUHAMMAD HASHIM and 27 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 261 = 1992 SLD 261 = 1992 SCMR 1799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concurrent Findings in Rent Matters\nConclusions:\n•\nConcurrent findings of fact are only interfered with if evidence is misread or ignored.\n•\nTenants bear the burden of proving a landlord's claim of bona fide need is false.\n•\nFindings based on evidence regarding impairment of property value are upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nCantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (S.24)\n•\nCase laws: Mrs. Nadira Farooqi v. District Judge, Raja Shahbaz Khan v. Muhammad Fazal Kiani", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963=24 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.223-K of 1992, decision dated: 9-06-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "YAQUB MASIH JACOB\nvs\nMrs. LOUISA DE SOUZA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 262 = 1992 SLD 262 = 1992 SCMR 1898 = 1993 PTCL 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duties and Recovery\nConclusions:\n•\nRecovery of short-levied duties is invalid if not initiated within the statutory period (six months).\n•\nFinancial statutes must be strictly construed, with discretion exercised lawfully.\n•\nValid recovery processes require strict adherence to prescribed timelines.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S.32(3))\n•\nCase laws: Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Mian Fazal Raqib, Messrs Qaid Cap House v. Collector of Customs", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.114 to 129 and 216 of 1990, decision dated: 10-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq, DA. G. instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate -on-Records (in all cases CA. Nos.114 to 129/90 and 216/90). Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah-ud-Din Advocate -on-Records (in all cases except CA. 216/90). Respondent in person (in CA. No. 216 of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and 4 others\nvs\nMessrs IBRAHIM TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others\nCivil Appeal No.129 of 1990\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 2 others\nvs\nMessrs ASHIANA COTTON PRODUCTS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.216 of 1990\nADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 263 = 1992 SLD 263 = 1992 SCMR 2034", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal\nConclusions:\n•\nAcquittal upheld where the prosecution fails to establish motive or provide corroboration for inimical witnesses.\n•\nStatements by key witnesses, such as the complainant, must inspire confidence for conviction.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (S.302)\n•\nCase laws: Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance (XXXVIII of 1991)=13,13(5) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.38/SAC/L of 1992, decision dated: 1st July, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE SHAFIUR RAHMAN, CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for the State. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE STATE\nvs\nSULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 264 = 1992 SLD 264 = 1992 SCMR 2047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Evidence in Criminal Trials\nConclusions:\n•\nIf prosecution evidence is wholly rejected, the accused’s statement is accepted in totality.\n•\nIndependent corroboration is required for evidence that is credible but insufficient for conviction.\n•\nIslamic jurisprudence allows broader self-defense rights compared to the Penal Code.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (S.302)\n•\nCase laws: Faiz v. The State, Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=342 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302,302(a) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.51/SAC/L of 1992, decision dated: 16-07-1992, hearing DATE : 8-07-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE SHAFIUR RAHMAN, CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana M. Arshad Khan, Additional Advocate-General (Punjab) for the State Muhammad Munir Khans", + "Party Name:": "THE STATE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD HANIF and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 265 = 1992 SLD 265 = 1992 SCMR 2166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Beneficial Legislation and Definition of Workman\nConclusions:\n•\nBeneficial legislation must be interpreted to advance its purpose.\n•\n Workman includes manual or clerical employees with physical exertion, excluding intellectual or decision-making roles.\nCitations:\n•\nIndustrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (S.2(xxviii))\n•\nCase laws: Shahzar Khan v. Sindh Labour Court, Port Trust Workers v. Karachi Port Trust", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=2,2(xxviii), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.560 of 1990, decision dated: 17-05-1992, hearing DATE : 10-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Bashir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Qamar-ud-Din Meo, Advocate-on-Record. Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Recorder Respondents", + "Party Name:": "vs\nFAZAL BEG and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 266 = 1992 SLD 266 = 1992 SCMR 2192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Courts retain jurisdiction under S.497 CrPC for bail in terrorist cases unless expressly excluded.\n•\nMedical grounds can justify bail if detention endangers the convict’s life.\n•\nProcedural rights should align with constitutional and human rights.\nCitations:\n•\nSuppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 (Ss. 5A(8), 7)\n•\nCase laws: Muhammad Aslam v. The State, Ch. Zahur Ilahi v. The State", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497,497(1).561A Suppression of Terrorist activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975=7(1),5A(8),7,Preamble ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos.221-K, 222-K and 1-K of 1992, decision dated: 11-08-1992, hearing DATE : 30-06-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PRESETNASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN, AJMAL MIAN, RUSTAM S. SIDHWA AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Akhund, A. G. Sindh arid RA. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent). Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and N.C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s. M.B. Zaman and Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocates Supreme Court. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "THE STATE\nvs\nSyed QAIM ALL SHAH\nCriminal Appeal No.1K of 1992\nTHE STATE\nvs\nSHAH NAWAZ KHAN JUNEJO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 267 = 1992 SLD 267 = 1992 SCMR 2434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction is unwarranted where no mala fides or jurisdictional defects exist.\n•\nRemedies under the relevant statute should suffice unless proven inadequate.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art. 199)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.723(L) of 1992, heard on 18-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH ACTG. C.J. AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Malik Maqbool Elahi,-A. G. Punjabs", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. FARZANA KAMRAN\nvs\nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 225 = 1993 SLD 225 = 1993 SCMR 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Assessments and Reopening\nConclusions:\n•\nInspecting Assistant Commissioners cannot direct reopening of assessments under S.65; this power lies with the ITO.\n•\nConstitutional petitions are improper if statutory remedies have not been exhausted.\n•\nReopening of assessments requires new material or valid grounds beyond mere change of opinion.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 7, 65, 136)\n•\nCase laws: H.M. Abdullah v. ITO", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.79-K of 1991, decision dated: 23rd July, 1992, hearing DATE : 27-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Nasruallah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "AL AHRAM BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 268 = 1992 SLD 268 = (1992) 66 TAX 156 = 1993 SCMR 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Self-Assessment Scheme and Reopening of Assessments\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessments under the Self-Assessment Scheme cannot be reopened based on a mere change of opinion unless definite and reliable information of escaped income exists.\n•\nReopening is valid only when new information unavailable during the initial assessment or concealment of material facts by the assessee is evident.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 65, 61 & 59)\n•\nCase laws: Arafat Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO, Edulji Dinshaw Limited v. ITO", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65,61 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.873-K of 1990, decision dated: 20-05-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records. Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONED, KARACHI and others\nvs\nJENNINGS PRIVATE SCHOOL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 382 = 1994 SLD 382 = (1994) 69 TAX 197 = (1993) 202 ITR 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Tax Recovery Post-Assessment Revisions\nConclusions:\n•\nTaxpayers are liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the date of tax refunds due to appellate decisions until the final resolution restores the original demand.\n•\nInterest serves as compensation for delayed tax payments, acknowledging the state's entitlement as a creditor.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (S. 220(2))\n•\nCase laws: K.P. Abdul Kareem Hajee v. ITO, ITO v. A.V. Thomas & Co.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=220(2),260,156,154,155,250,254,262,264,245,221,146,214,215,244 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 17068 to 17070 of 1988. November 26, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.S. Ramabhadran and K. Gajendra Rao for Petitioner. H. Raghavendra Rao and M.V. Seshachala", + "Party Name:": "VIKRANT TYERS LTD\nvs\nFIRST Income Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 227 = 1993 SLD 227 = 1993 SCMR 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxing Statutes – Schedule vs. Charging Section\nConclusions:\n•\nInconsistencies between a charging section and schedules of a taxing statute must be resolved in favor of the charging section.\n•\nCourts can correct omissions or redundancies but cannot legislate anew.\nCitations:\n•\nWest Pakistan Finance Act (I of 1962), Third Sched. (Ss. 3, 8 & 10)\n•\nCase laws: Craies on Statute Law, Messrs Hirjina & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Finance Act, 1962=3,8,10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.41-K to 46-K of 1977, decision dated: 11-03-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, AJMAL MIAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records (in all the Appeals)\nNoor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Records (in CA. No. 41K/77)\nSyed Iqbal Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Dastgir, Advocate-on-Records (in CA. No. 42K/77)\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Records (in CA. No. 43K/77)\nM. Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Dastgir, Advocate-on-Records (in CA. No. 46K/77)", + "Party Name:": "EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, KARACHI and another\nvs\nBURMAH SHELL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 228 = 1993 SLD 228 = 1993 SCMR 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lifting the Veil of Incorporation and Government Privileges\nConclusions:\n•\nThe doctrine of lifting the veil applies only in justified cases and cannot be used arbitrarily.\n•\nA government-owned corporation competing with private entities cannot claim privileges that create inequity.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Arts. 165, 165-A & 25)\n•\nCase laws: Salomon v. Salomon & Co., Karachi Development Authority v. CBR", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165,185(3),25 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.21-K of 1992, decision dated: 7-11-1992, hearing DATE : 6th October; 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid M. Ishaque, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record. S. A. Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Ghaury. Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "UNION COUNCIL, ALI WAHAN, SUKKUR\nvs\nASSOCIATED CEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 461 = 1992 SLD 461 = (1992) 65 TAX 58 = (1991) 192 ITR 431", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax – Reassessment of Asset Valuation\nConclusions:\n•\nReassessment cannot be based on the argument that disclosed values were incorrect if all material facts were provided during the original assessment.\n•\nNotice under S.17(1)(a) is invalid unless nondisclosure of material facts is proven.\nCitations:\n•\nWealth-tax Act, 1957 (S. 17)\n•\nCase laws: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Rajeshwari Birla v. WTO", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=17,16(3),147(a) Wealth Tax Rules, 1957=1D ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Writ No. 1107 at 1984, decide 6-8-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B N. KIRPAL 8ND D. K, JAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bishamber Lal, Ms. Geetanjali Mishra and I.B. Gaur for the Petitioner. Rajendra, B. Gupta, R.C. Pandey, D.N. Malhotra, R.K. Chaufla, D.C. Taneja and R.N. Verma for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SOHAN SINGH BASI\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 230 = 1993 SLD 230 = 1993 SCMR 618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fraud and Mutation in Land Records\nConclusions:\n•\nFraud invalidates all acts and instruments and can be challenged at any time.\n•\nMutation entries are fiscal in nature and do not establish ownership conclusively; they are rebuttable.\nCitations:\n•\nContract Act, 1872 (S. 17)\n•\nCase laws: Abdul Wahid v. Mst. Zamrut, Muhammad Haider Zaidi v. Abdul Hafiz", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Contract Act, 1872=17 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968=42 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.360 of 1990, decision dated: 10-01-1993, hearing DATE : 25-03-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.SALEEM AKHTAR AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNUS KHAN and 12 others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 231 = 1993 SLD 231 = 1993 SCMR 683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Court Fees – Multifarious Suits\nConclusions:\n•\nIn multifarious suits, court fees are computed based on the aggregate of fees for separate causes of action.\n•\nTaxing statutes must be interpreted strictly as per legislative intent.\nCitations:\n•\nCourt Fees Act, 1870 (Ss. 17, Sched. I & II)\n•\nCase laws: Kashi Prosad Singh v. Secretary of State for India, Arbab Ghulam Ali Khan v. Arbab Muhammad Hussain", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Court Fees Act, 1870=17,Sched.1, ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1982, decision dated: 11-03-1991, hearing DATE : 12-02-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR\nvs\nPAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 232 = 1993 SLD 232 = 1993 SCMR 956", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Misconduct and Disciplinary Proceedings\nConclusions:\n•\nHonest mistakes by judicial officers in good faith do not attract disciplinary actions.\n•\nJudicial orders must reflect integrity, impartiality, and diligence.\nCitations:\n•\nSindh Civil Services Rules (R. 5(3))\n•\nCase laws: FA Khan v. Govt. of Pakistan, M.A. Rahman v. Federation of Pakistan", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Civil Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978=R-5,5(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3),212 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 715-K and 716-K of 1990, heard on 4-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. G. Mangi, Addl. A. G., Sindhs (in Cr. Appeal No. 716-K of 1990). S.M. Abbasi, Advocate-on-Records (in Cr. Appeal No. 716-K of 1990). S. M. Abbasi, Advocate-on-Records (in Cr. Appeal No. 715-K of 1990). A. G. Mangi, Addl. A. G., Sindhs (in Cr. Appeal No. 715-K of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others\nvs\nSAIFUL HAQ HASHMI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 233 = 1993 SLD 233 = 1993 SCMR 1019 = (1994) 69 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Interpretation and Use of Parliamentary Material\nConclusions:\n•\nCourts may reference parliamentary debates and reports as aids in statutory construction to identify legislative intent when ambiguity arises.\n•\nReferring to such materials does not breach parliamentary privilege.\nCitations:\n•\nBill of Rights, 1688 (Art. 9)\n•\nCase law: (1991) 2 WLR 483 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal, decision dated: 26-11-1992. dates of hearing: 4-11-1991; 8th to 11th, 17th, 18th June and 26-11-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFEM, L. C, LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH, LORD GRIFFITHS, LORD ACKNER, LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON AND LORD BROWNEWILKINSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Stephen Oliver Q.C. and Jeremy Woolf for the Taxpayers at the first hearing. Alain Moses Q.C. and Timothy Brennan for the Crown at the first hearing. Anthony Lester Q.C. Jeremy Woolf and Clive Sheldon for the Taxpayers at the second hearing. \nSir Nicholas Lyell Q.C., A.G. Alan Mases.Q.C., Timothy Brennan and Rabinder Singh for the Crown at the second hearing.\n Kenwright & Cox for Jagger Son & Tilley, Birmingham; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "PEPPER (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nHART" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 396 = 1993 SLD 396 = (1993) 67 TAX 23 = (1992) 193 ITR 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Penalty for Late Filing\nConclusions:\n•\nApplications for an extension of filing deadlines made post-due dates are valid unless explicitly rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO).\n•\nIf no communication is received, taxpayers may presume approval of extensions.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (S. 271(1)(a))\n•\nCase laws: Addl. CIT v. Roshan Lal Kuthiala, Karam Singh v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(2),271(1) ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 161 OF 1980, AUGUST 28, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.S. SODHI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajay Mlttal for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nSurinder Kumar Pramod Kumar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 235 = 1993 SLD 235 = 1993 SCMR 1171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Evacuee Trust Property and Civil Procedure Code\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 12(2) of CPC applies to constitutional petitions if jurisdictional defects or fraud are evident.\n•\nMartial Law Regulations (MLR) 57 governs cases involving evacuee trust properties acquired illegally or by fraud.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (S. 12(2)), MLR 57\n•\nCase laws: Govt. of Sindh v. Fazal Muhammad, Punjab Engineering Co. v. Muhammad Yaqoob", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975=8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)=15 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.522-K of 1990, decision dated: 13th 1st January, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. SALEEM AKHTAR AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Fazl-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Records. Rashid Ahmad Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND MINORITIES and 2 others\nvs\nSyed ABDUL MAJID" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 236 = 1993 SLD 236 = 1993 SCMR 1195 = (1993) 68 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments and Jurisdictional Remedies\nConclusions:\n•\nThe ITO cannot reopen assessments solely based on directives from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner without invoking proper legal provisions.\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction should not bypass remedies provided within the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 65, 66-A, 7)\n•\nCase law: Commissioner of IT v. Hamdard Dawakhana", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,65,,129,130,134 & 136,7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.51-K of 1991, decision dated: 27-01-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Hanif Abdul Baqi, Advocate-on-Record (absent). Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Messrs H.M. ABDULLAH\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE V, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 383 = 1994 SLD 383 = (1994) 69 TAX 176 = (1993) 202 ITR 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Losses\nConclusions:\n•\nApplications for extensions not acted upon or communicated by the ITO are presumed approved, preserving the right to carry forward losses.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (S. 80)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2),80 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 26 OF 1992, FEBRUARY 8, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nJanata Film Exchange (P.)Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 397 = 1993 SLD 397 = 1993 CLC 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision and Document Submission\nConclusions:\n•\nRevisions without mandatory documents are deemed improperly constituted and dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (S. 115)\n•\nCase law: Federation of Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Sadiq", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=39rules1,2,115,115(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision A. No. 55 of 1991, decision dated: 9-09-1992, hearing DATE : 10-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KHURSHID HAIDER RIZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A.M. Mubeen Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor Bhurgari No. 1. Shaikh Amanullah No. 2", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL LIMITED\nvs \nMessrs PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 398 = 1993 SLD 398 = 1993 CLC 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Local Government – Delimitation of Wards\nConclusions:\n•\nDelimitation that violates principles of equality and contiguity is invalid.\n•\nHigh Courts can set aside orders breaching jurisdiction or law.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (S. 14)\n•\nCase laws: Rahim Shah v. CEC, Shah Jehan Khan v. Punjab Local Council Election Authority", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=14 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979=7(6) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1363 of 1991/BWP, decision dated: 27-11-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. KHIZAR HAYAT AND MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M Bhatti for Petitioner. Abdul Majid Malik for Ghulam Hussain Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor for Nazar Abass applicant.\nCh. Chiragh Din applicant in person. Haji Saif Ullah and Mr. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Rao Khurshid, Haji Muhammad. Nawaz and Allah Diwaya Khan Applicants. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad, A.C. (Delimitation Officer), Liaquatpur", + "Party Name:": "Qari MUHAMMAD SIDDIO \nvs \nDELIMITATION OFFICER, LIAQUATPUR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 399 = 1993 SLD 399 = 1993 CLC 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Correction of Decrees\nConclusions:\n•\nClerical errors in decrees can be rectified under CPC (Ss. 151 & 152).\n•\nAppellate decrees supersede original decrees, making the appellate forum competent for corrections.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (Ss. 151 & 152)\n•\nCase laws: Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Hossain Mai", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151,152,Order37,Rule3 Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=8(2) ", + "Case #": "C.M. No. 5204-C of 1990 in R.FA. No. 30 of 1982, heard on 7-07-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MAHBOOB AHMAD C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Imdad Ali Khans. Syed NajamulHassan Kazmis", + "Party Name:": "IFTIKHAR AHMAD and 7 others\nvs \nHABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and anothers" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 400 = 1993 SLD 400 = 1993 CLC 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-emption – Notice of Demand\nConclusions:\n•\nRegistered notice attested by two truthful witnesses is a mandatory requirement for Talb-i-Ishhad under pre-emption laws.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1991 (S. 13)\n•\nCase law: Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991=13(3) Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance (XVIII of 1990)=2(c),5,13 ", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 378 of 1992, decision dated: 6-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL ZARIN KIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMIN and 3 others\nvs \nGULAB and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 401 = 1993 SLD 401 = 1993 CLC 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-emption – Timeliness and Formalities\nConclusions:\n•\nDelays or omissions in Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad invalidate pre-emption claims.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1991 (S. 13)\n•\nCase law: Mst. Kharo v. Sher Afzal", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991=13(3),2(c),5&13 ", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 366 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd October, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL ZARIN KIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "SAID MUHAMMAD SHAH\nvs \nGHULAM HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 402 = 1993 SLD 402 = 1993 CLC 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Court Judgments\nConclusions:\n•\nAppellate courts must independently review evidence and decide each issue separately.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (O.XLI, R.31; S. 100)\n•\nCase laws: Muhammad Akhtar v. The State, Bashir v. Ilam Din", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=100,OrderXX,Rule5,OrderXLI,Rule31,O.XLI,R.31 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=118 ", + "Case #": "R.S.A. No. 84 of 1988/BWP, decision dated: 30-03-1992, hearing DATE : 14-03-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Aslam Khans. Ch. Naseer Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "MANZOOR-ULHAQ and 3 others\nvs \nMst. KANEEZ BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 403 = 1993 SLD 403 = 1993 CLC 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Election Tribunals and Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nEstablishment of election tribunals by the Federal Government under valid rules is legally sound.\nCitations:\n•\nCapital Territory Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 7, 23 & 102)\n•\nCase law: Wilayat Khan v. Reham Dad", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Capital Territory Local Government Ordinance, 1979=7,23,102 =15D Capital Territory Union Councils (Election) Rules 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 464 of 1992, decision dated: 6th October 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL ZARIN KIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Zafar Ali Shan for Petitioner (in person). Tanvir Bashir Ansari No. 2", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAJAHAT RAJA\nvs \nELECTION TRIBUNAL (SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ISLAMABAD) and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 404 = 1993 SLD 404 = 1993 CLC 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Condonation of Delays\nConclusions:\n•\nAppeals filed beyond limitation must explain delays positively.\n•\nClerical errors in decrees do not constitute valid grounds for delay unless proven.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908 (S. 5); CPC (S. 96)\n•\nCase laws: Abdul Rashid v. State Bank of Pakistan", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=5 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=96,115 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1897-D of 1991, decided 23rd September, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Liaqat Ali Khan for Petitioners. Asghar Ahmad Rana", + "Party Name:": "RIASAT ALI and 2 others\nvs \nMAHMOOD AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 405 = 1993 SLD 405 = 1993 CLC 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inheritance and Application of Shariat Law\nConclusions:\n•\nFemale heirs' limited ownership terminates upon life estate; succession reverts to Islamic law.\n•\nSection 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance benefits descendants of predeceased heirs without altering Islamic inheritance principles.\nCitations:\n•\nWest Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 (Ss. 2, 2-A & 3)\n•\nCase laws: Mst. Qabal Jan v. Mst. Habab Jan, Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961=4 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962=2A,2,3,5 ", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No. 1289 of 1970, decision dated: 24-10-1992, hearing DATE : 10-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL ZARIN KIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha. Mian Inam-ul-Haq for Legal Heirs of Respondents No. 1 and 2. Sh. Zamir Hussain for Legal Heirs of Respondents Nos3 and 5", + "Party Name:": "ZAMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN\nvs \nFATEH KHAN and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 239 = 1993 SLD 239 = 1993 SCMR 1523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 applies to FATA as it extends to the whole of Pakistan.\n•\nArticle 203-A of the Constitution overrides conflicting provisions such as Article 2 of the FATA Exclusion Order, 1984.\n•\nJudgments/orders issued in violation of a stay order are invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (Arts. 1(2), 3/4)\n•\nCase laws: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan, Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)=1,3/4,1(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=203-F,270A ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos. 22(S) of 1989, 17(S), 18(S), 19(S), and 26(S) of 1990, decision dated: 17-02-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR REHMAN, AJMAL MIAN, SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, PIR MUHAMMAD KARAM SHAH AND MAULANA MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Azam Khan. Additional Advocate General, N.W.P. instructed by Nur Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in Cr. As. Nos. 22(S) of 1989 18(S), 19(S) and 26(S) of 1990)\nK.G. Sabir, Advocate instructed by Mian Shakrullah Jan. Advocate-on-Record (in Cr. A. No. 17(S)/90 and No. 3 in CrA. No. 22(S) of 1989)\nM. Aslam Uns, Advocate instructed by Ejaz M. Khan. Advocate-on-Records No. 1 and 2 (in Cr. A. No. 22(S) of 1989 and No. 2 (in Cr. A. 19(S) of 1990)\nManzoor Illahi, ExAdvocate-on-Record (absent) No. 4 (in Cr. A. No. 22(S) of 1989)\nMian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record (in Cr. A. No. 26(S) of 1990\nNemo for the Remaining Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Criminal Appeal No. 17 S) of 1990\nAZIZUR REHMAN\nvs\nTHE STATE\nCriminal Appeal No 18(S, ) of 1990\nSTATE \nvs\nAZIZUR REHMAN\nCriminal Appeal No. 19 of 1990\nSTATE\nvs\nSAJJAD HUSSAIN and another\nCriminal Appeal No. 26, of 1990\nSTATE\nvs\nSAID AMIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 240 = 1993 SLD 240 = 1993 SCMR 1635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Diaries under Pakistan Customs Tariff\nConclusions:\n•\nDiaries fall under Heading 48.18 as products primarily for recording personal engagements and are not classified as printed books (Heading 49).\n•\nSpecial provisions override general provisions in taxation statutes.\n•\nTax exemptions must be clearly stated and cannot be implied.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (R.3(a); Hdgs. 48.18 & 49)\n•\nCase laws: Muhammadi Steamship Co. v. CIT, Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Customs Tariff=48,18,49 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 209 to 215 of 1990. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 18-3-1989, of the Lahore High Court, at Lahore, passed in W.Ps. Nos. 5319/88, 522-524/89, 526-528/89, respectively), hearing DATE : 15-11-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Courts (in CAs. 209215/90)\nIkram Ahmad Ansari, Dy. Attorney General instructed by Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in C.As. 209215/90)\nS.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record No. 2 (In CAs. 209215/90)\nMuhammad Ali Sayeed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Records (in CA. 723K/90)\nIkram Ahmad Ansari, Dy. A.G. instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records (in CA. 723K/90)", + "Party Name:": "GOLDEN ORAPHIES (Pvt.) LTD. and 12 others\nvs\nDIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SALES TAX and others\nCivil Appeal No. 209 of 1990\nM/s. FRIENDS SONS & PARTNERSHIP CONCERN\nvs\nTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX\nCivil Appeal No 210 of 1990\nM/s. TIME PUBLISHERS\nvs\nTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES\nCivil Appeal No. 211 of 1990\nM/s. NATIONAL SALES AGENCY\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and others\nCivil Appeal No. 212 of 1990\nM/s. KOHINOOR PRINTING PRESS\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and others\nCivil Appeal No. 213 of 1990\nRIZWAN PAPER PRODUCTS\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX\nCivil Appeal No. 214 of 1990\nM/s. ISLAMIC PUBLICATIONS LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX\nCivil Appeal No. 215 of 1990\nM/s. BARQUES DIARY AND CALENDAR CO\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 241 = 1993 SLD 241 = 1993 SCMR 1681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change of Date of Birth in Matriculation Certificates\nConclusions:\n•\nPunjab University cannot impose a blanket refusal to consider genuine cases for correction of dates of birth.\n•\nCivil courts can intervene if refusal to correct a legitimate entry amounts to bad faith.\nCitations:\n•\nUniversity of the Punjab Act, 1973 (S. 48-A)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "University of Punjab Act, 1973=48 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 708, 756, 757 and 758 of 1988, decision dated: 17-08-1988", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all petitions). S.M. Almas, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Records (in all petitions)", + "Party Name:": "THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers\nvs\nRana ASGHAR ALI alias MUHAMMAD ASGHAR\nC.P. No. 756/88\nTHE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ASLAM BORA and another\nC.P. No. 757/88\nTHE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers\nvs\nDr. IKRAMUL HAQ and another\nC.P. No. 758/88\nTHE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers\nvs\nSyed GHOUS MUHAMMAD SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 242 = 1993 SLD 242 = 1993 SCMR 1798 = (1993) 68 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Tax Assessments\nConclusions:\n•\nReopening of finalized assessments based on a change of opinion is not permissible.\n•\nHigh Court's constitutional jurisdiction can only be invoked if no adequate statutory remedy is available.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 65, 111)\n•\nCase laws: Muhammad Arif Dar v. ITO, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11,65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 Income Tax Act, 1922=FirstSched.,R.6(A),6(B),10(7) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 345-K and 346-K of 1990, decision dated: 27-06-1993, hearing DATE : 18-01-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Rirvi, Advocate-on-Records (in both cases). Shaik Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records (in both cases)", + "Party Name:": "ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.\nvs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 243 = 1993 SLD 243 = 1993 SCMR 1810 = (1994) 69 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Disputes and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised when statutory remedies are available and pending.\nCitations:\n•\nWealth Tax Act, 1963 (S. 2(e)(ii))\n•\nCase laws: Hamdard Dawakhana v. CIT, A. Habib Ahmed v. K.K.G. Scott Christian", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(e)(ii) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.189-K of 1991, decision dated: 26-01-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHURY AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaik Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Records. Shahenshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s", + "Party Name:": "WEALTH TAX OFFICER and another\nvs\nSHAUKAT AFZAL and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 244 = 1993 SLD 244 = 1993 SCMR 1905 = 1994 PTCL 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Taxation under Customs Act\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 31-A of the Customs Act allows retrospective application of duties, negating vested rights under previous exemptions.\n•\nCourts should ensure retrospective laws do not reopen past and closed transactions unless explicitly stated.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 31-A)\n•\nCase laws: Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=31A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 915-K to 918-K of 1990, heard on 29-08-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM HASAN SHAH, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, SAAD SNOOD, JAN, NAIMUDDIN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Records. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, D.A.G. and Ikram Ahmad Ansari, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "MOLASSES TRADING & EXPORT (Pvt.) LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 406 = 1993 SLD 406 = 1993 CLC 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Landlord-Tenant Disputes Over Rent Default\nConclusions:\n•\nA landlord's failure to issue rent receipts does not imply that rent was paid.\n•\nDelays in initiating eviction proceedings do not justify presumptions of payment by tenants.\nCitations:\n•\nSindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (S. 15(2)(ii))", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=21,15(2)(ii) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=13 ", + "Case #": "F.RA. No. 516 of 1988, decision dated: 22-09-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ismail Padhiars. S. Hassan Asghar", + "Party Name:": "SHABBIR and 2 others\nvs \nMUJEEBUR REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 207 = 1994 SLD 207 = 1994 SCMR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Court Fee Exemption in Appeals\nConclusions:\n•\nExemptions granted at the trial stage do not automatically extend to appellate stages.\n•\nAppeals dismissed for insufficient court fees must offer appellants an opportunity to pay the deficiency.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (Ss. 107(2), 149, O.VII, R.11)\n•\nCase laws: None specifically cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=107,107(2),149&O.VII,R.11,35 Court Fees Act, 1870=35 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1290 of 1979, decision dated: 18-09-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RWIGANATH MISRA, C.J. I, A.M. AHMADI AND P. B. SAWANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAHIBULLAH and another\nvs\nSeth CHAMAN LAL through Legal Heirs and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 407 = 1993 SLD 407 = 1993 CLC 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Practice and Bar Council Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nService rendered by advocates in legal capacities outside traditional practice may count towards seniority.\n•\nDecisions of Bar Council Enrollment Committees, even if headed by judges, can be challenged under constitutional jurisdiction if made in bad faith.\nCitations:\n•\nLegal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 (S. 10(1)(b))\n•\nCase laws: None specifically cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3 Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974=5.1,5.16 Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973=10(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No. 615 of 1991, heard on 20-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN AND CH. GHULAM SARWAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 in person (on Courts call)", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR\nvs \nCHAIRMAN, FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 408 = 1993 SLD 408 = 1993 CLC 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sindh Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1971---\n \n----R. 6---Permament Residence Certificates obtained on basis of fraud and misrepresentation---Cancellation of---Justification---District Magistrate -who had cancelled petitioner's Permanent Residence Certificates had done so after issuing show-cause notices and after recording evidence and perusing record on basis of which same had been issued---Relevant record did not contain names of petitioners---There was thus, ample justification to cancel Permanent Residence Certificates which had been obtained on basis of misrepresentation and fraud.\n \n(b) Fraud---\n \n----Fraud vitiates all proceedings---Any superstructure based on foundation of fraudulently obtained certificate had to be demolished to the-ground.\n \n(c) Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971----\n \n----S. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction ---Disentitlement to relief---Petitioners who had been a party to fraud and misrepresentation in securing Permanent Residence Certificates having come to Court with unclean hands were not entitled to discretionary relief in their favour.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971=6 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1078 of 1980, decision dated: 19-10-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND SALIM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munawar Malik for Petitioner. M.I. Memon A.A.G.. Maqbool Ahmed Khan No. 5", + "Party Name:": "Miss FARYAL WALL and others\nvs \nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 409 = 1993 SLD 409 = 1993 CLC 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revival of Pre-Emption Suits under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991\nConclusions:\n•\nDismissed pre-emption suits may be revived if compliant with Act IX of 1991 within 60 days of its commencement.\n•\nRevival requires adherence to mandatory pleading requirements, including Zaroorat and avoidance of Zarar. \n•\nAmendments to non-compliant suits are not permitted to revive them.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (Ss. 6, 35)\n•\nCase laws: PLD 1990 SC 865, Falak Sher v. Muhammad Mumtaz", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991=13(3),35,15,30,35(2),6(2) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=Order6,Rule17 Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance (XVIII of 1990)=34,36 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No: 593 and C.M. No. 1192 of 1992, decision dated: 27th September 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL ZARIN KIANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "FAZAL ELLAHI and 2 others\nvs \nDISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 208 = 1994 SLD 208 = 1994 SCMR 1484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Refusal of Constitutional Petition for Alternate Remedy\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Court rightly refused to entertain a constitutional petition when an adequate statutory remedy was available but not exhausted.\n•\nDisputed factual matters are better resolved before designated statutory forums or through civil suits.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 166, 139, 156, 173)\n•\nCase laws: Punjab Feeds Ltd. v. Abdul Ghafoor", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=166.139,156,173 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 172 and 173 of 1992 decided on 19-03-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Kh. M. Yousaf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Raja MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 21 OTHERS\nvs\nUNION COUNCIL, BAJNIAL and another\nMrs. ANISA REHMAN\nvs\nP.I.A.C. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 209 = 1994 SLD 209 = 1994 SCMR 2232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Natural Justice in Reversion Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nEmployee reversion without a hearing violates natural justice.\n•\nAbsence of statutory service rules renders the relationship one of master and servant, limiting remedies to damages.\n•\nActions taken in violation of audi alteram partem are unlawful and reversible.\nCitations:\n•\nPakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 (Ss. 29, 31)\n•\nCase laws: Muhammad Yousuf Shah v. PIA, Raziuddin v. PIA", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956=29,31 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 238-K of 1992, decision dated: 28-11-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.L. Shahani, Advocate Supreme Court and N.C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.I. Qami, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 128 = 1995 SLD 128 = 1995 SCMR 1249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail under Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 5(6) imposes stricter bail criteria compared to Cr.P.C.\n•\nCourts must establish no reasonable grounds for believing the accused’s guilt before granting bail.\n•\n“Reason to believe” requires stronger evidence than mere suspicion.\nCitations:\n•\nOffences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984 (S. 5(6))\n•\nCase laws: Allied Bank v. Khalid Farooq, Tariq Bashir v. The State", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984)=5,5(6),12 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497,498 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No. 8 of 1995, decision dated: 31st January, 1995. dates of hearing: 17th, 18th, 24th, 25th, 29th, 30th and 31st January, 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHLAR, ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, MA. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court, Mian Saqib Nisar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Farooq H. Naek, Dy. A.G., Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Chaudhry SHUJAT HUSSAIN \nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 126 = 1996 SLD 126 = 1996 SCMR 83 = (1995) 73 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Detention of Goods in Transit to Afghanistan\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Court had jurisdiction as the cause of action arose partly within its territorial limits.\n•\nNotification prohibiting transit of goods applied prospectively and could not affect goods imported prior to its issuance.\n•\nRetrospective application requires express or implied statutory indication.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 156(1)(64))\n•\nCase laws: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20,20(c) Customs Act, 1969=156(1)(64) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 146-P of 1995, decision dated: 23rd July, 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.G. Sabir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji Bashir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "THE COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and OTHERS\nvs\nM/s. RAIS KHAN LIMITED through Muhammad Hashim" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 127 = 1996 SLD 127 = 1996 SCMR 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Remand of Cases by Service Tribunals\nConclusions:\n•\nRemand is not a routine matter and is reserved for cases with inadequate evidence or arbitrary decisions.\n•\nService Tribunals can substitute sentences without remand if sufficient evidence is available.\nCitations:\n•\nService Tribunals Act, 1973 (S. 4)\n•\nCase laws: WAPDA v. Muhammad Riaz Butt, Syed Mir Muhammad v. NWFP Government", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Service Tribunals Act, 1973=4 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.23 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3),212 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 726 and 727 of 1993, decision dated: 31st October, 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR, SH. RIAZAHMAD AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Courts. Shah Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and another\nvs\nGULBAT KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 128 = 1996 SLD 128 = 1996 SCMR 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)--(. .2 [as amended by Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act (XVII of .1992)]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether change in jurisdiction brought about by Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992, was procedural and operated retroactively so as to make the proceedings before Special Court established under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979; presided over by Judge of High. Court, without jurisdiction, thereafter.\n \n(b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)---\n \n----Ss. 12(5) & 2---Security already furnished by defendant for obtaining loan from Bank, whether to be treated as security for purposes of admission of appeal---Defendant while filing appeal car: offer security already furnished at the time of obtaining loan as security required by :x.12(5), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 19'79 and can prove that its value at the time of offering it was sufficient to satisfy decretal amount---Court on such satisfaction can accept the- same security for purposes of S.12(5), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979---Such aspect was completely. ignored by the High Court though defendant had filed application praying that security furnished . Bank should be taken as security for purposes of admission of appeal---High Court should have given opportunity to defendant to satisfy that security already furnished to Bank was sufficient to satisfy decree, then unless -it had transpired that same was insufficient, High Court,was not justified to dismiss appeal under S.12(5), Banking Companies (Recovery. of Loans). Ordinance, 1979---Judgments and decrees of Courts below were set aside' and suit was directed to be transferred to Special Court of competent jurisdiction, which would start proceedings from the specified date when S.2, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 197'9 was amended.\n \nUsman Hussain v. Habib Bank Limited and 4 others PLD 1988 Kar. 628; Yusuf Ali Khan, Barrister-at-Law, Lahore v. Messrs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, Karachi and another 1994 SCMR 1007; Mst. Yasmeen Nighat and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 SC 391; Habib Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Aulia Engineering and others 1993 CLC 154 and Office Reference No. 259 etc. PLD 1994 Kar. 258 rel.\n \n(c) Interpretation of statutes-\n \n--Where any statute affects substantive right, it would operate prospectively unless by express enactment or necessary intendment, retrospective operation has been given.\n \nMuhammad Ishaq v. State PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 256; State v. Muhammad Jamil PLD 1965 SC 681; Abdul Rehman v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1966 SC 362; Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187; Ch. Sakar Ali v. Malik Ikram E(lahi and another 1969 SCMR 166; Muhammad Abdullah v. Imdad Ali 1972 SCMR 173; Bashir v. Wazir Ali 1987 SCMR 978; Mst. Nighat Yasmin v. N.B. of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 391 and Yusuf Ali Khan v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, Karachi 1994 SCMR 1007 rel.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes-\n \n---- Statute providing change of forum pecuniary or otherwise would be procedural in nature and would have retrospective effect unless contrary was provided expressly or impliedly or it would affect existing right or cause injustice or prejudice.\n \n(e) Interpretation of statutes--\n \n---- Any statute which enhances or reduces pecuniary jurisdiction of Court or provides forum other than the one where case was pending,, same would fall within category of procedural law---Where any statute enhances pecuniary jurisdiction of Court, it would have effect retrospectively unless contrary was provided expressly or impliedly or it would affect existing rights or cause injustice or prejudice.\n \nBashir v. Wazir Ali 1987 SCMR 978 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=2,12(5),2 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1993, decision dated: 22-11-1995, hearing DATE : 29-10-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR, SH. RIAZ AHMAD AND RAJA AFIASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Basharutullah, Advocate Supreme Court and K.N. Kohk Advocate on-Records. Tariq Mahmood, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Malik GUL HASAN & CO. and 5 others\nvs\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 129 = 1996 SLD 129 = 1996 SCMR 669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Delays in Judicial Decisions\nConclusions:\n•\nPronouncement of judgments must occur promptly or within a reasonable time after arguments conclude.\n•\nCases involving unreasonable delays in decisions are subject to remand for proper adjudication.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (O.XLI, Rr. 30, 31)\n•\nCase laws: Sardar Muhammad v. Muhammad Israr, Nasir Abbas v. Manzoor Shah", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,Rr.30,31,107 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 461 of 1992, decision dated: 24-10-1995. dates of hearing: 17th, 22nd, 23rd and 24-10-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMAD AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Courts. Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zaffar, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "Syed IFTIKHAR-UDDIN HAIDAR GARDEZI and 9 others \nvs\nCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD., LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 130 = 1996 SLD 130 = 1996 SCMR 700 = (1995) 74 TAX 1 = 1996 PTCL 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Duty on Production Capacity\nConclusions:\n•\nRules creating arbitrary sub-classifications without nexus to legislative objectives violate equality principles under Article 25.\n•\nExcise duty frameworks must align with either production capacity or actual production, not both.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (S. 3)\n•\nCase laws: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990=R-7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched.,25 Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3(4),37 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1994, decision dated: 4-02-1996, hearing DATE : 19-12-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Courts. Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, Mian Saqib Nisar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others\nvs\nSEVENUP BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 131 = 1996 SLD 131 = 1996 SCMR 856", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Void and Erroneous Orders under Limitation Act\nConclusions:\n•\nLimitation bars cannot apply to void orders as they are nullities in law.\n•\nVoid orders do not require formal setting aside; erroneous ones do.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908 (S. 3)\n•\nCase laws: Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Bakhsh (PLD 1976 SC 37), Allah Dino v. Faqir Muhammad (PLD 1969 SC 582)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.671 of 1992, decision dated: 20-12-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ismail H. Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAM\nvs\nMUSHTAQUE AHMED through Legal Heirs and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 132 = 1996 SLD 132 = 1996 SCMR 1105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Execution and Deposit of Decretal Amount\nConclusions:\n•\nAppellate courts have discretion to require deposit of decretal amounts or furnishing of security when staying execution.\n•\nHigh Court’s discretion was valid; leave to appeal was refused.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (O.XLI, R.8, R.5(3))", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.8,O.XLI,R.5(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 207 of 1994, decision dated: 28-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM ZAHID CHAUDHRY\nvs\nMULTI PROFESSIONAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED through General Secretary, Victor Plaza, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 133 = 1996 SLD 133 = 1996 SCMR 1165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ad Hoc Appointments and Service Tribunals\nConclusions:\n•\nAd hoc appointments maturing into regular ones fall outside the scope of M.L.O. 55 of 1978.\n•\nHigh Court lacks jurisdiction over service matters appealable to Tribunals under Article 212(3).\nCitations:\n•\nSindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Ss. 2, 4)\n•\nCase laws: I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Civil Servants Act, (XIV of 1973)=2,4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199,212(3),21 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 108/K and 109-K of 1989, decision dated: 23rd December, 1992, hearing DATE : 15-12-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hassan Farooqi instructed by Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record. R.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Syed SAGHIR AHMAD NAQVI\nvs\nPROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, S&GAD, Karachi and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 134 = 1996 SLD 134 = 1996 SCMR 1264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Seniority Disputes between Promotees and Direct Recruits\nConclusions:\n•\nSeniority claims must align with statutory promotion quotas.\n•\nService Tribunal decisions contrary to statutory quotas were set aside.\nCitations:\n•\nSindh Civil Servants Rules, 1973 (R. 3(2))\n•\nCase laws: Federation of Pakistan v. Azam Ali (1985 SCMR 386)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Civil Servants Act, (XIV of 1973)=9 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.944 and 945 of 1994, decision dated: 7-05-1996. dates of hearing: 4th, 7th February and 4th March 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHNAGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. M. Aqil, Advocate Supreme Court (in both C.As.). M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 to 3 (in both C.As.). Noor-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court No. 4 (in both C.As.). Nemo No. 5 (in both C.As.)", + "Party Name:": "NASIMUL HAQUE MALIK \nvs\nCHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 135 = 1996 SLD 135 = 1996 SCMR 1470 = (1995) 74 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax and Principles of Statutory Interpretation\nConclusions:\n•\nNet wealth calculation excludes ambiguities favoring taxpayers.\n•\nTypographical errors in official notifications can be rectified without higher authority approval.\nCitations:\n•\nWealth Tax Act, 1963 (S. 2)\n•\nCase laws: Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (PLD 1961 SC 119)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(3)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.K-140 of 1981, 64-K, 65-K and 66-K of 1985, decision dated: 19-01-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. K-140 of 1981)\nNasurllah Awan,. Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Records No. 1 and 2 (in Civil Appeal No. K-140 of 1981)\nNasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 64-K, 65-K and 66-K of 1985)\nShaikh Hyder, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals Nos. 64-K, 65-K and 66-K of 1985)", + "Party Name:": "B.P. BISCUIT FACTORY LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nWEALTH TAX OFFICER and another\nCivil Appeals Nos.64-K, 65-K and 66-K of 1985\nM/s. EBRAHIM BROTHERS LIMITED\nvs\nWEALTH TAX OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 334 = 1997 SLD 334 = 1997 SCMR 906", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 7914\nPre-emption Suits and Talb Requirements\nConclusions:\n•\nFailure to meet Talb requirements results in dismissal of pre-emption suits.\n•\nLeave to appeal was refused for suits non-compliant with Talb obligations.\nCitations:\n•\nNWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987 (S. 35)\n•\nCase laws: Abdullah v. Haider Khan (PLD 1996 SC 599)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, (XIV of 1950)=Preamble,35 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 419-P of 1995, decision dated: 18-02-1997, hearing DATE : 11-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "KHAIRULLAH\nvs\nSULTAN MUHAMMAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1638 = 2002 SLD 1638 = (2002) 258 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Assessment and Prima Facie Adjustments\nConclusions:\n•\nAdjustments under S.143(1)(a) require claims to be prima facie inadmissible without further debate.\n•\nCourts favor interpretations minimizing inconvenience to taxpayers.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (S.143(1)(a))\n•\nCase laws: Taylor Instrument Co. v. CIT (1989)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143(1A),154,139,142,80-I Income Tax Rules, 1962=6B ", + "Case #": "C.W.P. NOS. 2087 OF 1991 AND 2985 OF 1995, AUGUST 19, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. JAIN AND MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.S. Syali, Satyen Sethi and Manu K. Giri for the Petitioner. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Ms. Rashmi Chopra and Ajay Jha for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Samtel Color Ltd\nvs\nUnion of India" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 336 = 1997 SLD 336 = 1997 SCMR 1687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Admission Criteria at Bolan Medical College\nConclusions:\n•\nGrounds for exemption from local education requirements must be compelling.\n•\n Better education outside the province is not a valid reason for exemption.\nCitations:\n•\nProspectus of Bolan Medical College, Para 29\n•\nCase laws: Manzoor Ahmad v. Government of Balochistan (1995 SCMR 221)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 19-Q of 1994, decision dated: 23rd June, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIANMUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record. M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 and 2. M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record No. 3. Respondent No. 4 in person", + "Party Name:": "FATEH ALI \nvs\nPROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Health and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 337 = 1997 SLD 337 = 1997 SCMR 1804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Equality Before Law and Discretionary Powers\nConclusions:\n•\nReasonable differentiation does not constitute discrimination.\n•\nArbitrary discretionary actions invite judicial review.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art. 25)\n•\nCase laws: Amanullah Khan v. Federal Government (PLD 1990 SC 1092)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,188,199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 196-P, 200-P, 201-P, 202-P, 203-P, 204-P, 205-P, 206-P, 207-P and 208-P of 1997, decision dated: 29-05-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Azam Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. instructed by Haji M.A. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all C.Ps.). Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Ismail Fehmi, Advocate-on-Records (in all C.Ps.)", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary and 3 OTHERS\nvs\nMEJEE FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., MARDAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 338 = 1997 SLD 338 = 1997 SCMR 1874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemptions for Reconstructed Industries\nConclusions:\n•\nNew machinery installation does not constitute setting up a new industry.\n•\nExemptions apply only when industries meet the specific criteria in notifications.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (S. 13)\n•\nCase laws: Sandalbar Enterprises v. CBR (PLD 1997 SC 334)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Companies Ordinance, 1984=305 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1019 of 1996, decision dated: 21st July, 1997, hearing DATE : 10-06-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record. Mian Tariq Mahmood, Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan and K.G Sabir, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (Pvt.) LTD., CH ARSADDA\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 538 = 1998 SLD 538 = 1998 SCMR 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal from Service Without Hearing\nConclusions:\n•\nOrders issued without hearing violate natural justice.\n•\nSuch orders are coram non judice and unsustainable.\nCitations:\n•\nMaxim: Audi alteram partem \n•\nCase laws: Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. S.A. Rizvi (1992 SCMR 1309)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 147 and 416-L of 1997, decision dated: 26-06-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CJ AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Mahmood, Deputy Attorney-General with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No. 147 of 1997)\nSh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1997)\nHasnat Ahmad, Additional Advocate-General with Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Government Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (it1 Civil Petition No. 416-L of 1997)\nSyed Jamshed Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Petition No. 416-L of 1997)", + "Party Name:": "Civil s for Leave to Appeal Nos. 147 and 416-L of 1997, decided on 26th June, 1997\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and anothers\nvs\nSheikh ABDUL AZIZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 539 = 1998 SLD 539 = 1998 SCMR 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Election Petitions and Preliminary Objections\nConclusions:\n•\nPreliminary objections can be raised on appeal if overruled by the Tribunal.\n•\nLeave to appeal was refused to maintain Tribunal’s jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1976 (S. 67(3))\n•\nCase laws: Mian Ejaz Shafi v. Syed Ali Ashraf Shah (PLD 1994 SC 867)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Representation of the People Act, 1976=67 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.609 of 1.997, decision dated: 2-07-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Jehanzeb Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR MOHMAND\nvs\nJAVED MUHAMMAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 540 = 1998 SLD 540 = 1998 SCMR 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Challenges to Allotments under Evacuee Laws\nConclusions:\n•\nIllegal or ill-gotten allotments cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction for retention.\n•\nHigh Court upheld findings of bogus allotments.\nCitations:\n•\nEvacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (S. 2(2))\n•\nCase laws: Muhammad Baran v. Member (Settlement), Board of Revenue (PLD 1991 SC 691)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975=2(2),2, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.530-L of 1996, decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTARMUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Kh. Saeeduzzafar, Advocate instructed by Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s", + "Party Name:": "AHMAD SHER KHAN and anothers\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and 17 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 541 = 1998 SLD 541 = 1998 SCMR 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Social Security Contributions by Employers\nConclusions:\n•\nPayment of statutory benefits outweighs equivalent monetary allowances.\n•\nEmployers cannot avoid contributions for non-registration of establishments.\nCitations:\n•\nWP Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (Ss. 20-44)\n•\nCase laws: Kohinoor Chemical Co. v. Sindh Social Security (PLD 1977 SC 197)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)=20,21,35to44,1(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 521 of 1994, decision dated: 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Farhat Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Ahmedullah Farooqui, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION\nvs\nMessrs SPENCER & COMPANY (PAK) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 542 = 1998 SLD 542 = 1998 SCMR 908", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail Amount and Review Principles\nConclusions:\n•\nExcessive bail amounts contradict principles of ensuring attendance at trial.\n•\nCourts must justify amounts higher than statutory thresholds.\nCitations:\n•\nOffences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984 (S. 5(7))\n•\nCase laws: Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. S.A. Rizvi (1992 SCMR 1309)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984)=5,5(7) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=420/461/471/406/109 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=188 Supreme Court Rules, 1980=OXXVI,R.1 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Review Petition No. 22 in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1995, decision dated: 25-03-1998, hearing DATE : 10-10-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN AND IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, K.M.A. Samadani, Advocate and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Farooq H. Naek, Dy.A.G. and Sh. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court for the State", + "Party Name:": "SIKANDAR ABDUL KARIM \nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 543 = 1998 SLD 543 = 1998 SCMR 1058", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction and Forfeiture by CDA\nConclusions:\n•\nPetitioner forfeited their claim to equitable relief by accepting a refund and agreeing not to challenge re-auction terms.\n•\nRelief under Article 199 was denied due to lack of equity.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Arts. 199, 185(3))", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 142 of 1997, decision dated: 12th March.; 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Malik M. Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record No. 4", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHILJI\nvs\nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 544 = 1998 SLD 544 = 1998 SCMR 1404 = (1998) 78 TAX 81 = 1998 PTD 2728", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax, Customs Duty, and Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel\nConclusions:\n•\nThe phrase charged and paid under the Sales Tax Act aligns with broader Customs law applications.\n•\nWithdrawal of exemptions under S.31-A of the Customs Act is binding and retroactively applicable.\n•\nPromissory estoppel cannot bind the government indefinitely or against legislative authority.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (S.6)\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S.31-A)\n•\nCase laws: Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1917)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6 Customs Act, 1969=31A,31,19 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),73 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 599, 601 to 604, 606 to 608, 610, 612 to 614, 619, 621 to 623, 625 to 632, 666, 667, 739 of 1994, 740 of 1995 and Civil Petition No. 413 of 1995, decision dated: 11-05-1998. dates of hearing: 19th, 20th, 23rd and 27-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 599 of 1994.\nAbdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 601 of 1994)\nZahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos. 602 and 603 of 1994)\nZahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A, No. 604 of 1994)\nAbdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 606 of 1994)\nAbdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 607 of 1994)\nFakhurddin G. Ibrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C. A. No. 610 of 1994)\nFakhurddin G. Ibrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 612 of 1994)\nFakhurddin G. Ibrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 613 of 1994)\nM. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 614 of 1994)\nAbdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 619 of 1994)\nAbdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C. A. No. 621 -of 1994)\nAbdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 622 of 1994)\nQamarul Islam Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court and Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 623. of 1994)\nSyed Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 625 of 1994).\nCh. Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 626 of 1994).\nSyed Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 627 of 1994)\nHafizur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. ,s No. 628 of 1994)\nIjaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 629 of 1994)\nM. Akram Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 630 of 1994)\nCh. Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 631 of 1994)\nCh. Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 632 of 1994)\nAhmad Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 666 of 1994)\nAli Subtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court (in C. A. No. 667 of 1994)\nNemo (in C.A. No. 739 of 1994)\nCh. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 740 of 1995)\nM. Akram Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.A. No. 413 of 1995)\nS.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Azam Khan, A.G. N.W.F.P., Mian Tariq Mahmood, Dy. A.G.,Pakistan and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in all Cases except C.P. No. 413 of 1995)\nS.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Tariq Mahmood, Dy. A.G, Pakistans (in C.P. No. 413 of 1995)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs M.Y. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD, through Manager and others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 545 = 1998 SLD 545 = 1998 SCMR 2013", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Inspector-General under Police Act\nConclusions:\n•\nStanding Orders by the Inspector-General require formal provincial government approval.\n•\nSeniority lists of civil servants must reflect judicial discretion and adhere to rules.\nCitations:\n•\nPolice Act, 1861 (S.12)\n•\nCase laws: Shakir Husain v. Chandoo (AIR 1913 All. 567)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Police Act, 1861=12 Police Rules, 1934=1.2 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1995, decision dated: 8-05-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeal No. 162 of 1995). S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in Civil Appeal No. 162 of 1995). Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. instructed by Haji M.A. Qayyum, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s. (in C.A. No. 163 of 1995). Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Records Nos.2 to 7 (in C.A. No. 163 of 1995)", + "Party Name:": "SIDDIQ AKBAR, A.S.I. and others\nvs\nSANDBAR KHAN, A.S.I. and others\nCivil Appeal No. 163 of 1995\nINSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P. and another\nvs\nSANDBAR KHAN, A.S. I. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 546 = 1998 SLD 546 = 1998 SCMR 2268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Contractual Obligations and Judicial Review\nConclusions:\n•\nBreaches of public contracts can invoke judicial review if statutory obligations or public interest are violated.\n•\nArbitration clauses in contracts do not bar constitutional remedies if public interests are affected.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Government Lands and Buildings Ordinance, 1965 (S.3)\n•\nCase laws: Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha (PLD 1966 SC 639)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance (LIV of 1965)=3 Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982=11(5) Arbitration Act, 1940=34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1477 of 1996, decision dated: 23rd June, 1998, hearing DATE : 2-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Fazle Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AIRPORT SUPPORT SERVICES\nvs\nTHE AIRPORT MANAGER, QUAIDEAZAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 547 = 1998 SLD 547 = 1998 SCMR 2381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Representation and Interpretation of Provisos\nConclusions:\n•\nActs under O.III, R.4 of CPC relate to initiating proceedings. A counsel engaged without explicit authority may be presumed authorized if actions align with prior engagements.\n•\nProvisos limit or clarify sections of statutes.\nCitations:\n•\nCPC (O.III, R.4)\n•\nCase laws: Jagdatt Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 All. 606)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.III,R.4(1),(5), ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.445 of 1998, decision dated: 1st June, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. IJAZ NISAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 3 OTHERS\nvs\nCh. ALLAH DITTA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 548 = 1998 SLD 548 = 1998 SCMR 2419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "WAPDA Disciplinary Proceedings and Appellate Powers\nConclusions:\n•\nDepartmental appellate authorities must provide reasons for their decisions as required under S.24-A of the General Clauses Act.\n•\nRemanding cases without reasons violates procedural fairness but may be upheld if justifiable from records.\nCitations:\n•\nWAPDA Employees Rules, 1978 (R.11)\n•\nCase laws: Casus omissus principle applied", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978=R-11,11(4)(d),15 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.807 of 1996, decision dated: 1st July, 1998, hearing DATE : 12-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Khan Khakwani, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate-on-Record. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "ZAIN YAR KHAN\nvs\nTHE CHIEF ENGINEER, C.R.B.C., WAPDA. D.I. KHAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 648 = 1999 SLD 648 = 1999 SCMR 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nConstitutional petition maintainable when alternate remedies are illusory or futile.\n•\nClassification of goods (PCT Heading) involves mixed questions of fact and law, justifying High Court jurisdiction.\n•\nAmbiguities in fiscal statutes should favor the subject.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 196, First Schedule)\n•\nCase laws: Messrs Delite House Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Customs (1988 CLC 5)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=196,FirstSched., Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.642 of 1997, decision dated: 30-06-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. IJAZ NISAR, SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Deputy Attorney-General with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Records. Sh. Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Pervaiz 1. Mir, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and 3 others\nvs\nMessrs S.M. AHMAD & COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 649 = 1999 SLD 649 = 1999 SCMR 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition under Article 184(3)\nConclusions:\n•\nPetitions under Article 184(3) are maintainable when public importance and enforcement of Fundamental Rights are involved.\n•\nReasonable classification in legislation is valid if it aligns with social and economic justice.\n•\nLaws can become discriminatory over time due to changed circumstances.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Arts. 184(3), 18, 25)\n•\nCase laws: I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=184(3),18,25 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3(4) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.4 of 1994, decision dated: 5-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Dy. A.G. and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record No. 1. Talat Qayyum Qureshi, Addl. A.G., N.W.F.P. No. 2. Nur M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record No. 3. Raza Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record No. 4", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. and ANOTHERS\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Minister of Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 650 = 1999 SLD 650 = 1999 SCMR 650", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Golden Handshake and Civil Servants' Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nWithdrawal of Golden Handshake benefits is a matter of service terms, falling under Service Tribunal jurisdiction.\n•\nHigh Court jurisdiction barred under Article 212(2) for service-related disputes.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Arts. 199, 212(2))\n•\nService Tribunals Act, 1973 (S.2-A, S.4)\n•\nCase laws: Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik (1997 SCMR 170)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Service Tribunals Act, 1973=2 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,212(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1383 of 1998, decision dated: 17-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and anothers\nvs\nIMTIAZ AHMED GILL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 651 = 1999 SLD 651 = 1999 SCMR 832", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rent Disputes and Withholding Tax\nConclusions:\n•\nDeduction of withholding tax by tenants without legal basis does not absolve them of non-compliance with tentative rent orders.\n•\nShort deposit of rent due to such deductions results in striking off defense under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act.\nCitations:\n•\nCantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (S. 17(8), 17(9))\n•\nCase laws: Mrs. Hazarbai Merchant v. Muhammad Ismail (1984 SCMR 406)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7)(b) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963=17(8),(9) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 530 and 532 of 1998, decision dated: 28-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both C.Ps.) Respondent in person (in C.P. No. 530 of 1998) Respondent in person (in C.P. No. 532 of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MERIDIAN CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nMrs. YASMEEN RIAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 520 = 2007 SLD 520 = 2007 SCMR 452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Zina and Reappraisal of Evidence\nConclusions:\n•\nAccused’s conviction modified based on evidence indicating victim’s consent and absence of abduction.\n•\nSentences adjusted under Sections 10(2) and 16 of the Hudood Ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 10(2), 16)\n•\nCase laws: Aminullah's case (PLD 1982 SC 429)", + "Court Name:": "Shariat Appellate Bench", + "Law and Sections": "Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979=10(2)(3),11,16 ", + "Case #": "Jail Petition No.62(S) of 2003, decision dated: 10-11-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-11-2003 of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad passed in Criminal Appeal No.7/L of 2002)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL, CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, CH. IJAZ AHMED, DR. ALLAMA KHALID MEHMOOD AND ALLAMA RASHID AHMED, JULLUNDHARI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Inayatullah Niazi, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State", + "Party Name:": "AMIR MUHAMMAD\nVs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 521 = 2007 SLD 521 = 2007 SCMR 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-emption and Talb-i-Muwathibat\nConclusions:\n•\nTalb-i-Muwathibat is an essential personal act to activate the right of pre-emption, requiring strict proof.\n•\nFailure to establish Talb or inconsistencies in its claim can result in dismissal of the suit.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (S. 13)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991=13 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.28 of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-12-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Civil Revision No.898 of 1998)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Altaf Elahi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Courts. Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "NAWAB DIN through L.Rs.-\nVs\nFAQIR SAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 522 = 2007 SLD 522 = 2007 SCMR 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail and Retracted Judicial Confessions\nConclusions:\n•\nRetracted confessions are admissible and credible at the bail stage if supported by initial judicial assessment.\n•\nAccused causing trial delays cannot claim relief on that basis.\nCitations:\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S. 497)\n•\nCase laws: Abdul Khaliq v. The State (1995 SCMR 1412)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.87-K of 2005, decision dated: 2-03-2006. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, dated 13-12-2005, passed in Criminal Bail Application No.S-811 of 2005)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Azizullah Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Iqtedar Ali Hashmi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court/Special Public Prosecutor for the State", + "Party Name:": "FAROOQ MENGAL\nVs\nTHE STATE through A.G. Sindh, KarachI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 523 = 2007 SLD 523 = 2007 SCMR 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Judgment on Admissions\nConclusions:\n•\nTrial Courts can decree suits based on clear and unambiguous admissions under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC, even after framing issues.\n•\nHigh Court affirmed Trial Court’s findings based on specific admissions.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (O. XII, R.6)\n•\nCase laws: Amir Bibi v. Muhammad Khurshid (2003 SCMR 1261)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XII,R.6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.982 of 2006, decision dated: 10-11-2006. (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 7-9-2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No.269 of 2006)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Gulzarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "G.R. SYED\nVs\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 524 = 2007 SLD 524 = 2007 SCMR 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reappraisal of Evidence in Zina Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nDelayed FIRs and withholding critical evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.\n•\nConvictions under Hudood Ordinance require robust reasoning and evidence to withstand scrutiny.\nCitations:\n•\nOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 10, 16)\n•\nCase laws: Abdul Waheed v. The State (1995 SCMR 1498)", + "Court Name:": "Shariat Appellate Bench", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=203-F(2B),185(3) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=129(g) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=338-F Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979=10,11,16 ", + "Case #": "Jail Petition No.8(S) of 2005, decision dated: 14-11-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 29-1-2005 passed by the Federal Shariat Court, Lahore, in Jail Criminal Appeal No.224/I of 2003 and Criminal Suo Motu No.4/I of 2004)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL, CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN CH. IJAZ AHMED, DR. ALLAMA KHALID MEHMOOD AND ALLAMA RASHID AHMED, JULLUNDHARI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "F.K. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. Munir Sadiq Advocate Supreme Court for the State on Court call", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR-\nVs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 525 = 2007 SLD 525 = 2007 SCMR 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Quotas in Educational Institutions\nConclusions:\n•\nDistrict-wise quotas and reservations in Bolan Medical College upheld as promoting equality in backward areas, not violating constitutional provisions.\n•\nClassification must have intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the objectives.\n•\nMinority view challenged quotas as unjustified and against merit principles.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Arts. 2-A, 22, 25, 37(c))\n•\nCase laws: Mst. Attiya Bibi Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (2001 SCMR 1161)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, year 2000-2001=3,4,7,10,23 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2A,22,25,37(c),185(3),22(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.436 of 2004, decision dated: 3rd November, 2006, hearing DATE : 6-05-2005. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-10-2002 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in C.P. No.137 of 2002)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant in person. Amanullah Tareen, Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan, Quetta, Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record Manzoor Hussain, Additional Secretary, and Abdul Malik, Principal, Bolan Medical Colleges", + "Party Name:": "Miss SHAZIA BATOOL\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 653 = 1999 SLD 653 = 1999 SCMR 1213 = (1999) 79 TAX 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowable Deductions in Income Tax\nConclusions:\n•\nPenal interest incurred for statutory violations not allowable as business expense under Income Tax Act.\n•\nExpenditures not wholly or exclusively for business purposes, even if incurred due to regulatory breaches, are excluded.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (S. 10(2)(xvi))\n•\nCase laws: Messrs General Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1986 PTD 52)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.576 and 577 of 1994, decision dated: 14-01-1999, hearing DATE : 25-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, MAMOON KAZI AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Suprem Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-1 KARACHI\nvs\nPREMIER BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 496 = 2007 SLD 496 = 2007 SCMR 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disciplinary Proceedings under Conflicting Laws\nConclusions:\n•\nDisciplinary actions initiated under repealed laws vitiate the proceedings.\n•\nRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, has overriding effect and must govern disciplinary cases post-promulgation.\nCitations:\n•\nRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000)=3,11 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.220-K of 2005, decision dated: 31st August, 2005. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 28-12-2004 passed by Sindh Service. Tribunal, Karachi in Appeal No.192 of 2002)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SAIYED STEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Sher Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate-General Sindhs", + "Party Name:": "AZIZULLAH MEMON\nVs\nPROVINCE OF SINDH and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 497 = 2007 SLD 497 = 2007 SCMR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Tax and Contractor Liabilities\nConclusions:\n•\nContractor liable for overcharging export tax and penalties post-lease termination.\n•\nClaims against principal (Zila Council) must be filed timely and include the contractor as a party.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 (R. 8(2), R. 8(3))\n•\nCase laws: Shivlal Motilal v. Birdichand Jivraj (AIR 1917 Born. 268)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990=8(2) Contract Act, 1872=233 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1301, 1305 and 1306 of 2006 in C.Ps. Nos.1586, 1529 and 1530-L of 2004, decision dated: 20-09-2006.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-3-2003, 11-3-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos.13510 of 2002, 3437 and 3438 of 2004)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court (in Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2006). Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court (in Civil Appeals. Nos.1305 and 1306 of 2006). Khawaja Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "Major (Rtd.) Khawaja MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others\nVs\nZILA COUNCIL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 655 = 1999 SLD 655 = 1999 SCMR 1526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Servants and Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nEmployees of statutory corporations are not civil servants unless explicitly declared so under Service Tribunals Act.\n•\nOnly statutory rules of service can bring such employees under the civil servant framework.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Servants Act, 1973 (S. 2(b))\n•\nCase laws: Federation of Pakistan v. Shabbir Ahmed (CPLA 334 of 1993)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Servants Act, 1973=2,2(b),2A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1899 to 1910 of 1996, decision dated: 28-05-1999 (On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 4-3-1996, passed in Appeals Nos 99 and 110 to 120-K of 1995)hearing DATE : 20-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Nasir Hussain Jafri, Advocate Supreme Courts (in all Cases). Niaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 1905 of 1996)", + "Party Name:": "DIVISIONAL ENGINEER PHONES, PHONES DIVISION, SUKKUR and another \nvs\nMUHAMMAD SHAHID and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 480 = 2007 SLD 480 = 2007 SCMR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Narcotics Cases and Sentencing\nConclusions:\n•\nCustodial violence and lack of prior convictions considered in sentence reduction for narcotics cases.\n•\nConviction upheld based on consistent evidence but imprisonment reduced from 10 to 6 years.\nCitations:\n•\nControl of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (S. 9(c))", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997=9(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.68 of 2004, decision dated: 4-03-2005. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 28-1-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2003)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.\nRaja Saeed Akram, A.A.G. Punjab for the State", + "Party Name:": "NIAZUDDIN\nVs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 481 = 2007 SLD 481 = 2007 SCMR 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trial Conduct and Adjournments\nConclusions:\n•\nTrial Courts must prioritize adjournments for absent defense counsel in serious cases, such as murder, unless abuse of process is evident.\n•\nCourt-appointed counsel for accused is not ideal if private representation is preferred.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code (S. 302)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No. 676-L of 2006, decision dated: 30-08-2006. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-7-2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 86/T/2006)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "NAJEEBULLAH KHAN and OTHERS\nVs\nTHE STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 482 = 2007 SLD 482 = 2007 SCMR 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Penalties\nConclusions:\n•\nImporters penalized under clause (62) instead of clause (90) of the Customs Act for consuming warehouse goods without paying duties.\n•\nHigh Court's order reducing penalties upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 156(1), Cls. (62), (90))", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1),Cls.(62),(90) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 173-P of 2002, decision dated: 16-08-2006.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12-12-2001 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar Passed in F.A.O. No. 91 of 2000)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR-\nVs\nMessrs PAPER INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., NOWSHERA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 483 = 2007 SLD 483 = 2007 SCMR 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bank Employee Misconduct\nConclusions:\n•\nBank employee dismissed for embezzlement after a thorough inquiry.\n•\nDismissal upheld due to the serious impact on the bank's reputation and goodwill.\nCitations:\n•\nWest Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (S.O. 12)\n•\nCase laws: Syed Hasham Ali Shah & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1951 Lah. 425)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)=O.12 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=25A ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2636-L, 2638-L 2844-L and 2885-L of 2004, decision dated: 6-01-2006. (On appeal from the order, dated 25-6-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in L.A. No.69 of 2004)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioners in Person (in C.Ps. Nos.2636, 2638 and 2844 of 2004). Farooq Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI and others\nVs\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 657 = 1999 SLD 657 = 1999 SCMR 2189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Supreme Court Review Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nReview of judgments not allowed to reargue settled cases unless clear errors are evident.\n•\nRecommendations of Wafaqi Mohtasib binding unless overturned by the President on valid grounds.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Art. 188)\n•\nCase laws: Government of Punjab v. Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church (PLD 1988 SC 382)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Supreme Court Rules, 1980=OXXVI,R.1 Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)=32,11 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=188,48 ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petition No.29 of 1999 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.49 of 1999, decision dated: 1st July, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Yawar Ali, Deputy Attorney-General and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record, for Petitioner. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record, No. 1", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad\nvs\nMUHAMMAD TARIQ PIRZADA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 658 = 1999 SLD 658 = 1999 SCMR 2268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Promotion in Customs Department\nConclusions:\n•\nService Tribunal allowed grace marks in promotion exams following the principle of consistency with prior cases.\n•\nSupreme Court dismissed leave to appeal, finding no legal infirmity or public importance in the Tribunal’s order.\nCitations:\n•\nService Tribunals Act, 1973 (S. 4)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Service Tribunals Act, 1973=4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.610-L of 1997, decision dated: 9-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Collectorate of Customs and anothers\nvs\nAMAR MEHMOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 659 = 1999 SLD 659 = 1999 SCMR 2799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Cooperative Societies Act to Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order\nConclusions:\n•\nApplication under Art. 22 of the Life Insurance Order is distinct from a suit and not barred by S. 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act.\n•\nLegislative intention determined from explicit statutory language.\nCitations:\n•\nLife Insurance (Nationalisation) Order, 1972 (Art. 22)\n•\nCooperative Societies Act, 1925 (S. 70)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Co-operative Societies Act, 1925=70 Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order (10 of 1972)=22 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.277 to 280 of 1992, decision dated: 29-06-1999, hearing DATE : 25-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hanif Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in all Appeals). Fazle Ghani Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 1 (in all Appeals). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COOPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI and others\nvs\nSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and 12 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 216 = 1960 SLD 216 = 1960 PLD 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Income Tax Assessment and Notice Validity\nConclusions:\n•\nIssuance of notice under S. 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance upheld if Competent Authority applied its independent mind.\n•\nHigh Court’s Constitutional jurisdiction discouraged when statutory remedies remain unexhausted.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S. 65)\n•\nCase Law: Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1993 SCMR 29)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "General Clauses Act, 1897=6 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 1957, decision dated: 20th January 1960, dates of hearing : 29th October and 21st December 1959.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B. Z. KAIKAUS, JUSTICE\nBASHIR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Naqi for A. G..\nGhulam Bari Salimis.", + "Party Name:": "THE STATE\nVS\nMUHAMMAD SHARIF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 562 = 2000 SLD 562 = 2000 SCMR 907", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease Extensions and Legal Validity\nConclusions:\n•\nLease extension to 30 years by unauthorized means declared invalid; Chief Minister lacked authority.\n•\n Locus poenitentiae does not preserve illegal orders or actions.\nCitations:\n•\nLand Lease Order, 1978 [M.L.O. Zone C] (Paras. 7 & 9)\n•\nCase Law: Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 SC 207)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "General Clauses Act, 1897=21 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.68-K and 69-K of 2000, decision dated: 10-02-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, RASHID AZIZ KHAN AND IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ibrar Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court, S.M. Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court and.Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.68-K and 69-K of 2000). Nemos (in both Petitions)", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL HAQUE INDHAR and OTHERS\nvs\nPROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 563 = 2000 SLD 563 = 2000 SCMR 1017", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ of Prohibition Against Bank Notices\nConclusions:\n•\nWrit petition dismissed as premature; no adverse action was taken by the bank except issuing notices.\n•\nLegal questions raised by the petitioner were to be resolved internally by the bank.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Art. 199)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1710 of 1999, decision dated: 15-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Mir NABI BAKHSH KHAN KHOSO\nvs\nBRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, JHATPAT (DERA ALLAH YAR) BRANCH and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 564 = 2000 SLD 564 = 2000 SCMR 1305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Pre-emption Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nSuit for pre-emption based on registered sale deeds must be filed within 120 days from registration.\n•\nPublic notice under S. 32 of NWFP Pre-emption Act does not extend the limitation under S. 31.\nCitations:\n•\nNWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987 (Ss. 31, 32)\n•\nCase Law: Mumtaz Khan v. Nawab Khan (2000 SCMR 53)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=0.VII,R.11(d) Registration Act, 1908=47 North West Frontier Province Preemption Act, (X of 1987)=32,31 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 258-P of 1998, decision dated: 6-04-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUR REHMAN KHAN AND QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Ihsanullah Qtireshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Hamid Farooq Durrani, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Maulana NUR-ULHAQ\nvs\nIBRAHIM KHALIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 565 = 2000 SLD 565 = 2000 SCMR 1703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Territorial Jurisdiction in Constitutional Petitions\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Courts in Karachi and Rawalpindi both had jurisdiction in cases involving Federal Government entities operating across Pakistan.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Art. 199)\n•\nCase Law: Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue (1997 SCMR 1874)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.869 of 2000, decision dated: 7-06-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. IJAZ NISAR, QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul.Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED\nvs\nPAKISTAN AGRO FORESTRY CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 566 = 2000 SLD 566 = 2000 SCMR 1871 = (2000) 82 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessing officers must evaluate whether the undertaking meets criteria for exemptions, not solely based on production levels.\n•\nTax incentives under para. 118-E aim to encourage industrial growth and are to be interpreted beneficially.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Second Schedule, Para. 118-E)\n•\nCase Law: Premier Machinery Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1993 PTD 223)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,SecondSched.,137 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.97 of 2000, decision dated: 8-06-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. IJAZ NISAR, QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Zia Haider Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court. Mansoor Ahmad, Deputy Attorney-General with Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IRUM GHEE MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 695 = 2001 SLD 695 = 2001 SCMR 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revival of Time-Barred Claims in Banking Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nRights extinguished due to limitation cannot be revived by S. 22(2) of Banking Companies Act.\n•\nFresh cause of action applies only to unresolved transactions and does not retroactively revive barred claims.\nCitations:\n•\nBanking Companies Act, 1997 (Ss. 9, 22)\n•\nCase Law: N.D.F.C. v. Anwar Zaib White Cement Ltd. (1999 MLD 1988)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9,22,.6(1)(a),22(2) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=12 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.286-K of 2000, decision dated: 28-07-2000, hearing DATE : 19-07-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Arif Hussain Khilji, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "KHALID QURESHI end 5 OTHERS\nvs\nUNITED BANK LIMITED I.I. CHUNDRIGAR ROAD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 696 = 2001 SLD 696 = 2001 SCMR 838 = (2001) 84 TAX 133 = 2002 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Short-Assessed Duty under the Customs Act\nConclusions:\n•\nNotices issued without following statutory procedures (e.g., show-cause notices) are void.\n•\nHigh Court rightly declined to remand cases as statutory time limits for action had expired.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 32)\n•\nCase Law: Federation of Pakistan v. Messrs Ibrahim Textile Mills (1992 SCMR 1898)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(1),32(2),32(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1358 to 1361 of 1997, decision dated: 20-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIR A. SHEIKH, RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rauf Raheela, Advocate- Supreme Courts. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others\nvs\nMessrs KHYBER ELECTRIC LAMPS and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 697 = 2001 SLD 697 = 2001 SCMR 1001", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-emption Money Deposit and Court’s Duty\nConclusions:\n•\nTrial Courts must issue timely orders for deposit under S. 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.\n•\nMaxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit applies to prevent litigants from suffering due to judicial errors.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (S. 24)\n•\nCase Law: Rashad Ehsan v. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1989 SC 146)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991=24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.295 of 1995, decision dated: 8-12-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hakim Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court. Muhammad Amin K. Jan, Advocate Supreme Court kith Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 . Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM HASSAN \nvs\nJAMSHAID ALI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 698 = 2001 SLD 698 = 2001 SCMR 1062", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Pre-emption Decrees under NWFP Act\nConclusions:\n•\nDecrees passed under repealed NWFP Pre-emption Act, 1950 remain valid if within its jurisdiction at the time.\n•\nApplications to challenge such decrees after long delays (e.g., 5 years) are barred by limitation.\nCitations:\n•\nNWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987 (S. 35)\n•\nCase Law: Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of NWFP (PLD 1997 SC 397)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "North West Frontier Province Preemption Act, (X of 1987)=35 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12(2) Limitation Act, 1908=181 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=203D(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1919 of 1996, decision dated: 16-03-2001, hearing DATE : 19-02-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record. Muhammad Hussain Lughumani, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s", + "Party Name:": "SARFRAZ\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 699 = 2001 SLD 699 = 2001 SCMR 1346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Medical College Admission (Self-Finance vs. Reserved Seats)\nConclusions:\n•\nCandidates opting for self-finance cannot later claim reserved seats if adjustments disrupt admissions of other candidates.\n•\nHigh Court’s order to adjust admission was overturned.\nCitations:\n•\nEducational Admission Policy (FATA Reserved Seats)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)= ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1133 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd January, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI,NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Parachs, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.Muhammad Waris Khan, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "PRINCIPAL, AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE, ABBOTTABAD\nvs\nADNAN ZAFAR and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 700 = 2001 SLD 700 = 2001 SCMR 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Appeal for Pardahnashin Lady\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Court restored appeal based on genuine reasons, including absence of the attorney.\n•\nJustice requires deciding cases on merit rather than technical grounds.\nCitations:\n•\nSindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (S. 21)\n•\nCase Law: Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 SC 94)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=21,15,18 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.348-K of 2000, decision dated: 26-07-2000. (On appeal from the judgment dated 17-5-2000 passed by High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur in F.R.A. No.79 of 1987)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Nadi Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nNemos", + "Party Name:": "Chaudhary GHULAM GHAUS through Legal Heirs\nvs\nSAIFULLAH and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 701 = 2001 SLD 701 = 2001 SCMR 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Striking Off Tenant’s Defense in Rent Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nTenant failed to comply with Rent Controller’s order to deposit arrears.\n•\nNon-compliance was deliberate, and concurrent findings of lower courts were upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nSindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 15, 16)\n•\nCase Law: Abdullah Ghanghro v. Mst. Tahira Begum (1988 SCMR 970)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15,16(1),16(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.81-K of 2000, decision dated: 2-08-2000. (On appeal afrom the order, dated 22-12-1999 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in First Rent Appeal No.553 of 1999)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWAN DAS, SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Amjad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Zafar Hadi Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "ASHIQ ALI and anothers\nvs\nMEHAR ELAHI and 13 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 702 = 2001 SLD 702 = 2001 SCMR 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Correction of Name in Supreme Court Order\nConclusions:\n•\nSupreme Court corrected petitioner’s name based on verified records.\nCitations:\n•\nSupreme Court Rules, 1980 (O. XXXIII, R. 6)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Supreme Court Rules, 1980=O.XXXIII,R.6 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6-L of 1998, in Criminal Petition No. 199-L of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.240 of 1997, decision dated: 13-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Sharif Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Advocate General, Punjab for the State", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias SHARIF\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 703 = 2001 SLD 703 = 2001 SCMR 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sentencing in Murder Cases and Rule of Consistency\nConclusions:\n•\nDeath sentences maintained for most accused; life imprisonment granted to one due to age and consistency principle.\n•\nMinor accused’s sentence commuted from death to life imprisonment.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (Ss. 302/307/149)\n•\nCase Law: Munawar Ali alias Munawar Hussain v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 251)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302/307/149 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos.294 and 295 of 1997, 406 and 407 of 1999, decision dated: 1st June, 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. IJAZ NISAR, QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in Appeal No. 294 of 1997). Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in Appeal No. 294 of 1997)\nCh. Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in Appeal No. 295 of 1997). Nemo for the State (in Appeal No. 295 of 1997). Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in both Criminal Appeals). Nemos ((in both Criminal Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "MEHBOOB SULTAN and 2 others\nvs\nTHE STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 704 = 2001 SLD 704 = 2001 SCMR 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pay Fixation and Promotion of Municipal School Headmasters\nConclusions:\n•\nService Tribunal’s decision favoring civil servant upheld as qualifications met prescribed criteria.\n•\nProvincialization of schools merged municipal scales with national pay scales.\nCitations:\n•\nWest Pakistan Municipal Committees (Grades of Pay) Rules, 1964 (R. 31)\n•\nPunjab Senior Teaching Post Rules, 1974", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Municipal Committee Octroi Rules, 1964=31 Service Tribunals Act, 1973=4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.423 of 1993, decision dated: 27-03-1998. dates of hearing: 26th and 27-03-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Altaf Ilahi Sheikh, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent). Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE\nvs\nAllama MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 705 = 2001 SLD 705 = 2001 SCMR 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Evaluation of Prosecution Evidence in Murder Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nEvidence must be corroborated independently to ensure reliability.\n•\nAbscondence of the accused is considered a corroborative circumstance.\n•\nConviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary, credible witness, supported by motive and other corroborative evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (S. 302)\n•\nCase Law: PLD 1980 SC 225; PLD 1962 SC 269; 1975 Cr.LJ 218", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=18 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 8-05-2000. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-6-1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No.522 of 1992, M.R. No.215 of 1992 and Criminal Revision No.622 of 1992)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for the State", + "Party Name:": "RIAZ HUSSAIN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 706 = 2001 SLD 706 = 2001 SCMR 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Awarding Special Costs in Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Court imposed special costs on a petitioner acting with mala fide intent to malign WAPDA authorities.\n•\nCourts can impose costs to prevent abuse of judicial processes and protect public interest.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Art. 199)\n•\nCase Law: Khurshid Ahmad Naz Faridi v. Bashir Ahmed (1993 SCMR 639)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No. 89-K of 1999, decision dated: 23rd May, 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD NASEER\nvs\nMir AZHAR ALI TALPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 707 = 2001 SLD 707 = 2001 SCMR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)---\n \n----S.9---Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Recovery of Bank loan---Failure to issue process in accordance with the provisions of S.7 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 ---Effect---Banking, Tribunal decreed the suit and the was upheld by High Court on the ground that the petitioners had been served in accordance with law and the Rules applicable when the suit was filed---Leave to appeal was refused.\n \nMessrs Ahmad Autos and another v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited PLD 1990 SC 497 ref.\n \n(b) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)---\n \n----S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXII---Suit for recovery of Bank loan---Suit against dead person---Validity---Institution of legal proceedings against dead person was of no avail to the concerned litigant--­Suit of the plaintiff against a dead person was incompetent and, therefore, nullity in law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=9 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXII Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1168 of 1997, decision dated: 20-10-1998. (On appeal from the judgment dated 11-7-1997 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in I.A. No.47 of 1993)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUR REHMAN KHAN AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners. Syed Hamid Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate -on-Record", + "Party Name:": "HAFIZ BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD. and\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 708 = 2001 SLD 708 = 2001 SCMR 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Preventive Detention and Costs for Officials’ Misconduct\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Court rightly imposed costs on officials for mala fide preventive detention.\n•\nProvincial Government lacked locus standi to file an appeal against such personal cost orders.\nCitations:\n•\nMaintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (S. 3)\n•\nCase Law: Muhammad Ibrahim v. SHO (1990 PCr.LJ 1717)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)=3(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3),185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.966 of 1993, decision dated: 24-05-2000. (On appeal from the judgment dated 12-10-1993 of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed Constitutional Petition No. D-2827 of 1993)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munibur Rehman, Additional Advocate-Genera), Sindhs. Respondent in person (absent) Qazi Faez Isa. Amicus curiae (on Courts notice)", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others\nvs\nMst. NAJMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 709 = 2001 SLD 709 = 2001 SCMR 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail and Evidentiary Value in Narcotics Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nBail cannot be canceled based solely on statements of co-accused, as these are inadmissible.\n•\nHigh and Sessions Courts retain the power to grant bail despite restrictive provisions under narcotics laws.\nCitations:\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S. 497)\n•\nCase Law: The State v. Mubeen Khan (2000 SCMR 299)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497(5),161,162,496,497,498 Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997=6,7,8,9,14,15 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.81-K of 1999, decision dated: 23rd May, 2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for the State. Nawaz Khan Murwat, Advocate Supreme Court with, A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate- on-Record\nTHE STATE through Deputy Director Anti-Narcotic Force, Karachi--Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "THE STATE through Deputy Director AntINarcotic Force, Karachi\nvs\nSyed ABDUL QAYUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 710 = 2001 SLD 710 = 2001 SCMR 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Government Appeals\nConclusions:\n•\nSupreme Court condoned delay due to peculiar circumstances, emphasizing the need for government agencies to address systemic negligence.\n•\nHigh Court erred by granting relief outside the plaintiff's pleadings.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908 (S. 5)\n•\nCase Law: Messrs Malik and Haq v. Shames-ul-Islam Chaudhri (PLD 1961 SC 531)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=5 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 313-Q of 1999, decision dated: 26-06-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, A.A.G. and Ashraf Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Member, Board of Revenue and anothers\nvs\nGHULAM MUHAMMAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 711 = 2001 SLD 711 = 2001 SCMR 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Conviction on Same Evidence and Plea of Alibi\nConclusions:\n•\nConviction of one accused while acquitting others on the same evidence requires closer scrutiny.\n•\nPlea of alibi, if substantiated, shifts the burden to the prosecution.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (S. 302)\n•\nCase Law: Aminullah v. State (PLD 1976 SC 629)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302,303 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.312 of 1997, decision dated: 16-05-2000. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, dated 4-8-1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1995)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHID AZIZ KHAN AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate Supreme Courts. Abdur Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate- on-Record for the State", + "Party Name:": "ALLAH WADHAYO and another\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 712 = 2001 SLD 712 = 2001 SCMR 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Burden of Proof in Corruption Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nProsecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused only needs to create a reasonable doubt.\n•\nDefence plea, if corroborated by credible evidence, can lead to acquittal.\n•\nRefusal to testify under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., cannot be used adversely against the accused.\nCitations:\n•\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (S. 5)\n•\nCase Law: Dr. Ghulam Hussain v. The State (1971 SCMR 35)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947=5(2),4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1996, decision dated: 31st May, 2000, hearing DATE : 18-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Masood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record (absent). M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State", + "Party Name:": "RASHID AHMAD\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 487 = 2002 SLD 487 = 2002 SCMR 312 = (2002) 85 TAX 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legitimate Expectation and Retrospective Application of Customs Act\nConclusions:\n•\nDoctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Cannot override explicit statutory provisions or retrospective legislative amendments.\n•\nS.R.O. No.484(1)/92 ceased to apply after its expiration, and no vested right was created for exemptions under expired S.R.O.\n•\nCourts emphasize interpreting statutes and notifications within their clear grammatical context unless ambiguity necessitates otherwise.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 31-A)\n•\nCase Law: Gatron Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1072)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=31A General Clauses Act, 1897=21 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2A,25,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.534 of 1998, decision dated: 26-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "ZAMAN CEMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. \nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 489 = 2002 SLD 489 = 2002 SCMR 1871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dispute Resolution and Election Tribunal Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nDisputes regarding election results fall under the jurisdiction of Election Tribunals as per the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, even if administrative changes occur post-election.\n•\nHigh Court appropriately remanded the case to the relevant Election Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 24, 25)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=24,25 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No, 1077-L of 1998, decision dated: 21st July, 1998. dates of hearing: 24th and 27-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqbul Elahi Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mehmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S.M. Masood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record No. 10. Khurshid Ahmed Bhindhar, Additional Advocate-General for the State. Nawaz Bhatti, Additional Advocate-General for the State. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MANAF\nvs\nADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/RETURNING OFFICER, GUJRAT and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 289 = 2003 SLD 289 = 2003 SCMR 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Declaratory Relief and Absence of Vested Rights\nConclusions:\n•\nFiling an application or obtaining a feasibility report does not create vested rights or establish an agency relationship.\n•\nRelief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted without evidence of a valid agreement or vested rights.\nCitations:\n•\nSpecific Relief Act, 1877 (S. 42)\n•\nCase Law: Black's Law Dictionary (definition of license )", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=12,42 Easements Act, 1882=52,60 Contract Act, 1872=182,2 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.256-P of 2001; decided on 18th July 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD. RAZA KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Wazir Mohmand, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "REHMATULLAH KHAN and OTHERS\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Petroleum and Natural Resources Division, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 290 = 2003 SLD 290 = 2003 SCMR 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail Cancellation in Murder Cases\nConclusions:\n•\nCircumstantial evidence, such as inconsistent explanations and failure to act promptly, can justify denying bail.\n•\nSupreme Court overturned the High Court's grant of bail based on compelling evidence connecting the accused to the crime.\nCitations:\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S. 497(5))\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (S. 302)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.166/L of 2002, decision dated: 4-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid Hassan Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record No. 1. Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for the State", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAEED\nvs\nJAVAID NIAZ and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 291 = 2003 SLD 291 = 2003 SCMR 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Correction of Date of Birth and Terms of Civil Service\nConclusions:\n•\nCivil servant successfully established his corrected date of birth based on multiple credible documents.\n•\nDepartments are estopped from denying the corrected date if it was accepted in other official actions, such as promotions.\nCitations:\n•\nBalochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (S. 4)\n•\nCase Law: Jamal Khan Jaffar v. Government of Balochistan (1998 SCMR 1302)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "4", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 2001, decision dated: 11-11-2002, hearing DATE : 9-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL, SARDAR MUHAMRNAD RAZA KHAN AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Mustafa Mangal, Additioinal Advocate-General. Abdur Rahim Kazmi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHI$TAN through Secretary, S&GAD, Quetta \nvs\nMARJAN KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 292 = 2003 SLD 292 = 2003 SCMR 678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave Rules and Dismissal for Absence\nConclusions:\n•\nLeave is not automatically granted for periods of absence unless explicitly requested and sanctioned under rules.\n•\nTribunal's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was legally justified.\nCitations:\n•\nRevised Leave Rules, 1980 (R. 7)\n•\nCase Law: Muhammad Hayat Saleem v. Government of Sindh (2002 SCMR 918)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Revised Leave Rules, 1980=R-7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1502 of 2002, decision dated: 20-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C, J ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "FAROOQ NAWAZ\nvs\nDIRECTOR OF C.P. DIRECTORATE, AGS BRANCH, GHQ, RAWALPINDI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 240 = 2004 SLD 240 = 2004 SCMR 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pension Calculation and Interpretation of Regulations\nConclusions:\n•\nPensionable service in autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies does not extend to Federal Government service unless explicitly stated.\n•\nTribunal erred in extending the regulation's scope, potentially leading to adverse implications for public funds.\nCitations:\n•\nFederal Bank for Cooperatives Employees Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1989 (Regln. 9(i)(b)(c))\n•\nCase Law: Baber Gul v. Sohail Ahmad Sheikh (2002 SCMR 581)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Bank for Cooperatives Employees Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1989=9,9(i)(b)(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3),185(3) Service Tribunals Act, 1973=4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.82 of 2003, decision dated: 15-09-2003, hearing DATE : 8-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court for -Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FEDERAL BANK FOR COOPERATIVES, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nEHSAN MUHAMMAD \nMalik SAFDAR ALI KHAN and ANOTHERS\nvs\nPUBLIC AT LARGE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 241 = 2004 SLD 241 = 2004 SCMR 1219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Islamic Law of Succession, Nomination, and Gifts\nConclusions:\n•\nNomination vs. Gift: Nomination does not override Islamic inheritance laws and cannot function as a valid gift unless accompanied by delivery of possession.\n•\nProvident Fund nominations lapse upon the nominator's death and become part of the estate for distribution under Islamic law.\n•\nCourts upheld widow and children’s right to inheritance despite the nominee's claim under National Savings Certificates.\nCitations:\n•\nProvident Funds Act, 1925 (S. 5)\n•\nSuccession Act, 1925 (S. 373)\n•\nCase Law: Amtul Habib v. Musarrat Parveen (PLD 1974 SC 185)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Provident Funds Act, 1925=5 Succession Act, 1925=373 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.234 and 486 of 2003, decision dated: 22-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in both petitions) and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No. 486 of 2003). Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 242 = 2004 SLD 242 = 2004 SCMR 1319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Exemptions on Power Projects\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest earned from share capital deposits in banks does not qualify as profits and gains from power generation under Item 176 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nExemptions under S.80-B of the Income Tax Ordinance do not extend to public limited companies.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Second Schedule, Item 176)\n•\nCase Law: Messrs Packages Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1993 SCMR 1224)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,Second Schedule,176,80B(2)(b),30 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1357 of 1999 alongwith Civil Appeals Nos. 916-918, 1069, 1070 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2001. dates of hearing 7th and 18-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ejaz Muhammad Khan Advocate on-Record (absent) and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record (absent)s (in C.As. Nos. 1357, 916 of 1999, 917, 918, 1069, 1070 of 2000 and 1295 of 2001)\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate on-Record (absent) and Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate on-Records (in C. As. Nos. 1357, 916 of 1999, 917, 1069, 1070 of 2000 and 1295 of 2001)\nMalik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate on-Records (in C.A. No. 918 of 2000)", + "Party Name:": "GENERTECH PAKISTAN LTD. and others \nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 201 = 2005 SLD 201 = 2005 SCMR 1493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty and Bulk Oil Measurement\nConclusions:\n•\nThe High Court’s order directing oil measurement in shore tanks instead of vessel tanks was challenged as prejudicial to Customs Authorities.\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in determining factual matters in constitutional jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (S. 18)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=18 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.As. Nos.703-K and 704-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney-General for Pakistan and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and anothers\nvs\nMessrs FATIMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 202 = 2005 SLD 202 = 2005 SCMR 1505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Fraudulent Decree Challenges\nConclusions:\n•\nApplication under S.12(2), CPC for setting aside a decree was dismissed due to being time-barred.\n•\nSupreme Court rejected the plea that the limitation period began from the date of knowledge of fraud, as the petitioners were deemed aware earlier.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (S. 12(2))", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.1498-L and 1523-L of 2000, decision dated: 25-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIR A. SHAIKH AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD and OTHERS\nvs\nPIR BAKHSH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 203 = 2005 SLD 203 = 2005 SCMR 1636 = 2005 PTD 2446 = (2005) 91 TAX 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Appeals and Limitation\nConclusions:\n•\nHigh Court cannot entertain questions of limitation not raised at lower forums, as these are mixed questions of law and fact.\n•\nThe supplier company's failure to adhere to S.106 of the Customs Act regarding duty exemptions was deemed a deliberate evasion.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (Ss. 106, 196)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=106,194B,196 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.897-K along with Civil Petitions Nos.3-K to 131-K of 2005 (130 petitions), decision dated: 23rd May, 2005, hearing DATE : 25-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sohail Muzaffar Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Sajid Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Shabbir Ghouri, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS E & S.T. AND SALES TAX \nvs\nPAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 279 = 2006 SLD 279 = 2006 SCMR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals Post-Privatization\nConclusions:\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether Service Tribunals retain jurisdiction over privatized bank employees under S.2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.\nCitations:\n•\nService Tribunals Act, 1973 (S. 2-A)\n•\nCase Law: Manzoor Ali v. United Bank Ltd. (2005 SCMR 1785)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Service Tribunals Act, 1973=2 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.560-K of 2004 and 602-K of 2005, decision dated: 22-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND M, JAVED BUTTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 560-K of 2004). Mehmood A. Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Petition No. 560-K of 2004). Shahid Hussain Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmad Ullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 602-K of 2005). Respondent No. 1 in person (in Civil Petition No. 602-K of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "SHER KHAN\nvs\nUNITED BANK LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 280 = 2006 SLD 280 = 2006 SCMR 425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notices and Appellate Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n•\nThe timing of show-cause notices under S.32 of the Customs Act involves questions of fact, not law, and cannot be reviewed by the High Court in appellate jurisdiction.\n•\nReview petitions cannot reopen cases unless clear errors are apparent on the record.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 (Ss. 32, 196)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(1),(2),196 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=188 Supreme Court Rules, 1980=O.XXVI ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petitions Nos.200 to 329 of 2005 (130 cases), decision dated: 23rd December, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, A.G. Pakistan, with Umair Majeed Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Sajid Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court with Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ikhlaq Ahmed, Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record and Makhdoom Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOM, E&ST (ADJUDICATIONII) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 281 = 2006 SLD 281 = 2006 SCMR 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision and Service Tribunal Appeals\nConclusions:\n•\nCompetent authorities’ failure to notify petitioners within prescribed timelines invalidates dismissal of revision petitions as non-maintainable.\n•\nSupreme Court reinstated the petitioner’s appeal before the Service Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (S. 9)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)=9 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.276-L of 2005, 2703-L of 2.003, 367-L of 2004, 51-L, 83-L, 151-L, 158-L, 193-L, 201-L, 211-L, 217-L, 220-L, 315-L, 348-L, 435-L, 449-L, 548-L, 755-L, 1337-L, 1404-L, 1440-L, 1497-L of 2005; 90-L, 121-L and 168-L of 2006, decision dated: 14-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL AND CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 276-L of 2005)\nRana Safdar Ali Asif, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 2703-L of 2003)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 367-L of 2004)\nPervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 51-L of 2005)\nMuhammad Tahir Ch. Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 83-L of 2005)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 151-L of 2005)\nHaji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 158-L of 2005)\nTanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 193-L of 2005)\nPetitioner in person (in C.P. No. 201-L of 2005)\nCh. Muhammad Yaqoob Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 211-L of 2005)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 217-L of 2005)\nAbid Saqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 220-L of 2005)\nTanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 315-L of 2005)\nSh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 348-L of 2005)\nCh. Muhammad Akbar Gill, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 435-L of 2005)\nCh. M. Hanif Zahid, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 449-L of 2005)\nSh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) and Munn. Ahmad in person (in C.P. No. 548-L of 2005)\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 755-L of 2005).\nCh. Manzoor Hussain Basra, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1337 -L of 2005).\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1404-L of 2005).\nCh. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1440-L of 2005).\nRana Safdar Ali Asif, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1497-L of 2005).\nS.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 90-L of 2006).\nHafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 121-L of 2006)\nMuzammil Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 168-L of 2005)\nAamir Rahman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Akhtar Ali Qureshi, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab and Mian Ghulam Hussain Advocate Supreme Court for official Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NAJAM ABBAS and OTHERS\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 282 = 2006 SLD 282 = 2006 SCMR 1317 = 2006 PLJ 1278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Judges’ Terms and Conditions in Accountability Courts\nConclusions:\n•\nSupreme Court affirmed its earlier decision modifying judges’ terms and conditions, deeming it binding under Art.189 of the Constitution.\n•\nObiter dicta of the Supreme Court, if deliberate and authoritative, carries binding precedent.\nCitations:\n•\nNational Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (S. 5(g))\n•\nCase Law: Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)=5(g) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2155 and 2563 of 2004, decision dated: 9-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Nadeem Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2155 of 2004). Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2563 of 2004). Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE GOREJA and others\nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 283 = 2006 SLD 283 = 2006 SCMR 1577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions from Sales Tax on Truck Parts\nConclusions:\n•\nAxles do not qualify for exemption under the Sales Tax Act as they are not components of machinery.\n•\nGearboxes, as integral components, qualify for exemption under defined conditions.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (S. 13 & First Schedule)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,FirstSched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.53 of 2003, decision dated: 7-06-2006, hearing DATE : 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 1", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES, CENTRAL, ZONEB, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 284 = 2006 SLD 284 = 2006 SCMR 1630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals in NWFP\nConclusions:\n•\nAppeals are maintainable only against final orders, and Service Tribunals lack jurisdiction to issue commands akin to writs of mandamus.\n•\nSupreme Court overturned the Service Tribunal's decision, limiting its jurisdiction to statutorily prescribed matters.\nCitations:\n•\nNWFP Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (Ss. 4, 7)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "North West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, (I of 1974)=4,7 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.786, 787 and 788-P of 2004, decision dated: 8-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IJAZ AHMAD AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Saeed Khan, A.A.G. for Petitioners (in all cases). Khushdil Khan Mohmand, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in all cases)", + "Party Name:": "EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER SCHOOLS AND LITERACY, DISTRICT DIR LOWER and others\nvs\nQAMAR DOST KHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 179 = 2007 SLD 179 = 2007 SCMR 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction over Evacuee Trust Property\nConclusions:\n•\nDecisions of the Custodian under the Evacuee Trust Properties Act regarding the status of a property are binding on Civil Courts.\n•\nCivil Courts lack jurisdiction in matters where special laws expressly bar such cognizance.\n•\nSupreme Court upheld the principle that void orders hold no legal effect and limitation does not run against them.\nCitations:\n•\nEvacuee Trust Properties Act, 1975 (Ss. 8 & 14)\n•\nCase Law: Mst. Zakia Begum's case (1992 SCMR 1313)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975=8,14 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185,185(3),4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2037, 2038 and 1530 of 2001, decision dated: 27-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeals Nos. 2037 and 1530 of 2001)\nMirza Naseer Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 2038 of 2001)\nRafiq Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos.7-9, 11 and 12 (in Civil Appeal No. 2037 of 2001)\nMirza Naseer Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos.13(I-x), 14(I-iv), 15, 16(I-ix) (in Civil Appeal No. 2037 of 2001)\nRafiq Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (in Civil Appeal No. 2038 of 2001)\nNemos Nos.1(i), 2 and 3 (in Civil Appeal No. 1530 of 2001)\nNemo No. 4 (in Civil Appeal No. 1530 of 2001)", + "Party Name:": "EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and others\nvs\nMst. SAKINA BIBI and others\nCivil Appeal No.1530 of 2001\nEVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and another\nvs\nGHULAM HAIDER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 180 = 2007 SLD 180 = 2007 SCMR 1367 = (2007) 96 TAX 139 = 2007 PTD 1656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Duty on Goods\nConclusions:\n•\nExcise duty is calculated based on the retail price set by the manufacturer, excluding excise duty itself.\n•\nThe same goods cannot be subjected to excise duty twice.\n•\nAmbiguities in fiscal statutes are interpreted in favor of taxpayers.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 (S. 4(2))\n•\nCase Law: Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(2) ", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos.1388 and 1389 of 2002, 410 to 418 of 2005 and 266, 267 and 395 of 2006, decision DATE : 15-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nSYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Mumtaz A. Sh., Legal Members (in Civil Appeals Nos.1388 and 1389 of 2002)\nM.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in Civil Appeals No. 1389 of 2002)\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Mumtaz Ahmad Sh. Legal Member C.B.R.s (in Civil Appeals Nos.410 and 411 of 2006)\nAli Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 411 of 2005)\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 411 of.2005)\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeals Nos.412 to 418 of 2005)\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeals Nos.412 and 414 of 2005)\nAli Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court (in s Civil Appeals Nos.413, 415 to 417 of 2005)\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Mumtaz A. Sh., Legal Member C.B.R.s (in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2006)\nS. Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2006)\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Mumtaz A. Sh., Member Legal, C.B.R.s (in Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2007)\nWasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2006)\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Courts, (in Civil Appeal No. 395 of 2006)\nWasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in Civil Appeal No. 395 of 2006)", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE & OTHERS\nVS\n:" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 181 = 2007 SLD 181 = 2007 SCMR 977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Grievances and High Court Jurisdiction in Tax Appeals\nConclusions:\n•\nQuestions not raised before the Tax Tribunal cannot be addressed by the High Court.\n•\nHigh Court's judgment was affirmed, as the question of disallowing expenses had not been raised at earlier stages.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S. 136)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.2584-L of 2002, decision dated: 27-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FALAK SHER AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Pir Saeed Kaleem Khurshid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Mahmood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Mst. NASIR BIBI and others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 182 = 2007 SLD 182 = 2007 SCMR 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fraudulent Mutations and Inheritance\nConclusions:\n•\nFraudulent mutations do not confer valid title and are void ab initio.\n•\nLimitation does not apply to void orders or inheritance claims.\n•\nMutation alone does not establish title unless supported by evidence of ownership transfer.\nCitations:\n•\nWest Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (S. 42)\n•\nCase Law: Hakim Khan's case (1992 SCMR 1832)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=8,42 Transfer of Property Act, 1882=54 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)=42 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1081 of 2006, decision dated: 11-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IJAZ AHMED AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "REHMATULLAH and others\nvs\nSALEH KHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 105 = 2010 SLD 105 = 2010 SCMR 1236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Interest and Power Generation Projects\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome from bank deposits is not exempt under the provisions related to profits from power generation projects.\n•\nBusiness losses are adjustable against income from other heads, including interest income.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S. 34)\n•\nCase Law: Genertech Pakistan Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2004 SCMR 1319)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(vii),34,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2652-2654 of 2006, 1328-1336 of 2009, Civil Petitions Nos.1462, 1482, 1718-1724 and 1772-1774 of 2009, decision dated: 29-01-2010. dates of hearing: 28th 29-01-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Mustafa Ramdays (in C.As. Nos. 1328-1336) and No 1 (in C.P.S. Nos. 1465, 1466, 1477, 1482 of 2009)\nShahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ikram-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.2652-2654 of 2006)\nHafiz Muhammad Idris, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.1718-1724, 1772-1774 of 2009) ands (in C.Ps. Nos.1462-1464, 1467-1470 of 2009)\nM. Iqbal Vehniwal, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.2652-2654 of 2006)\nShahid Raza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for F.B.R. (in C.As. No. 1328-1336, 1718-1724\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for F.B.R. (in C.Ps. Nos. 1462-1468 of 2009 only)", + "Party Name:": "UCH POWER (PVT.) LTD. and others\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 43 = 2013 SLD 43 = (2013) 107 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Employees Old-Age Benefits Act (EOB Act)\nConclusions:\n•\nFollowing the 2008 amendment, the EOB Act applies to banks, banking companies, and financial institutions.\n•\nBanks operating as public limited companies are required to comply with EOB Act provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nEmployees Old-Age Benefit Act, 1976 (S. 47(f))\n•\nCase Law: Referenced through relevant SROs and amendments.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 314 of 2012, decision dated: 6-2-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Basir Qureshi, AS C for the petitioner, for the Petitioner None, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SME BANK LTD\nvs\nCHAIRMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY & another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 44 = 2013 SLD 44 = (2013) 107 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Filing of Appeals under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusions:\n•\nAppeal was filed almost 21 months after the period of limitation without an application for condonation of delay.\n•\nCourts reiterated the principle that law supports the vigilant, not the indolent. \n•\nAppeals filed beyond the stipulated time without plausible justification or proper procedure are dismissed as time-barred.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nEach day of delay must be satisfactorily explained.\n•\nFiling appeals negligently penalizes the responsible party and should not prejudice the other party.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 136, 139-143)\n•\nCase Law: Nazakat Ali v. WAPDA (2004 SCMR 145); Amanullah Soomro v. PIA (2011 SCMR 1341)", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(17),5(1)(c),108,136,139,143 ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No. 152/2000, decision dated: 12-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHIEF, JUSTICE & NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nSARHAD WOOLEN MILLS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 45 = 2013 SLD 45 = (2013) 107 TAX 293 = 2013 PTD 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Filing of Appeals under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusions:\n•\nAppeal was filed almost 21 months after the period of limitation without an application for condonation of delay.\n•\nCourts reiterated the principle that law supports the vigilant, not the indolent. \n•\nAppeals filed beyond the stipulated time without plausible justification or proper procedure are dismissed as time-barred.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nEach day of delay must be satisfactorily explained.\n•\nFiling appeals negligently penalizes the responsible party and should not prejudice the other party.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 136, 139-143)\n•\nCase Law: Nazakat Ali v. WAPDA (2004 SCMR 145); Amanullah Soomro v. PIA (2011 SCMR 1341)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=162,205,148&SecondSched., ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 1661/LB of 2011, (Tax Year 2011), decision dated: 17-12-2012, hearing DATE : 14-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naved A. Andrabi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ch. Jaffar Nawaz, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MAVERICK PETROGAS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nA.C.I.R., MAC-01, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 46 = 2013 SLD 46 = (2013) 107 TAX 298 = 2013 PTD 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit and Amendment of Assessments under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nConclusions:\n•\nThe foundation of amendment orders under S.122(1) was declared invalid as the original selection under S.177 was nullified by the High Court.\n•\nHigh Court rulings remain binding unless overturned by the Supreme Court.\n•\nOrders of the Taxation Officer and First Appellate Authority were deemed without jurisdiction and nullified by the Appellate Tribunal.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nDecisions of High Courts hold binding precedent unless overruled by the Supreme Court.\n•\nIllegally initiated proceedings invalidate subsequent actions based on them.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 177, 122)\n•\nCase Law: 2011 PTD 1558; 2008 PTD 1440", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1046/LB of 2012, (Tax Year 2008), decision dated: 20-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulfiqar Ali Sh., ITP, for the Appellant. Ayesha Imran Butt, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OLYMPIA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 47 = 2013 SLD 47 = (2013) 107 TAX 305 = 2013 PTD 1418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-filing of Annual Tax Returns and Penalty\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalty under S.182(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 must be based on tax payable, not chargeable tax.\n•\nIllustrations clarified the principle that penalty computation aligns with the payable amount for the relevant year.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nTax payable, not chargeable tax, serves as the base for penalty imposition.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 114, 182(1))", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,182(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 605/LB of 2011 (Tax Year 2008), decision dated: 7-11-2012, hearing DATE : 27-9-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate, forthe Appellant. Dr. Muhammad Idrees, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 48 = 2013 SLD 48 = (2013) 107 TAX 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Credit and Adjustment Disputes\nConclusions:\n•\nInput tax adjustment for non-taxable supply (Capacity Purchase Price - CPP) was deemed inadmissible.\n•\nAdministrative clarifications by FBR cannot override statutory provisions.\n•\nTribunal upheld that rules or clarifications violating substantive law (Sales Tax Act, 1990) are ultra vires.\n•\nThe tribunal dismissed the rectification application, reiterating the primacy of statutory law over administrative rules.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nAdministrative instructions (e.g., SROs) cannot override legislative provisions.\n•\nRectification applies only to errors apparent on the record.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (Ss. 2(46), 7, 8, 33, 34)\n•\nCase Law: PTD 2003 CL 330; PTD 2007 CL 565", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46),3(38),7,8,8(1)(a)13,33,34,46,46(2),50,71,72 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,132,221,240 Customs Act, 1969=194A,194B,194C,194B(2) Sales Tax Rules, 2006=25,38(3) ", + "Case #": "MA (R) STA No. 27/IB/2009, (Tax Year 2006-2007), decision dated: 15-5-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IKRAM ULLAH GHUARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER, KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER [AS PER MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER (CONTRA)]", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar & Mr. Rashid Ibrahim, FCA, for the Appellant. Imran Shah, D.R. alongwith Tauqeer Bukhari, L.A., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 49 = 2013 SLD 49 = (2013) 107 TAX 389 = 2013 PTD 1335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessments and Definite Information\nConclusions:\n•\n Definite information required under S.122(5) must be specific, arising after assessment completion, and not merely based on disagreements with judicial interpretations.\n•\nProcedural lapses (e.g., failure to issue mandatory notices) render proceedings invalid.\n•\nAmendments based on mere opinion or reinterpretation of law do not constitute definite information. \nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nAmendment under S.122(5) requires concrete definite information. \n•\nJudicial precedents must guide administrative actions under S.124-A.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 122(5), 124-A, 13(7))\n•\nCase Law: 2006 PTD 2678; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 472", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),124A,120,171,60A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 4324/LB of 2005, 1268/LB of 2007, 712/LB of 2008, 806, 1130/LB of 2011, 126, 930/LB of 2012, (Tax years 2004, 2006 to 2010) decided on 7-1-2013. dates of hearing: 19-10-and 21st December, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Begs (in I.T.As. No. 4324/LB of 2005 and 1268/LB of 2007)\nMuhammad Tahir, D.R.s (in I.T.As. No. 4324/LB of 2005 and 1268/LB of 2007)\nMuhammad Tahir, DRs (in I.T.As. Nos. 4997/LB to 5000/LB of 2005, 1209/LB of 2006, 1213/LB of 2007, 2125/LB and 2126/LB of 2006)\nDr. Ikiramul Haq and Mansoor for Beg Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos. 4997/LB to 5000/LB of 2005, 1209/LB of 2006, 1213/LB of 2007, 2125/LB and 2126/LB of 2006)\nDr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Begs (in I.T.A. No. 712/LB of 2008)\nMuhammad Tahir, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 712/LB of 2008)\nMuhammad Tahir, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 1154/LB of 2008)\nDr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Begs (in I.T.A. No. 1154/LB of 2008)\nDr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Begs (in I.T.As. Nos. 806/LB and 1130/LB of 2011, 126/LB and 930 of 2012)\nMuhammad Tahir, D.R.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 806/LB and 1130/LB of 2011, 126/LB and 930 of 2012)\nMuhammad Tahir, D.R.s (in I.T.As. Nos. 916/LB of 2008, 1236/L of 2011 and 171/LB of 2012)\nDr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Begs (in I.T.As. Nos. 916/LB of 2008, 1236/L of 2011 and 171/LB of 2012)", + "Party Name:": "PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, LAHORE and others \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, L.T.U., LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 50 = 2013 SLD 50 = (2013) 107 TAX 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessments and Jurisdiction of Tax Authorities\nConclusions:\n1.\nAssumption of jurisdiction under S.122(5A) by Additional Commissioner was contested due to lack of definite information. \n2.\nThe appellate decision invalidated invoking S.122(5) for audit selection due to unlawful jurisdiction.\n3.\nExpenses related to operations in AJ & K were allowed as they were part of global income.\n4.\nInitial depreciation claims and amortization of software over three years were upheld as reasonable.\n5.\nTax credit and donation adjustments under S.124(A) were ruled in favor of the taxpayer.\n6.\nBad debt provisions were disallowed unless they aligned with Prudential Bank Regulations, but adjustments were conditional on future court rulings.\n7.\nTax on compensation for delayed refunds applied only from 2013 onwards.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nDefinite information is a prerequisite for invoking S.122(5A).\n•\nAdditions and adjustments must adhere to prior judicial interpretations.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 122, 124(A), 13(7))\n•\nCase Law: 2009 Tax 91 (S.C. Pak.); 2010 PTD 705", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177,122(5),124A, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 914 to 916/LB of 2009, 893 & 1052 to 1054/LB of 2010, (Tax Years 2003 to 2008), decision dated: 07-01-2013, hearing DATE : 19-10-2012 & 21-12-2012, M.A. No.146/LB of 2011, M.A. (Con.) No. 01/LB of 2012 and 1092/LB of 2010, (Tax Years 2003 to 2008), (Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farrakh Majeed, DR & Muhammad Tahir, DR, for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 59 = 1958 SLD 59 = 1958 PLD 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partition Act - Dwelling-House Definition\nConclusions:\n•\nA residential house owned by an undivided family does not lose its status as a dwelling-house under S.4(1) merely due to a tenancy arrangement.\n•\nThe property must retain the potential for family use as a residence to qualify as a dwelling-house.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nTemporary leases do not alter the residential nature of a family house.\nCitations:\n•\nPartition Act, S.4(1)\n•\nCase Law: Dulal Chandra Chatterjee v. Gosthabehari Mitra (56 CWN 681)", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1954, decision dated: 31st January 1958", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIN AHMED C, J. AND SATTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. C. Nags.\nB. C. Das No. 1", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 323 = 1983 SLD 323 = 1983 AIR 742 = (1983) 4 SCC 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "dated: 13 May, 1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BENCHD.A. DESAI, J. AND O. C. REDDY", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary\nvs \nSitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 495 = 1980 SLD 495 = (1980) 122 ITR 958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Duty on Goodwill\nConclusions:\n1.\nGoodwill of a firm where the deceased was a partner at death is includible in the estate's principal value.\n2.\nFor firms where the deceased retired, goodwill is not includible if assets and liabilities were transferred to continuing partners under a retirement deed.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nShare in goodwill at death is subject to estate duty, but pre-retirement transfers negate such liability.\nCitations:\n•\nEstate Duty Act, 1953 (Ss. 5, 9)\n•\nCase Law: CED v. Ibrahim Gulam Hussain Currimbhoy (100 ITR 320)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE NO. 6 OF 1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C.J. AND DESAI, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Rajagopal, M.M. Vakil and Alakh N. Shah for the Accountable Person.\nR.J. Joshi and V.J. Pandit for the Controller.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. Urmila\nv.\nController of Estate Duty" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1956 1 = 1956 SLD 1 = 1956 PLD 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Government of India Act - Tax Disputes\nConclusions:\n1.\nDisputes between the Federation and a Province regarding taxation fall under Federal Court jurisdiction.\n2.\nA Province cannot be taxed under S.3 of Income Tax Act, 1922, as it is not an association of persons or an individual. \n3.\nSuits against tax assessments without jurisdiction are permissible.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nGovernment entities are exempt from taxation unless explicitly stated by law.\nCitations:\n•\nGovernment of India Act, 1935 (S.204); Income Tax Act, 1922 (S.3, 67)\n•\nCase Law: Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mill Owners’ Association (1939 ILR Bom. 451)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=67,3 Limitation Act, 1908=First Schedule,14 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9 ", + "Case #": "Original Suit No. 2 of 1952, decision dated: 8th November 1955. dates of hearing : 7th and 8th November 1955", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., A. S. M. AKRAM, M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. R. Changez, Advocate-General of West Pakistan, (Mushtaq Hussain Khan, Advocate, Federal Court, with him) instructed by Zia-ud-Din, Attorney for Plaintiff. Faiyaz Ali, Advocate-General of Pakistan, (Abdul Aziz, Advocate, Federal Court, with him), instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney for Defendant", + "Party Name:": "THE PUNJAB PROVINCE--Plaintiff\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN--Defendant" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 5 = 1957 SLD 5 = 1957 PLD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Interpretation and Provincial Assembly Dissolution\nConclusions:\n1.\nInterim Provincial Assemblies under Art. 225 of the Constitution cannot be dissolved by the Governor.\n2.\nThe Constitution prioritizes continuity of governance through chosen representatives.\n3.\nProvisions like Art. 225 override general provisions like Art. 83 in cases of conflict.\n4.\nRules for interpreting statutes prioritize legislative intent, consistency, and avoidance of redundancy.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nSpecial provisions override general rules (Generalia specialibus non derogant).\n•\nThe dissolution of interim assemblies violates constitutional mandates for governance continuity.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Arts. 225, 83, 141, 222)\n•\nCase Law: Mass v. Elphick (1910 1 KB 465)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=83,141,222,223,230,200.00 ", + "Case #": "Special Reference No. 1 of 1957, opinion given on 5th Refer August 1957. dates of hearing: 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th of July 1957", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Faiyaz Ali, Attorney General for Pakistan, A. K. Brohi and Manzur Qadir, Senior Advocates, Supreme Court M. Ismail Bhatti and Khurshid Ahmad, Advocates Supreme Court, with them), instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for the Federation\nAbdur Rab Nishtar Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (ManzariAlam, Khawaja Abdur Rahim and Muhammad Akram, Advocates Supreme Court with him), instructed by Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Attorney, for Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly\nNazir Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Aftab Husain, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him), instructed by Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Attorney, for the Leader of the Opposition in the West Pakistan Legislative Assembly\nFaiz Muhammad, Advocate General of West Pakistan (M. B. Zaman, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him), instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney, B. A. Siddiki, Advocate General of East Pakistan, instructed by M. Siddiq Attorney. Amicus Curiae", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 6 = 1957 SLD 6 = 1957 PLD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Practitioners and Professional Misconduct\nConclusions:\n1.\nMunsif's Authority: Proceedings initiated by a Munsif under Sections 13 & 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act must be submitted to the High Court for final orders, as only the High Court has the authority to terminate or resolve such matters.\n2.\nProfessional Misconduct: Imputing partiality or unfairness against a judicial officer (Munsif) in open court constitutes grave professional misconduct, undermining the dignity of the judiciary and the administration of justice.\n3.\nSupreme Court's Role: Orders by the High Court concerning disciplinary actions under Sections 13 & 14 are subject to limited interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution (equivalent to Article 160 in Pakistan).\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nUpholding judicial dignity is a fundamental duty of legal practitioners.\n•\nApologies or settlements do not necessarily conclude misconduct proceedings unless approved by the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nLegal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Ss. 13, 14)\n•\nBar Councils Act, 1926 (S. 10)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Legal Practitioners Act, 1879=13,14 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 176 of 1956 and Writ Petition No. 176 of 1955, decision dated: 29th November 1956", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. R. DAS, C, J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B.P. SINHA AND S. K. DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N. C. Chatterji, Senior Advocate (Messrs D. N. Mukherjee and R. Patnaik, Advocates with him). Messrs Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates No. 1", + "Party Name:": "LALIT MOHAN DAS\nvs\nTHE ADVOCATEGENERAL, ORISSA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 267 = 2000 SLD 267 = 2000 PLD 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Judges' Appointment and Constitutional Processes\nConclusions:\n1.\nShort Orders: Short orders summarize findings, and unless there is a conflict, they are read together with detailed reasons to understand the full scope.\n2.\nInvalid Appointments: Appointments or confirmations of High Court judges made in consultation with Acting Chief Justices, instead of permanent Chief Justices, are invalid (Al-Jehad Trust case). Such cases require fresh processing.\n3.\nAdditional Judges' Rights: Additional Judges cannot claim a hearing before the expiry of their tenure but have a legitimate expectancy for permanent appointments if recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court and Chief Justice of Pakistan.\n4.\nNon-Justiciability: Recommendations of the Chief Justices concerning judicial appointments or confirmations are not subject to judicial review.\n5.\nConstitutional Process: Judges' confirmation or appointment must adhere strictly to Article 193 of the Constitution and rulings from the Al-Jehad Trust case.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nJudicial appointments must comply with the mandatory constitutional process.\n•\nRecommendations by judicial heads are final and not open to challenge.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Arts. 193, 209)\n•\nCase Law: Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=193,209 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 43, 44, 47, 49, 50 of 1996, 59 of 1997 and 7, 24, 25, 39 and 44 of 1998, decision dated: 1st December, 1999.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J., IRSHAD HASAN KHAN,", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Justice GHULAM HYDER LAKHO, HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 268 = 2000 SLD 268 = 2000 PLD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Corruption Trials and Procedural Justice\nConclusions:\n1.\nRight to Defense: Accused individuals can testify as their own witnesses under Section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. This must be explicitly offered by the court.\n2.\nAdmissibility of Evidence: Objections to evidence admissibility can be addressed during arguments; they do not delay the defense's case.\n3.\nWitness Summoning: Accused can summon witnesses without disclosing their expected testimony. The court may refuse if the application aims to delay proceedings or is vexatious.\n4.\nAlternative Procedures: Courts may deviate from standard procedures under Section 12(3) of the Ehtesab Act but must provide reasons.\n5.\nCourtroom Decorum: Advocates and attendees must maintain decorum. Advocates are responsible for ensuring their clients and supporters act appropriately in court.\n6.\nInternational Witnesses: Courts cannot interfere with visa issuance for foreign witnesses but can provide orders to facilitate the accused's request to government authorities.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nProcedural fairness is central to corruption trials.\n•\nEvidence objections must be timely and relevant to the trial’s outcome.\nCitations:\n•\nEhtesab Act, 1997 (Ss. 3, 10, 12)\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Ss. 340(2), 342, 265-F(7))\n•\nCase Law: Mst. Ameer Khatun v. Faiz Ahmad (PLD 1991 SC 787)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Ehtesab Ordinance (CXI of 1996)=3,10,12 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petitions Nbs.65 and 66 of 1999, decision dated: 18-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. IJAZ NISAR AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Mohtarama BENAZIR BHUTTO, M.N.A, and anothers\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 40 = 1958 SLD 40 = 1958 PLD 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partition Act – Definition of Dwelling-house \nConclusions:\n1.\nDefinition of Dwelling-House: A residential house owned by members of an undivided family retains its character as a dwelling-house despite the grant of ordinary tenancy, provided the house is in use or can be returned to by the owners in the future.\n2.\nImpact of Tenancy: Mere tenancy does not negate the residential character of the house, but a permanent, irrevocable lease may raise questions about its residential nature for the owners.\nCitations:\n•\nPartition Act, 1893 (S. 4)\n•\nCase: Dulal Chandra Chatterjee v. Gosthabehari Mitra, 56 CWN 681", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1954, decision dated: 31st January 1958", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIN AHMED C, J. AND SATTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. C. Nags.\nB. C. Das No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAZAMMAL HOSSAIN TALUKDAR and others\nvs \nPURNI AGARWALINI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 41 = 1958 SLD 41 = 1958 PLD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Muhammadan Law – Maintenance and Divorce\nConclusions:\n1.\nHusband's Duty to Maintain: Under Muslim law, a husband’s legal duty to maintain his wife depends on her obedience and willingness to live with him under reasonable conditions.\n2.\nDisentitlement to Maintenance: A wife who fails to comply with lawful and reasonable instructions or refuses to live with her husband forfeits her right to maintenance.\nCitations:\n•\nDissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (S. 2(ii))\n•\nCase: Mst. Aishan Bibi v. Sain, PLD 1952 Lah. 460", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "First Appeal No. 7 of 1952, decision dated: 12th September 1956", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CONSTANTINE AND MUNSHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Kaikobad.\nS. H. Rizvi.", + "Party Name:": "MITHA KHAN\nvs\nMst. HIDAYAT BIBI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 42 = 1958 SLD 42 = 1958 PLD 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Doctrine of Alluvion and River-Bed Ownership\nConclusions:\n1.\nReformation in Situ: Land swallowed and subsequently reformed by a navigable river can be claimed by the original owner if it is cultivable and has returned to its previous condition.\n2.\nRiver-Bed Definition: Land that is habitually covered by a river during the wet season and unsuitable for cultivation is part of the river-bed and remains public property.\n3.\nIllegality of Revetments: Constructing revetments on land that is part of a river-bed is illegal, as the land belongs to the public domain.\nCitations:\n•\nCase: Lopez v. Muddun Mohun Thakoor, 13 MIA 467\n•\nCase: Bibi Ahmadi Begum v. Tarak Nath Ghose, 18 CLJ 399", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "First Appeals Nos. 196 and 197 of 1944 and No. 43 of 1945, sided on 2nd December 1947", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIN AHMAD, C, J., AND NANDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "U. K. Roy with B. K. Bhattacharjee, B. K. Des.\nSyed A. B. Mahmud Hussain, G. P, for Province of East Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "vs\nPROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN and others\nPRASANNA KUMAR DAS\nvs\nPROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN and others\nAJIT KUMAR DAS and another\nvs\nPROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN\nFirst Appeals Nos. 196 and 197 of 1944 and No. 43 of 1945, sided on 2nd December 107" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1949 1 = 1949 SLD 1 = 1949 PLD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act\nConclusions:\n1.\nDeclaratory Decrees Under Custom: The Act does not retroactively nullify rights or declaratory decrees granted under custom before its enactment.\n2.\nCustomary Limitations Persist: Ownership and alienation rights inherited under custom continue to apply unless succession occurs under the Act.\n3.\nNon-Retrospective Application: Section 2 does not retroactively alter rights or obligations unless explicitly stated, preserving prior transactions and rights.\n4.\nDiscretion in Declaratory Decrees: Courts may refuse declaratory relief under custom if it conflicts with the Act’s objectives or benefits non-heirs under Shariat law.\nCitations:\n•\nWest Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 (Ss. 2, 3, 5)\n•\nCase: Mahajan J., AIR 1944 Lah. 121", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, (IX of 1948)=2 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42 Punjab Laws Act, 1872=5 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 2108 of 1946 decided on 17th July 1948", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIR ABDUR RAHMAN, ACTING. C, J., MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND CORNELIUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. Z. Kaikaus,. Zahoor-ud-Din.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASGHAR SHAH--Defendant-\nVs\nMUHAMMAD GULSHER KHAN and KHADIM HUSSAIN, --Defendant-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 1 = 1958 SLD 1 = 1958 PLD 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure and Contractual Agreements\nConclusions:\n1.\nStriking Out Issues: Courts should refrain from adjudicating on irrelevant issues not relied upon by parties or strike them off entirely.\n2.\nAgency vs. Dealership: A dealer who buys goods for resale is not necessarily an agent unless empowered to bind the principal in dealings with third parties.\n3.\nImplied Terms in Contracts: In commercial contracts, reasonable notice is implied to terminate agreements based on the nature of the business.\n4.\nNotice Period: A minimum notice period must balance the interests of both parties; three months' notice was deemed reasonable in this case.\nCitations:\n•\nContract Act, 1872 (S. 182)\n•\nCase: Hope Prudhomme v. Hamel and Horley, AIR 1925 PC 161\n•\nCase: The Moorcock, 1889 PD 64", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Contract Act, 1872=182 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XIV,r.5(2). ", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal. No. 33 of 1952, decision dated: 13th November 1957, from the decree of Muhammad Ishfaq Ali, Sub-Judge, First Class, Multan, dated the 1st December 1951. dates of hearing: 31st January 1956 and 1st and 2nd February 1956", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHABIR AHMAD AND AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Norman Edmunds and R. Sidhwa. Ata Ullah Sajjad. M. B. Khizar Tamimi for Ata Ullah Sajjad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs. CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI--Defendant\nvs\nSheikh REHANUDDIN--Plaintiff" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 269 = 2000 SLD 269 = 2000 PLD 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.114 & O.XLVII---Review--­Maintainability---Non-availing the remedy available under the law against the basic order and instead prosecuting the review application in the same Court, would not entitle the petitioner to the benefit under S.14, Limitation Act, 1908---Time so spent cannot be excluded from computing period of limitation in case the review petition is dismissed on' the grounds other than lack of jurisdiction.\n \nGhulam Hussain and another v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan and another PLD 1980 SC 198 and Pir Muhammad v. Education Town Cooperative Society Ltd., Lahore 1982 SCMR 995 fol.\n \nIndrajit Pratap Bahadur Sahi v. Antar Singh and others AIR 1923 PC 128 and Berhari Lal and another v. M.M. Gobardhan Lal and others AIR 1948 All. 353 distinguished.\n \nSh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad, Advocate-on-Records.\n \nAbdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for. Respondent.\n \nDate of hearing: 7th October, 1999.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=14 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=114,O.XLVII ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.932 bf 1993, decision dated: 7-10-1999.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUR REHMAN KHAN AND SH. RIAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM NABI and 5 others\nvs\nRASHID \nCivil Appeal No.932 bf 1993, decided on 7th October, 1999." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 270 = 2000 SLD 270 = 2000 PLD 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Act – Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nConclusions:\n1.\nFiling in the Wrong Forum: Appeals filed in a wrong court due to mistaken legal advice may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the appellant acted with due diligence and good faith.\n2.\nSufficient Cause: Whether sufficient cause exists depends on case-specific facts, with emphasis on reasonable and careful conduct by the appellant and counsel.\nCitations:\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908 (Ss. 14 & 5)\n•\nCases: Abdul Wahid v. Sirajuddin, 1998 SCMR 2296; Sherin v. Fazal Muhammad, 1995 SCMR 584", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=14,15 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.720 of 1994, decision dated: 22-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. \nvs\nLAWARI and 4 others\nCivil Appeal No.720 of 1994, decided on 22nd October, 1999" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 2 = 1958 SLD 2 = 1958 PLD 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Karachi Small Causes Court Act – Finality of Rent Controller Orders\nConclusions:\n1.\nFinality of Orders: Decisions of the Rent Controller under the Karachi Rent Restriction Act confirmed by a Revising Authority are final and cannot be revised by the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nKarachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 (S. 10(2)(c))\n•\nCase: Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Underwood Typewriter Co., PLD 1951 Sind 35", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Karachi Small Causes Court Act, (IV of 1929)=18 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision Application No. 39 of 1955, decision dated: 9th December 1957", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamsul Ghani for Applicant. S. A. Kirmani for Opponent", + "Party Name:": "AFIA KHATOON\nvs\nABRAR HUSSAINOpponent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 3 = 1958 SLD 3 = 1958 PLD 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contempt of Court – Prejudicial Intent\nConclusions:\n1.\nNo Prejudicial Intent Needed: Intention to cause prejudice is not a necessary element for contempt.\n2.\nReporting Anticipated Judgments: Reporting a judgment before it is officially delivered constitutes contempt.\nCitations:\n•\nCases: Devi Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1943 PC 202; S. Israr Hussain v. The Crown, PLD 1954 FC 313", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 1-D of 1958, decision dated: 29-05-1958", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hamidul Huq Chaudhury, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, (S. R. Pal, Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by K. Hossain, Attorneys. M. H. Khandakar, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by A. Wadud Malik, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "(1) ABDUS SALAM, EDITOR, \"\"PAKISTAN OBSERVER, DACCA AND (2) SHAMUL ISLAM, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER \"\"PAKISTAN OBSERVER, \"\" DACCA\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 1 = 1959 SLD 1 = 1959 PLD 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Co-Sharers and Pre-Emption Rights\nConclusions:\n1.\nRights of Vendees: A vendee from a co-sharer acquires the same rights as the vendor, becoming a co-sharer in the joint property.\n2.\nPre-Emption: Such a vendee qualifies as a co-sharer under the NWFP Pre-Emption Act.\nCitations:\n•\nNWFP Pre-Emption Act, 1950 (S. 12)\n•\nCase: Matu v. Hirde, 44 Punjab Record 1894", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 53 & 54 of 1957, decision dated: 29th October 1958", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shafi, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Amjad Hussain, Attorney. Respondent in person", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR KHAN\nvs\nMUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 2 = 1959 SLD 2 = 1959 PLD 202 = (1959) 1 TAX 14 = 1959 PTD 478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act – Service of Notices\nConclusions:\n1.\nValidity of Service: Proper service of notice is essential, and issues with validity affect the entire case.\n2.\nQuestion of Service: The High Court must address the exact question referred by the Tribunal without modifying its scope.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (S. 66(1))\n•\nCase: Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1944 1 TR 399", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1958, decision dated: 18th February 1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Suhail, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Hidayat Ali Taib, Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddique & Co., Attorneys. Abdul Haq, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed byNazir-ud-Din, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMAD IDREES BARRY & CO. \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N W. F. P." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 3 = 1959 SLD 3 = 1959 PLD 219 = (1959) 1 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act – Agricultural Income and Dividends\nConclusions:\n1.\nAgricultural Income: Dividends distributed from agricultural income retain their character as agricultural income and are exempt from tax.\n2.\nNon-Taxable Dividends: Such dividends are not included in the shareholder's total income under the Income Tax Act.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (S. 4(3)(viii))\n•\nCases: Hamilton v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 16 TC 221", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(viii),16(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 28, 29, 31 and 32 of 1958, decision dated: 13th April 1959. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th March and 13th April 1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB & N. W. F. P. AND BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nMRS. E. V. MILLER, (deceased), represented by (1) MRS. BRICKWOOD and (2) THE GRINDLAYs BANK, LTD. LAHORE\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB & N. W. F. P. AND BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nCOL. J. F. L. TAYLOR c/o RENALA ESTATE LTD.\nCivil Appeal No. 31 of 1958\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB & N. W.F. P. AND BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nMR. R. MITCHELL\nAND\nCivil Appeal No. 32 of 1958\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB & N. W. F. P. AND BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nEXECUTORS TO THE ESTATE OF THE LATE COL. SIR EDWARD COLEY, COLYANA ESTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 4 = 1959 SLD 4 = 1959 PLD 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Evidence Evaluation in Criminal Cases\nConclusions:\n1.\nCorroboration by Material Evidence: Evidence of material recoveries must be adequately corroborated.\n2.\nAcquittal Appeals: The Supreme Court may overturn acquittals if evidence is clear, reliable, and uncontroverted.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (Art. 163)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos. 15 and 16 of 1959, decision dated: 15th April 1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mushtaq Hussain Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Zahir Abbas,.Attorney. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate General, West Pakistan (Nasim Hassan Shah, Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney", + "Party Name:": "LALU\nvs\nTHE STATE\nAND\nCriminal Appeal No. 16 of 1959\nTHE STATE\nvs\nHAKIM ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 5 = 1959 SLD 5 = 1959 PLD 527 = (1959) 1 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act – References and Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n1.\nScope of References: High Courts cannot entertain new questions not raised before the Tribunal.\n2.\nRetrospective Application: Amendments to tax provisions are not retrospective unless explicitly stated.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (Ss. 66(2) & 10(2)(vii))\n•\nCases: Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 429", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),66(5),10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No. 166 of 1954, decision dated: 27th April 1959. dates of hearing: 27th February and 3rd March 1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B. Z. KAIKAUS AND WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ebrahim for Petitioner. Aziz", + "Party Name:": "THE SCINDIA STEAM NAVIGATION Co. LTD.\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 146 = 1960 SLD 146 = 1960 PLD 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Colonization of Government Lands – Tenancy Rights\nConclusions:\n1.\nEligibility for Occupancy Rights: Applying for occupancy rights does not automatically confer such status unless explicitly granted.\nCitations:\n•\nColonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (S. 10)", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912=10 ", + "Case #": "Revision Side No. 128 of 1958-59, decision dated: 25-08-1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. W. ABBASI, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE WEST PAKISTAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Ashraf Iftikhar", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE\nvs\nMst. ALLAH RAKHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 147 = 1960 SLD 147 = 1960 PLD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex-Parte Proceedings and Jurisdiction in Evacuee Property Cases\nConclusions:\n1.\n Arises and Arising (Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance): These terms imply material questions relevant to proceedings and not merely irrelevant or unsubstantiated pleas.\n2.\nEx-Parte Proceedings: In such cases, issues are presumed abandoned unless explicitly pursued. Ex-parte decrees favor the plaintiff's claims.\n3.\nJurisdictional Objections: Objections not actively pursued and resulting in ex-parte decrees cannot be challenged in a separate suit.\nCitations:\n•\nEvacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (S. 34)\n•\nCases: Khan Bahadur Mir Alam Khan v. Mst. Benazira, PLD 1952 Pesh. 19", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XV of 1949)=34 Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=58 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VIII,r.5, ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 929 of 1955, decision dated: 25th November 1959, hearing DATE : 30th September 1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz for Plaintiff. Inayat Ali for Defendant No. 1. S. A. Haleem for Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 . Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISHAQHAJI DOST MUHAMMAD--Plaintiff\nvs\nABDUL GHANI and others----Defendants" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 462 = 1992 SLD 462 = (1992) 195 ITR 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Exemption for Scheduled Tribes\nConclusions:\n1.\nKhasi Tribe Exemption: Members of the Khasi tribe can claim income tax exemptions collectively as a family under Section 10(26).\n2.\nBeneficial Interpretation: Tax provisions for Scheduled Tribes must be interpreted broadly to preserve legislative intent.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (S. 10(26))\n•\nCase: ITO v. N. Takin Roy Rymbai [1976] 103 ITR 82 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 1988, DECEMBER 7, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.N. BARUAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nMahari & Sons" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 463 = 1992 SLD 463 = (1992) 195 ITR 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nPenalty in Income Estimates: Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on income estimation unless fraud or neglect is evident.\n2.\nDiscretion of Authorities: Authorities retain discretion to penalize based on the facts and absence of fraudulent intent.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (S. 271(1)(c))", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 200 OF 1979, APRIL 4, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.R. SINGH, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nDr. Anwar Ahmad Shamshi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 464 = 1992 SLD 464 = (1992) 195 ITR 742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Renovation of Leased Premises\nConclusions:\n1.\nEligibility for Depreciation: Capital expenditure on leased premises qualifies for depreciation regardless of whether the business operates from that location.\n2.\nHarmonized Interpretation: Legislative intent favors depreciation for leased structures used in the business.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (S. 32(1A))", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 235 OF 1986, MARCH 27, 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nAssociated Finance Co. Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 149 = 1960 SLD 149 = 1960 PLD 770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Practice and Jurisdiction in Civil and Land Requisition Cases\nConclusions:\n1.\nArguments on Law Points: Courts may decide on legal points even if arguments are not scheduled, provided no prejudice is caused.\n2.\nSubstance over Form: Courts must consider the essence of petitions, ignoring minor misdescriptions of law.\n3.\nRequisitioned Lands: Possession given by requisitioning authorities does not preclude rightful owners from enforcing their rights.\nCitations:\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (O. VIII, R. 2)\n•\nRequisitioned Lands (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 (S. 4(2))", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115,O.XXI,r.100 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 124 of 1958, decision dated: 19th April 1960. dates of hearing : 26th January 1960 and 8th February 1960", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND S. A. HAQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner. Aftab Hussain", + "Party Name:": "MALIK BAKHSH\nvs\nMst. SHAMIM QASAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1961 1 = 1961 SLD 1 = 1961 PLD 108 = (1961) 3 TAX 48 = 1961 PTD 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Income and Depreciation Allowances\nConclusions:\n1.\nInterest Income: Income earned from deposited capital does not qualify as business income under Section 10 but falls under other sources. \n2.\nCorporate Activities: Only activities directly tied to the main business are considered part of its operations.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 (Ss. 25(4), 8, 210 & 12)\n•\nCase: Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Korean Syndicate, Limited 1 KB 598", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25,25(4),8,210,12,2(SA),10 ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 1 of 1960, decision dated: 14-11-1960. dates of hearing : 10th and 11th November 1960", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. H. CHOWDHURY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nM. R. KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with A. Matin Khan Chowdhury for Applicant. \nDingomal Ramchandani and Badrul Haider Chowdhury", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nVS\n:" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1961 2 = 1961 SLD 2 = 1961 PLD 119 = (1961) 3 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction and Tax Proceedings\nConclusions:\n1.\nAvailability of Alternative Remedies: Writ jurisdiction is not barred by the existence of alternative remedies, especially when jurisdictional errors are alleged.\n2.\nTax Machinery Interpretation: Procedural provisions in tax statutes should be liberally construed to facilitate tax realization.\n3.\nRes Judicata: Decisions under the Estate Duty Act are binding only to the extent of the questions resolved.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1956, Art. 170)\n•\nEstate Duty Act, 1950 (Ss. 57, 58, 74-A)\n•\nCase: Tariq Transport Company v. Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service, PLD 1958 SC 437", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=74,58,61,74A,57 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of 1959, decision dated: 20th December 1960. dates of hearing :6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 12th December 1960", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, FAZLE-AKBAR AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Saleem Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Ismail Bhatti Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney in C. As. 8 & 9 of 1959 ands Nos. 2 to 6 in C. A. No. 10/59 and No. 1 in C. A. No. 11/59 ands Nos. 2 to 7 in C. A. No. 12/59\nH. S. Suhrawardy Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Khursheed Ahmad Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney No. 1 in C. A. 10/59 and No. 1 in C. A. 12/59\nNazir Ahmad Khan Attorney General for Pakistan (Abdul Haque Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Attorney No. 2 in C. As. 8, 9 and 10/59 and No. 2 in C. As. 11 and 12 of 1959\nAbdul Haque Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Attorney No. 1 in C. As. 8,9 and 10/59 and No. 1 in C. As. 11 and 12/59\nRespondent No. 3 in C. As. 8, 9/59 and No. 2 in C. A. 11/59 Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "L.TCOL. NAWABZADA MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN\nvs\n(1) THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, (2) PAKISTAN, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, and (3) Nawabzada MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN, Chief of Hoti, District Mardan\nCivil Appeal No. 10 of 1959\n(1) LT.COL. NAWABZADA ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN, \n(2) Major Nawabzada MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, \n(3) Major Nawabzada MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN, sons of the late Sir\nMuhammad Akbar Khan, the late Nawab of Hoti, \n(4) Mst. SULTAN PARWAR, daughter of late Nawab Muhammad Akbar Khan, \n(5) Mst. SHAMA BIBI and\n(6) Mst. HASHMAT BIBI, widows of the late Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan\nvs\n(1) THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, Government of Pakistan, Karachi\n(2) THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and\n(3) Nawabzada MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN, son of the late Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan, Chief of Hoti\nCivil Appeal No 11 of 1959\n(1) THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, and\n(2) THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Karachi\nvs\n(1) LT.COL. NAWABZADA MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN and (2) Nawabzada MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN, sons of late Nawab Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan\nAND\nCivil Appeal No. 12 of 1959\n(1) THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, Government of Pakistan, Karachi \nand\n(2). THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Karachi\nvs\n(1) LT.COL. ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN, \n(2) Major Nawabzada MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, \n(3) Major Nawabzada MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN, sons of late Nawab Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan, \n(4) Mst. SULTAN PARWAR, daughter of late Nawab Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan, \n(5) Mst. SHAMA BIBI, \n(6) Mst. HASHMAT BIBI, widows of late Nawab Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan, and (7) Nawabzada MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN, son of the late Nawab Sir Muhammad Akbar Khan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2018 2 = 2018 SLD 2", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7,7(4),9,9(1),16,19,19(3),23,23(2) Contract Act, 1872=176 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=Order39Rule5,6 ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1447 OF 2016 CRL. ORIGINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1447 OF 2016. Decision and hearing DATE : 2.1.2018", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nMR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SONERI BANK LTD. IN CR.O.P. 220/2016\nVS\n:\nSONERI BANK LTD. IN C.A. 1447/2016\nNASEER AHMED IN CR.O.P. 220/2016" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 51 = 2013 SLD 51 = 2013 PTD 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of Accounts and Procedural Compliance in Taxation Matters\nConclusions:\n1.\nPremature Disposal of Writ Petitions: Writ petitions cannot be disposed of without adherence to procedural rules, including notices and opportunities for objections.\n2.\nInherent Powers of Courts: High Courts can suspend actions (e.g., account seizures) to prevent irreparable harm and serve justice.\n3.\nTaxpayer Hardship: Seizure orders causing operational hardship can be temporarily suspended pending appropriate forum proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 148 & 162)\n•\nCases: Messrs Raja Autocars v. Zonal Manager (2000), Muhammad Inayatullah Cheema v. Sardar Ali Raza Masood Qazilbash (2002 PTD 1195)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148,162 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.75 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 175 of 2012, decision dated: 6-07-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN C.J RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Afzal Advocates. Sajid Hussain Abbasi and Sardar Abdul Razik Khan Advocatess", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and another\nvs\nMessrs NEELUM JHELUM HYDRO POWER COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through M. Mohsin Sheikh and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 53 = 2013 SLD 53 = (2013) 108 TAX 73 = 2013 PTD 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Judgment Assessments and High Court Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n1.\nBest Judgment Assessment: Taxation officers can issue best judgment assessments under Section 121 based on available evidence but cannot rely on arbitrary or speculative methods.\n2.\nHigh Court’s Role: High Courts can only examine questions of law arising from Appellate Tribunal orders.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 121 & 174)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,174,133 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 421 of 2010 out of I.T.A. No. 363/KB of 2008 decided on 20-12-2012, hearing DATE : 11-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Emad-ul-Hasan for Applicant. Amjad Javaid Hashmis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARAH CONSTRUCTION CO. through Partner, Karachi\nvs\nTAXATION OFFICER-5, AUDIT-2, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 54 = 2013 SLD 54 = 2013 PTD 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Erroneous Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nAmended Assessments: Amendments must demonstrate error and prejudice to revenue, supported by application of mind by the Commissioner.\n2.\nFirst Appellate Authority: Detailed reviews and reliance on audited accounts justify deletion of erroneous additions.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss. 122(5A) & 120)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=122(5A),120 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.12/LB of 2011, decision dated: 11-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Alam, D.R.. Muhammad Waseem Ch. and Muhammad Arshads", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs DESCON CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 55 = 2013 SLD 55 = 2013 PTD 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Commissioners in Amending Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nCommissioner’s Discretion: Amendments under Section 122(5A) are distinct from revisionary powers and can be delegated.\n2.\nJudicial Review: High Courts generally defer to statutory remedies unless procedural violations or jurisdictional defects are evident.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ss. 122(5A), 210 & 211)\n•\nCases: Messrs Amin Textile Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000)", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122(5A)(9),210,211 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2412 of 2009, decision dated: 12-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirdar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera and Nasim Sikandar for Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (UNIT-II), TAXATION OFFICER, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 225 = 1960 SLD 225 = 1960 PLD 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuable Security and Magistrate’s Authority\nConclusions:\n1.\nAccount Books: Partnership account books do not qualify as valuable security under Section 30 of the Penal Code; they are evidentiary rather than dispositive of rights/liabilities.\n2.\nMagistrate’s Role: Magistrates can dismiss cases with improbable or unreliable evidence despite the presence of direct evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code, 1860 (Ss. 30 & 477)\n•\nCase: Hari Prasad v. The State (AIR 1953 All. 660)", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision No. 327, of 1959, decision dated: 30th June 1959", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Salam Khan for Habibur Rahman for Petitioner.\nA. M. Sayem and Md. Moazzem Hossain for OppositeParty", + "Party Name:": "RADHABALLAV DAS\nvs\nSANTOSH CHANDRA SAHAAppositeParty" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1369 = 2015 SLD 1369 = 2015 PTD 2026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25(4),81(4) Customs Rules, 2001=109 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1098 of 2007, decision dated: 30-06-2015, hearing DATE ; 30-06-2015.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JJ -", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Courts. Abdul Ghaffar Mian, Advocate supreme Court.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE and others\nVS\nMessrs S. FAZAL ILAHI AND SONS through Proprietor" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 27 = 1963 SLD 27 = (1963) 47 ITR 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cancellation of Firm Registration\nConclusions:\n1.\nCancellation Jurisdiction: Registration of a firm under Rule 6B of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, can only be canceled if the firm is found to be non-genuine.\n2.\nInstrument of Partnership: Absence of a partnership instrument during the accounting period, without a finding of non-genuineness, does not justify cancellation of registration.\n3.\nCertiorari Relief: Alternative remedies like revisions are not a bar to a writ petition for errors apparent on the record.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (S. 184)\n•\nCase: Decision in favor of the petitioner/assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=26A ", + "Case #": "CIVIL MISC. WRIT NO. 1527 OF 1961, NOVEMBER 17, 1961", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BRIJLAL GUPTA, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "R.S. Pathak for the Petitioner. Gopal Behari for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Sheonath Prasad Moti Lal\nv.\nIncome Tax Officer" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 28 = 1963 SLD 28 = (1963) 47 ITR 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Deduction on Borrowed Capital\nConclusions:\n1.\nPersonal Use of Borrowed Funds: Partial personal use of borrowed capital does not negate the deduction of interest under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, if loans were primarily for business purposes.\n2.\nTribunal Decision: The Tribunal upheld the AAC’s decision, finding no justification for disallowing part of the interest claim.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (S. 36(1)(iii))\n•\nCase: Bai Bhuriben Lallubhai v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 543 (Bom)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=10(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "CASE REFERRED NO. 19 OF 1960. NOVEMBER 16, 1961", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDRA REDDY, C.J. AND VENKATESAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "C. Kondiah for the Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nGopikrishna Muralidhar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 29 = 1963 SLD 29 = (1963) 47 ITR 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "SEPTEMBER 25, 26, 1961,", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P.B. MUKHARJI AND NIYOGI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Calcutta Hospital and Nursing Home Benefits Association Ltd.\nv.\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2017 742 = 2017 SLD 742 = 2017 PLC 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pay and Ancillary Benefits for Civil Servants\nConclusions:\n1.\nIncrement Rights: Teachers employed under temporary schemes are entitled to annual increments for the period before regularization.\n2.\nAncillary Privileges: Civil servants are entitled to ancillary benefits of their pay once appointed to a sanctioned post.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (S. 16)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "16", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.398-L to 405-L of 2010, 179-L to 183-L, 231-L, 424-L and 425-L of 2011, 17 to 23 of 2012 and C.M.As. Nos. 20-L, 41-L of 2011 and 99-L of 2012, decision & hearing dated: 09-03-2016. (On appeal against the judgment dated 17-5-2010 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeals Nos.1644, 1645/2016, 823, 830, 831/2008, 2691/2009, 2785/2005, 2859/2007, 2561, 2563 to 2566/2006, 987/2010, 2926, 2927/2010, 988/2010, 1786/2008, 3714 to 3717/2010 and 1271/2011).", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nIQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mehmood Ahmed Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.As. Nos.398-L to 402-L of 2010).\nCh. Atta Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 403-L of 2010).\nMian Ghulam Rasool, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.M.As. Nos.20-L and 41-L of 2011).\nAgha I.A. Imran, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.M.A. No. 99-L of 2012).\nNemo (in C.M.A. No. 144-L of 2012).\nRespondent(s) by: Khalid Waheed, Additional A.G. (in C.As. Nos.398-L to 402-L of 2010).\nMian Jaffar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 404-L of 2010).\nSyed Fayyaz Ahmed Sherazi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos.179-L, 180-L, 182-L of 2011).\nin person (in C.As. Nos.231-L of 2011, 17 and 18 of 2012).", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED AND OTHERS\nVS\nSPECIAL SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF \nPUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1961 3 = 1961 SLD 3 = 1961 PLD 375 = 1961 SCC 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes and Taxation under the Business Profits Tax Act\nConclusions:\n1.\nIntent and Context: The intent of a section is better understood by reading the whole Act rather than the section in isolation.\n2.\nTaxing Statutes: When ambiguity exists, the interpretation favoring the subject (taxpayer) is preferred.\n3.\n Escaped Assessment : Refers to instances where no assessment occurred or where prior proceedings did not result in tax imposition.\n4.\nLimitation Period: Assessment or reassessment must occur within four years; proceedings beyond this period are invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nBusiness Profits Tax Act, 1947 (S. 14)\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1922 (S. 34)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=11,14 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 23-D of 1960, decision dated: 29th March 1961", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury Attorney. Israrul Hossain Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Mesar Ali Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Nurul Huq Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST PAKISTAN\nVS\nMESSRS HOSSEN KASAM DADA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1962 4 = 1962 SLD 4 = 1962 PLD 128 = 1962 SCC 108 = (1962) 5 TAX 262 = 1962 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax and Business Income Classification\nConclusions:\n1.\nInterest on Deposits: Interest income from surplus money deposited in banks by a company engaged in railway operations was not deemed as income from the normal business of the company.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1922 (S. 25(3)(4))\n•\nCase referred: Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Korean Syndicate Limited (1921)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25,25(3),25(4(,66(1) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=109,110 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 33-D of 1961, decision dated: 28th February 1962", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA------APPELLANT\nTHE LIQUIDATOR, KHULNA-BAGERHAT RAILWAY COMPANY LTD., AHMADABAD------ RESPONDENT\nA. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury Attorney. Dingomal N. Ramchandani Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Badrur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Hanif Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nVS\nTHE LIQUIDATOR, KHULNA-BAGERHAT RAILWAY COMPANY LTD., AHMADABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 5 = 1963 SLD 5 = 1963 PLD 209 = 1963 SCC 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTrust Income and Tax Exemptions\n•\nConclusion:\no\nBusinesses held in trust for religious or charitable purposes are taxable unless directly fulfilling the institution's objectives.\no\nThe trust's income must be applied solely to its charitable purposes to qualify for exemption.\no\nBurden of proof lies on the assessee to demonstrate eligibility for exemptions.\n��\nCitations: Income-tax Act, 1922 (S. 4(3)(i)); J.K. Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax (AIR 1957 SC 846).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(i) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1-D of 1962, decision dated: 18th March 1963, hearing DATE : 31st January 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbab-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. M. Khan Chowdhury Attorney. Hamidul Hug Chowdhury Senior Advocate Supreme Court (B. H. Chowdhury Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by A. M. Khan Attorney", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nVS\nMUHAMMAD ABDUR RAUF KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 6 = 1963 SLD 6 = 1963 PLD 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProperty Requisition for Public Purpose\n•\nConclusion:\no\nRequisitions citing public interest are presumed valid unless proven otherwise.\no\nDelegates of requisitioning powers can rely on the Government's satisfaction for determining public necessity.\no\nRehabilitation for displaced persons meets the legal standard for public purpose. \n•\nCitations: East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 (S. 3, S. 15).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=114 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 18-D of 1962, decision dated: 18th April 1963. dates of hearing: 6th and 7th February 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maksumul Hakim Advocate-General East Pakistan (Serajul Haque Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by A. Wadud Mian Attorney. Moinul Huque Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. S. Hoda Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN\nvs\nDR. AZIZUL ISLAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1964 12 = 1964 SLD 12 = 1964 PLD 657 = 1964 SCC 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome-Tax—Registration of Firms\n•\nConclusions:\no\nA partnership firm must be constituted by an instrument during the relevant accounting year for registration under Section 26-A.\no\nRegistration cannot be granted retroactively to a period before the partnership deed was executed.\no\nCirculars deviating from statutory provisions are invalid.\no\nThe date of commencement of the partnership must be established based on evidence and not solely the date of the deed.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Act, 1922 (Ss. 26-A, 23(5)(b)); Dwarkadas Khetan & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1956) 29 ITR 903.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(5)(a),23(5)(b),26A,26A(1),26(1),28 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 54-D of 1963, decision dated: 22nd June 1964. dates of hearing: 25th and 26th March 1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Malin Khan Chowdhury Attorney. Siddique Ahmed Chowdhury Advocate High Court (Sirajul Haq Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Zinnur Ahmed Attorney", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nVS\nNOOR HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 844 = 2003 SLD 844 = (2003) 261 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPenalty for Concealment of Income Under Income-tax Act, 1961\n•\nConclusions:\no\nPenalty on Concealed Income: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid only for proven concealed income (Rs. 31,000 in this case). Excess amounts, based on estimation, cannot attract penalties.\no\nExplanation to Section 271(1)(c): The presumption of concealment can be rebutted by the assessee with evidence. The Tribunal upheld the penalty only for the undisputed amount.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(c); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 183 OF 1988, JANUARY 23, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.K. ABICHANDANI AND A.L. DAVE, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nLallubhai Jogibhai Patel" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 845 = 2003 SLD 845 = (2003) 261 ITR 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRectification and Reassessment Under Income-tax Act, 1961\n•\nConclusions:\no\nRectification via Section 155: In reassessments involving partners' shares in a firm, adjustments must be made under Section 155, not through reassessment under Section 148.\no\nTribunal Decision: The Tribunal correctly held that the assessing officer could not reassess the partners' income independently but must modify their assessments based on the firm's revised income.\n•\nCitations: Income-tax Act, 1961, Sections 155, 148.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2000, FEBRUARY 11, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KATJU AND PRAKASH KRISHNA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nShyama Charan Gupta" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 846 = 2003 SLD 846 = (2003) 261 ITR 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nBusiness Loss/Deductions Under Income-Tax Act, 1961\n•\nConclusions:\no\nForward Contracts for Hedging: Losses incurred on forward contracts for hedging against foreign exchange risk are allowable as business losses, even if some export contracts fail.\no\nNon-Speculative Transactions: Transactions entered into as a necessary part of business (e.g., hedging for exporters) do not qualify as speculative under Section 43(5).\no\nJudicial Precedent: Tribunal's decision allowing deduction aligns with the ruling in CIT v. Sooraj Mull Nagarmull (129 ITR 169).\n•\nCitations: Income-Tax Act, 1961, Sections 28(i), 43(5); CIT v. Sooraj Mull Nagarmull (1981) 129 ITR 169.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2001, JANUARY 22, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.H. KAPADIA AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nBadridas Gauridu (P.) Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 847 = 2003 SLD 847 = (2003) 261 ITR 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAssessment of Charitable Trusts Under Wealth-Tax Act, 1957\n•\nConclusions:\no\nTrust Shareholding: The Tribunal’s finding that the trust's shareholding did not exceed 5% of companies’ capital, qualifying for exemption under Section 21A, is a factual determination.\no\nPure Finding of Fact: The decision to exclude the trust's shareholding from wealth-tax liability under Section 21A was upheld as a factual matter not open to further legal challenge.\n•\nCitations: Wealth-Tax Act, 1957, Section 21A; Income-Tax Act, 1961, Section 13.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "W.T. CASE NO. 55 OF 1988, JANUARY 23, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K, JAIN AND MADAN B. LAKURA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of Wealth Tax\nv.\nDaulat Ram Public Mission" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 848 = 2003 SLD 848 = (2003) 261 ITR 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProsecution for Tax Evasion and Grant of Bail\n•\nConclusions:\no\nProtective Assessments and Bail: The protective basis of assessments and substantive assessments on others supported granting bail to the accused.\no\nJudicial Discretion: The High Court exercised appropriate discretion in granting bail considering the accused’s prolonged custody and the pending appeals.\n•\nCitations: Income-Tax Act, 1961, Sections 276C, 277, 278; G.L. Didwania v. ITO (224 ITR 687).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "CR. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 10219 OF 2002, DECEMBER 10, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.L. VISA, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Union of India\nv.\nSharad Kumar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 9 = 1970 SLD 9 = 1970 PLD 83 = (1970) 21 TAX 121 = 1970 PTD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gifted Property and Tax Implications\nConclusions:\n1.\nTax Treatment of Gifted Property:\nProperty transferred as a gift to minors is not considered a transfer for adequate consideration under Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Exemptions under the third proviso to the section do not apply.\n2.\nInterpretation of Provisos:\nProvisos in statutes should not override the main provisions unless explicitly stated. Gifts under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act lack the requisite consideration to qualify for exemptions.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 16(1)(c), 16(3)(a)(iv).\n•\nTransfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 122.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(1)(c),proviso3,(3)(a)(iv) Transfer of Property Act, 1882=122 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 75 of 1961, decision dated: 30th October 1969", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAH ZAMAN BABAR AND KHAN QAISAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Mohammad Yunas Shah for Petitioner. \nSh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "Khan Bahadur Mian FEROZ SHAH (REPRESENTED BY 10 HEIRS)\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NORTH ZONE, (WEST PAKISTAN), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1974 12 = 1974 SLD 12 = 1974 PLD 310 = 1975 PTD 117 = (1974) 30 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Notices and Escaped Assessment\n1.\nValidity of Tax Notices:\no\nUnder the Business Profits Tax Act, notices can be issued beyond the accounting period, provided they adhere to reasonable limits.\n2.\nEscaped Assessment:\no\nEscapement of income implies evasion or omission; delays in initiating proceedings do not constitute escapement.\nCitations:\n•\nBusiness Profits Tax Act (XXI of 1947), S. 11(1).\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Narsee Nagsee & Co. (1960).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,34,22(2) Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=11(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. K-41 and K-42 of 1972, decision dated: 8th May 1974. dates of hearing: 30th and 31st January 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Records (in both the Appeals). S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Records (in both the Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS DADA LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nAND\nCivil Appeal No. K-42 of 1972\nMESSRS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM & Co.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 6 = 1977 SLD 6 = 1977 PLD 170 = (1977) 35 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification and Taxability\n1.\nCommercial Assets and Income:\no\nProperty income depends on the owner's intention and the property's nature. Commercial assets remain so even if temporarily let out.\n2.\nResiduary Income:\no\nUnclassified income falls under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act.\nCitations:\n•\nC.P. Pictures Ltd. v. CIT (1963).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,10,12,10(2)(vii),12(4) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 260 and T. R. 137 of 1971, decision dated: 5th July 1976. dates of hearing : 1st, 2nd and 7th June 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq. Malik Abdul Karim", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMian MUHAMMAD ALLAH BUX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 105 = 1981 SLD 105 = 1981 PLD 85 = (1981) 43 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources\n1.\nDefinition of Income:\no\nIncome encompasses both recurrent returns and irregular receipts, depending on the source and circumstances.\n2.\nBurden of Proof:\no\nOnce income is categorized under Section 3, the burden of proving its exemption lies with the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. (AIR 1932 PC 138).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii)3,4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of 1976, decision dated: 1st April 1980. dates of hearing : 31st January and 1st April, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C, J., MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court (in both Appeals). Amirzada Khan, Assistant Advocate-General (N.W.F.P.) (in both Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "MRS. SAMINA SHAUKAT AYUB KHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 97 = 1982 SLD 97 = 1982 PLD 247 = (1982) 46 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospectivity in Tax Legislation\n1.\nLegislative Retrospectivity:\no\nTax laws affecting vested rights cannot operate retrospectively unless expressly stated.\nCitations:\n•\nSaeed Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1964 SC 266).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=4,14,19 Income Tax Act, 1922=14,19,21,21A,66A,66(1),4A,4B,10,13,24B,29,34,36,37,38,39,10,41,42,43,44,44A,44B,44C,45,46,47,48,49E,49F,50,54,61,62,63,65,66,67,67A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-37 of 1972, decision dated: 8-09-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C, J., ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND ZAFFAR HUS.SAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate-on-Record. Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nizam Ahmed Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nEASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE Co.\nSALEEM AND ANOTHER\nvs\nMalik JALALUDDIN AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 100 = 1982 SLD 100 = 1982 PLD 679 = 1983 PTCL 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Under Section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nThe respondent, Fateh Textile Mills Ltd., faced penalties under Section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for alleged failure to pay outstanding tax demands for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, amounting to Rs. 17,71,715 and Rs. 17,52,624 respectively. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) imposed penalties on 8-11-1968 based on the original assessment. However, prior to this imposition, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had already reduced the assessed demands in its order dated 25-9-1968. The penalty order was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 9-1-1981 and confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.\nThe Department argued that since the Tribunal’s order had not been received by the ITO until 5-8-1969, the penalty was valid. However, it was undisputed that no revised demand was served on the assessee in line with the Tribunal’s earlier order.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that the penalty under Section 46(1) could not be sustained because it was based on an assessment order that had already been modified by the Tribunal. As no fresh demand notice was issued post-modification, the imposition of penalty was unwarranted. The Court emphasized that a demand which no longer exists due to appellate modification cannot sustain a penalty. The Court cited CIT v. Azam Industries Ltd. (1980) 41 Tax Cas. 154, approving the view that when the foundational assessment order is set aside, the associated penalty cannot survive.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Azam Industries Ltd., (1980) 41 Tax Cas. 154", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 94 and 95 of 1972, decision dated: 25-01-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUE, JUSTICE AND G. M. KOUREJO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Hyder Ali Pirzada for Applicant. \nIqbal Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI \nvs\nM/S. FATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 140 = 1986 SLD 140 = 1986 PLD 211 = 1985 PTCL 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 — Regulatory Duty\nDetails:\nA Full Bench of the High Court was constituted to resolve a legal conflict arising from divergent decisions of Division Benches in Constitutional Petition No. 1178 of 1975 (reported in PLD 1977 Karachi 911) and Constitutional Petition No. 404 of 1977. The core issue pertained to the interpretation of Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, particularly whether:\nThe Federal Government could impose regulatory duty exceeding 50% of the rate specified in the First Schedule, and\nWhether it had the discretion to impose duty up to 100% of the value of the article (as determined under Section 25 of the Act) even when a rate was already specified in the Schedule.\nThe earlier judgment in Messrs Yousuf Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs held that if a rate of duty existed in the Schedule, the regulatory duty could not exceed 50% of that rate. In contrast, the later decision in Constitutional Petition No. 404 of 1977 did not consider this precedent, leading to inconsistency in judicial interpretation.\nHeld:\nThe Full Bench held that under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, the Federal Government has the discretion to levy regulatory duty in either of two ways:\nUp to 50% of the rate specified in the Schedule (read with notifications under Section 2(1), Section 3(1) of the Protective Duties Act, 1950), or\nUp to 100% of the value of the article (as determined under Section 25 of the Act).\nThis discretion is independent and not contingent upon whether a rate is specified in the Schedule. The word “or” used in the statute was interpreted in its ordinary, disjunctive sense, thus indicating that the Government could choose either basis for imposing duty. Additionally, the use of the word “such” refers back to articles in the Schedule, reinforcing the view that the 100% valuation basis is not limited only to duty-free items or those with no ad valorem duty.\nThe Court emphasized that no artificial restrictions could be imposed on statutory language that is otherwise clear and unambiguous. The provision allows regulatory duty to be imposed over and above any duty levied under subsection (1) or any other law.\nCitations:\nMessrs Yousuf Re-rolling Mills, Karachi v. Collector of Customs, Karachi – PLD 1977 Karachi 911\nC.F. Gibbon and others v. Pakistan – PLD 1957 Karachi 956\nSalehon and others v. The State – PLD 1986 SC 267\nMaxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Ed.\nCommissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax v. B.W.M. Abdur Rehman", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=18,18(1),18(2),18(3),18(4),25 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-689 of 1977, decision dated: 14-06-1983, hearing date: 2-05-1983", + "Judge Name": "Author(s): Ajmal Mian, B.G.N. Kazi, Justice and K.A. Ghani, Justice", + "Lawyer Name": "Messrs Khurshid Anwar and Zia Pervez for Petitioner. Aziz A. Munshi, Deputy Attorney-Generals", + "Party Name:": "M/S STERLING ENGINEERING CORPORATION\nvs\nTHIS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 892 = 1987 SLD 892 = (1987) 55 TAX 58 = 1987 PTD 52 = 1987 PTCL 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Valuation in Wealth Tax Assessment\n1.\nValuation by Wealth Tax Officer (WTO):\no\nValuations exceeding ten times the gross annual letting value require prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC).\n2.\nMarket Value Assessment:\no\nThe WTO must base assessments on concrete evidence, such as sale deeds, and not subjective opinions.\n3.\nBinding Nature of PTI Form Values:\no\nValues in PTI forms are not binding on the WTO but should inform market value assessments.\n4.\nReasonable Rent:\no\n Reasonable rent can differ from agreed rent and is determined by prevailing circumstances.\nCitations:\n•\nWealth Tax rulings on procedural and substantive assessment standards.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(1),(2)(3),(3A),(4),(4A),(4C),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9) ", + "Case #": "W. T. A. Nos. 6/LB to 1980-81 (Assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78), decision dated: 26-4-1986, hearing DATE : 26-4-1986.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.A.M. SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ali Hassan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Abdul Minam Jafri, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1168 = 1986 SLD 1168 = 1986 PTD 836 = (1986) 54 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption for Pottery Goods\n1.\nPottery Exemption:\no\nPottery goods, including flowerpots and decorative pieces, qualify for sales tax exemption under Notification No. 9 (27-6-1951).\n2.\nInterpretation of Pottery :\no\nThe term pottery includes all traditional ceramic items intended for practical or decorative use.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7(1),First Schedule Tariff Act, 1934 (XXXII of 1934)=FirstSchedule ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. Nos. 1/IB to 3/IB of 1985-86 (Assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74), decision dated: 31-3-1986, hearing DATE : 31-03-1986.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amir Alam Khan, C. A., for the Appellant. Bilal Khan, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 893 = 1987 SLD 893 = (1987) 55 TAX 92 = 1987 PTD 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Assessment and Spousal Income Attribution\n1.\nRe-assessment of Spousal Income:\no\nFixed deposits in the wife's name attributed to the husband as no evidence showed independent funds for the wife.\n2.\nAppeal Maintainability:\no\nAppeals against orders reducing tax liability are not maintainable.\n3.\nApplication of Sections 166 and 134:\no\nIncome tax assessments include reassessments and require compliance with statutory timelines for appeals.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Tribunal rulings and statutory interpretations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62,59(1),134,134(1),66A,111,156,132,148(2),2(7),83(4) General Clauses Act, 1897=24,6 Income Tax Act, 1961=253(1),131,154,250,271,271A,272A Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1),33,28,30,31,34A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 1404/KB to 1407/KB of 1984-85 (Assessment years 1977-78 to 1982-83), decision dated: 15-2-1987, hearing DATE : 3-2-1987.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq, Advocate, for the Appellant. Muhammad Farid, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1639 = 2002 SLD 1639 = (2002) 258 ITR 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Tax at Source for Guaranteed Returns\n1.\nInterest Definition:\no\nStatutory definitions of interest include guaranteed returns under schemes that establish financial obligations.\n2.\nTax Deduction at Source:\no\nAssessees managing guaranteed-return schemes must deduct taxes at source under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nLiability for Non-Deduction:\no\nFailure to deduct tax incurs consequences under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, Sections 2(28A), 194A, 201.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2(28A),201,194A ", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 326 TO 329 OF 1997 OCTOBER 9, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "O.P. Vaish, Ms. Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Applicant. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 257 = 1993 SLD 257 = 1993 PLD 799 = (1994) 69 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act and Product Classification\n1.\nClassification and Duty:\no\nProducts like aspartame mixed with other ingredients are assessed based on their utility and not their base chemical composition.\n2.\nTax Ambiguity:\no\nTax laws must be strictly interpreted, with benefits of ambiguity favoring the taxpayer.\nCitations:\n•\nR.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd. v. National West Minister Bank Ltd. (1978).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1)(9) Pakistan Customs Tariff=Chapter29 ", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos. D-1179 and 1633 of 1992, decision dated: 13-07-1993. dates of hearing: 20th and 23rd June, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALAHUDIN MIRZA AND KAMAL MANSURALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner. Naimur Rehman, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SEARLE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 56 = 2013 SLD 56 = (2013) 107 TAX 89 = 2013 PTD 969", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation, Definitions, and Judicial Review\n1.\nDefinition of Tax and Fee:\no\n Tax is a compulsory financial charge for public purposes, while Fee entails quid pro quo, providing specific services to the payer.\n2.\nLegislative Competence and Judicial Review:\no\nCourts should guard the legislative authority to impose taxes and must be cautious in declaring taxing statutes unconstitutional.\n3.\nWorkers’ Welfare Fund:\no\nThe fund qualifies as a tax, not a fee, due to the absence of quid pro quo and its imposition on industrial establishments.\n4.\nInterpretation of Taxing Statutes:\no\nPreamble serves as an interpretive aid but cannot determine validity. The charging section defines the scope and subject of taxation.\nCitation:\n•\nMessrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=73,199,260(1) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(c),3to6,ScheduleA,Ch.-1 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-2753 of 2009, D-3482, D-1084, D-115, D-1483, D-1619, D-230, D-2700, D-2876, D-3143, D-3521, D-3618, D-452 and D-6 of 2010, decision dated: 1st March, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAISAL ARAB, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Khalid Javed Khan, Rashid Anwar, M. Anas Makhdoom, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Naveed A. Andrabi, Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui, Ghulam Murtaza, Lubna Pervez, Abid Shahban, Junaid Farooqi, Muhammad Rafi Kamboh, Kazim Hasan, Abdul Rahim Lakhani, Amin-ud-Din Ansari, Ali Mumtaz Shaikh, Abdul Hameed Kazi and Muhammad Adnan for Petitioners. \nAmjad Javed Hashmi, Dr. Tariq Masood, Additional Commissioner (Legal), M. Asif Mangi, Standing Counsel, M. Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.G., Chaman Lal, S. Mohsin Imam and S. Riaz-ud-Din and Muhammad Saleem Mangrios", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHBAZ GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and others\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 57 = 2013 SLD 57 = 2013 PTCL 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance and Legislative Amendments\n1.\nAssessment Under Section 121:\no\nBefore the 2010 amendments, Section 121(1)(d) did not apply to cases with deemed assessments under Section 120.\n2.\nDeemed Assessment Stability:\no\nThe legislative scheme before 2010 did not permit the cancellation of deemed assessments via Section 121, highlighting a lacuna addressed in the 2010 amendments.\n3.\nLegal Interpretation:\no\nCourts affirmed that prior to 2010, second assessments under Section 121 could not annul deemed assessments.\nCitation:\n•\nGlaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1092 SCC 910).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R No. 41/2011, heard on 12-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioners by: Ms. Shahina Akbar, Advocate alongwith M/s. Khalid Javed, Additional Commissioner and Mr. Farooq A. Nasir, Additional Commissioner. Respondent by: Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal)\nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue (Appeal), etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 58 = 2013 SLD 58 = (2013) 107 TAX 131 = 2013 PTD 1114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Income Tax Detention\n1.\nMinority Status Verification:\no\nMinority claims require evidence beyond a single document, and constitutional jurisdiction is inadequate for such factual determinations.\n2.\nIncome Tax Detention and Fair Trial:\no\nDetention warrants under Rule 186 require procedural fairness. Taxpayers must have an opportunity to present evidence.\n3.\nRemand for Inquiry:\no\nThe High Court remanded cases to ensure taxpayers could present evidence and defend against detention orders.\nCitation:\n•\nMuhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1985 SC 107).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,138,138(1) Income Tax Rules, 2002=186 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=10A,199 ", + "Case #": "Intra Court Appeal No.569 of 2012 decided on 19-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI AND MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Asjad Saeed, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, LAHORE and 2 others\nvs\nWASEEM YAQOOB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 59 = 2013 SLD 59 = (2013) 107 TAX 140 = 2013 PTD 1592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Applications and Business Expenditures\n1.\nRaising New Questions:\no\nQuestions not raised before lower authorities cannot be entertained by the High Court.\n2.\nConcurrent Findings:\no\nHigh Court is bound by concurrent findings of lower appellate forums unless shown to be perverse or illegal.\n3.\nBusiness Losses:\no\nLosses incurred in a tax period can offset income from other heads as per Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitation:\n•\nGenertech Pakistan Limited v. ITAT of Pakistan (2004 PTD 2255).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,18,56 ", + "Case #": "ITRA No. 29 of 2011, decision dated: 13-2-2013. dates of hearing: 16-1-2013 and 13-2-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIB AKHTAR AND GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Lubna Pervez, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, KARACHI\nvs\nKARACHI SHIPPING (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 60 = 2013 SLD 60 = (2013) 107 TAX 149 = 2013 PTCL 452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Residents and Double Taxation Agreements\n1.\nPermanent Establishment (PE):\no\nNon-residents without a PE in Pakistan are exempt from tax on business profits under double taxation treaties.\n2.\nConcurrent Findings:\no\nFindings by appellate forums, aligned with legal provisions, were upheld as no errors or illegality were identified.\n3.\nWithholding Tax on Non-Residents:\no\nNon-residents' commercial profits, exempt under double taxation treaties, are not subject to withholding tax.\nCitation:\n•\nMessrs Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1981 SC 1649).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(41)(d),21(c),107,133(1),152(3)(d) ", + "Case #": "ITRA No. 657 of 2010, decision dated: 5-9-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Mohsin Imam, Advocate, for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nvs\nCENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT SCIENCES KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 61 = 2013 SLD 61 = (2013) 107 TAX 157 = 2013 PTD 1614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Applications and Factual Determinations\n1.\nFacts by Appellate Tribunal:\no\nHigh Court cannot interfere with factual findings of the Tribunal unless there is a question of law, such as misreading or non-reading of evidence.\n2.\nRaising Additional Questions:\no\nApplicants cannot raise new factual issues disguised as legal questions at the High Court stage.\nCitation:\n•\nAustralasia Bank Ltd. (1962 PTD 575), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shabbir & Co. (1966 13 Tax 197).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133 ", + "Case #": "ITRA No. 164 of 2012 decided on 22-1-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate, for the Applicant. Abid H. Shaban, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUEII, KARACHI\nvs\nROYAL INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 62 = 2013 SLD 62 = (2013) 107 TAX 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessments and Taxpayer Relief\n1.\nDefinite Information:\no\nMere disagreements on legal interpretations do not qualify as definite information under Section 122(5) for reopening assessments.\n2.\nBanking Provisions:\no\nClaims for bad debts by banks are allowable unless deviating from prudential regulations.\n3.\nDelayed Refund Compensation:\no\nRefunds under Section 171 must consider delays caused by prior orders; taxpayers are entitled to fair compensation.\n4.\nDepreciation and Leased Assets:\no\nDepreciation claims must be based on gross lease rentals as per established judicial interpretations.\nCitation:\n•\nVarious references to rulings, including 2002 85 Tax 345 and 2005 PTD 2161.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=18(3),21(k),22(12),25(a),120,120(1),122(5),124A,147(8),171,221 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=35 State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=46B,54A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,FourthSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 4429, 4430/LB of 2005, 368/LB/2007, 710/LB of 2008, 1700, 5005 to 5008/LB of 2005 and 1294/LB of 2006, 434/L decided on 7-1-2013. dates of hearing: 19-10-2012 and 21-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikramal Haq & M r. Maasoor Beg, Advocates, for the Taxpayer Muhammad Tahir, DR, for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 63 = 2013 SLD 63 = (2013) 107 TAX 548 = 2013 PTD 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Exemption Clauses\n1.\nTurnover Tax Applicability:\no\nTaxpayers under the presumptive tax regime (Section 169(2)) are exempt from turnover tax (Section 113).\n2.\nExemption Clauses:\no\nExempt income cannot be taxed under heads specified in Section 11 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitation:\n•\n2010 SCMR 1236.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,169(2),11,122(5A),122(9),120,,SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.157(PB) of 2012, decision dated: 17-12-2012, hearing DATE : 16-11-2012.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND YUSUF GHAFFAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdur Rehman Afridi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mir Alam Khan, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTER CONSTRUCT (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nvs\nREGIONAL TAX OFFICER, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 64 = 2013 SLD 64 = 2013 PTCL 184 = 2013 PTD 1371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Tribunal's Stay and Limitation\n1.\nStay Against Recovery:\no\nTribunals can issue stay orders, and no recovery can proceed when judicial members have set aside adjudications.\n2.\nPending Cases:\no\nRecovery cannot be enforced if the appellate decision is pending due to internal delays.\nCitation:\n•\nBased on Tribunal procedures under Sections 131 and 46.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,131(5) Sales Tax Act, 1990=46(2) ", + "Case #": "M.A(Rect) No. 71/KB/2011 In MA(Stay) No. 69/KB/2011, decision dated: 21st June, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ZARINA N ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Waqas Nawaz, D.R.. Muhammad Naseem", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-IV, L.T.U., KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 65 = 2013 SLD 65 = 2013 PTCL 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Premature Constitutional Petitions\n1.\nExhausting Statutory Remedies:\no\nTaxpayers must use statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.\n2.\nPremature Petitions:\no\nHigh Court cannot entertain petitions if statutory avenues for appeal and rectification are not utilized.\nCitation:\n•\nICI Pakistan Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2006 PTD 778), Roche Pakistan Ltd. (2001 PTD 3090).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127 ", + "Case #": "C. P. No. D-2039 of 2011, decision dated: 22-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, AND MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner by; Mr. Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Advocate Respondents by: Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate Department, Mr. Jawed Farooqui, DAG", + "Party Name:": "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan\nvs\nDy. Commissioner IR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 66 = 2013 SLD 66 = 2013 PTCL 199 = 2013 PTD 1070", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction and Jurisdictional Issues\n1.\nTurnkey Projects:\no\nECC directives resolving tax disputes are binding, and reopening settled cases is unwarranted.\n2.\nJurisdictional Amendments:\no\nProcedural amendments are retrospective unless explicitly stated but do not cure jurisdictional defects in past, closed transactions.\nCitation:\n•\nTapal Energy v. Federation of Pakistan (1999 PTD 4037), Continental Chemical v. Pakistan (2001 PTD 570).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,50(4),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1077/KB to 1079/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-09-2010, hearing DATE : 1st September, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. ZAFAR IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Ayaz Mehmood, DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HABIBULLAH COASTAL POWER (PVT.) LIMITED, QUETTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 67 = 2013 SLD 67 = 2013 PTCL 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Bar on Civil Suits\n1.\nShow Cause Notices:\no\nNotices issued under Section 122 are not mala fide if based on jurisdictional authority.\n2.\nBar on Civil Suits:\no\nSection 227 bars civil suits against income tax notices, as remedies exist within the statutory framework.\nCitation:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Sections 122, 227).", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=24 Contract Act, 1872=73 ", + "Case #": "CM No. 218/2012 in Civil Suit No. 51/2012, announced on 19-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Mansoor Usman Advocate-plaintiff. Mr. M. Bilal, learned Sr. ASC, Mr. Tariq Shamim & Mr. Babar Bilal, learned ASCs for defendants-applicant", + "Party Name:": "Ocean Pakistan Limited Islamabad etc\nvs\nFederation of Pakistan etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 68 = 2013 SLD 68 = 2013 PTCL 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 2(s), 16, 17, 26, 157, 168, 179, 187 & 194-A---Import and Export (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)---Allegation of Smuggling---Seizure and confiscation of goods---Goods/Foreign Origin Black Tea, along with truck carrying said goods, were seized on allegation of smuggling---Additional Collector Customs, vide order-in-original, confiscated goods---Collector Customs on appeal, vide order-in-appeal dismissed the appeal---Adjudicating Officer verified the import documents produced by the appellant/importer at the time of interception of goods and subsequently; it was never pointed out that any document so produced by the importer was false, fabricated or untrue; and he was quite satisfied with the verification reports received in that regard from concerned quarters---Though a number of cases were made out against the importer and litigation had undergone between the department and the importer, but the importer had discharged his onus within the meaning of S.187 of the Customs Act, 1969; and had successfully met with the burden to prove the legal import---Burden to prove smuggling stood shifted to the department and department had no proof contrary to the proof produced by the importer---Department had failed to produce any evidence, which could prove that Tea imported by the importer, was prohibited or restricted by the Government---Department, in circumstances, had failed to prove the charge of smuggling against the importer---Contention of department was that non-mentioning of the country of origin in the sales tax invoice produced by the importer, was not plausible, because there was no such column for the origin in the sales tax invoice---Importer being a manufacturer could blend the tea and repack the same---Case, otherwise did not lie within the pecuniary competence and jurisdiction of Additional Collector of Customs---Under provisions of S.17(3) of Customs Act, 1969 case should be adjudicated within a period of 120 days from the date of show-cause notice but said period had expired and no plausible and cogent reason had been shown by the department for such delay for passing the order-in-original---Importer was established to have been doing business of Black Tea, and was duly registered with Sales Tax, Income Tax Department, and Chamber of Commerce and Pakistan Tea Association bodies etc.---Possession of huge quantity of Black Tea by the importer, did not create a suspicion that the recovered Black Tea was smuggled one---Goods seized, in circumstances, were lawfully imported---Seized/confiscated goods/Tea, could immediately be returned unconditionally to the importer, in circumstances.\n \n PTCL 2004 CL 551; 2001 YLR 635; 1995 SCMR 387; 2003 PTD 2118; SAO No.175 of 2004 dated 11-10-2004; PTCL 2002 CL 95; PLD 1971 SC 124; 2009 PTD 642; 2010 PTD 465; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2086; 1999 PTD 4126; 2006 SCMR 1713; 2004 SCMR 28; 2004 SCMR 1798; 2003 SCMR 59; PLD 2002 SC 630 and 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2480 rel.\n \n 2008 PTD 60 and 2008 PTD 2025 distinguished.\n \n 2007 SCMR 1095; 2007 PTD 1495; 2003 PTD 1797; 2003 PTD 1354; 2003 PTD 1361; 2002 MLD 180; 2009 PTD 2004; 2007 PTD 2265; 2009 PTD 762; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2216; 2011 PTD 1076; PLD 2005 Pesh. 214; 2007 SCMR 1256 and 2010 SCMR 1408 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=2,16,17,26,157,168,179,187,194A ", + "Case #": "Cus. 108/PB/2012, announced on 20-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ateeq-ur-Rehman, Advocate, Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, Advocate and Pir Alam Shah, Consultants. Naseer Khan, Superintendent Customs and Zia-ud-Din, Intelligence Officers", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHYBER TEA AND FOODS COMPANY, PESHAWAR and 2 others\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, PESHAWAR and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 69 = 2013 SLD 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Amendment Invalidated\n1.\nNon-compliance of Notices:\no\nAssessment under Section 122(1) was invalidated as notices were not properly addressed.\n2.\nAppellate Rulings:\no\nThe appellate authority and ATIR supported the taxpayer’s position, dismissing the department's appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),122(1),122(9),177 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 234/LB/2010, Tax Year 2006, hearing DATE 23-12-2011. DATE of order 28-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (M.A., JAVED SHAHIN), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (SOHAIL AFZAL), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Fazal Mehmood, FCA Respondent by Mr. Nayyer Mehmood, DR", + "Party Name:": "CIT, Legal Division, RTO, Lahore.\nvs\nMr. Abdul Haq Prop. Haq Brothers, Madina Chowk, Badami Bagh, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 340 = 1997 SLD 340 = 1997 PLD 582 = (1997) 76 TAX 5 = 1997 PTD 1555 = 1997 PTCL 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,35,40,80C,80C(4),80C(5),80CC,80D Economic Reforms Order, 1972=6, Schedule Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=8,18,23,24,25,71,77,FourthSchedule ", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 307(80-D) to 313(80-D), 314(80-CC), 315(80-D) to 324(80-D), 390(80-D) to 399(80-D), 400(80-CC) to 404(80-CC), 411(80-D) and 424(80-CC & 80-D) of 1997, decision dated: 4-06-1997. dates of hearing: 1st April to 4th April and 7th April to 10-04-1997\nC. As. Nos. 307(80-D) to 313(80-D), 314(80-CC), 315(80-D) to 324(80-D), 390(80-D) to 399(80-D), 400(80-CC) to 404(80-CC), 405(80-D), 406(80-CC), 407(80-CC), 408(80-D), 409(80-D), 410(80-D/80-CC), 411(80-D), 412(80-CC), 413(80-D), 414(8", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Akram. Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Records (in C. A. 307(80-D) to 309(80-D) of 1995)\nCh. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 310(80-D) of 1995) Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s (in C.A. 311(80-D) of 1995)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam,. Advocate-on-Records (in C.As.312(80-D) & 313(80-D) of 1995)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 314(80-CC) of 1995)\nCh. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C,A.315(80-D) of 1995)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 316(80-D) to 322(80-D) of 1995)..\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 323(80-D) and 324(80-D) of 1995).\nSyed Zahid Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in C..A. 390(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 391 and 392(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. 393(80-D) of 1995)..\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 394(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advbcate-on-Record (in C.As. 395(80-D) and 396(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 397(80-CC) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 398(80-D) of 1995)..\nM.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 399(80-D) of 1995)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C. As. 400(80-CC) to 404(80-CC) of.1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 405(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme.Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 406(80-CC) & 407(80-CC) of 1995).\nCh. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record fof, Appellant (in.C.A 408(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 409(80-D) of 1995). ,\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslant, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 410((80-D)/80-CC), 411(80-D), 412(80-CC), 413(80-D) and 414(80-D).of 1995).\nCh. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C. A 415(80-CC) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 416(80-D), 417(80-CC), 418(80-D), 419(80-CC), 420(80-D) to 424(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 425(80-CC) to 427(80-CC) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 428(80-D), 429(80-CC), 430(80-D), 43 I (80-CC), 432(80-Dj, 433(80-CC), 434(80-CC), 435(80-D) to 438(80-D) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 439(80-CC), 440(80-CC), 440(80-D) to 445(80-D), 446(80-CC) to 448(80-CC), 449(80-D) to 460(80-D) of 1995).\nM.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 461(80-D) of 1995)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C. As 462(80-CC), 463(80-D) to 466(80-D), 467(80-CC) and 468(80-D) of I 995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 469(80-CC) of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. 470(80-D) to 473(80-D) of 1995).\nS. Abu] Asim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A 474/95(80-D) of 1995).\nS. Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As 475(80-D) to 477(80-D) of 1995).\nM. lqhal Nasim gash, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Ryas afar, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. 478(80-C) of 1995).\nS. Abul Asim Jaf", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ELAHI COTTON MILLS LTD and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Finance, Islamabad and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 70 = 2013 SLD 70 = 2013 PTD 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment Based on Assumptions\n1.\nInvalid Estimations:\no\nAssessing Officer’s estimation of income based on assumptions about local purchases was deemed unlawful.\n2.\nDefective Notices:\no\nShow-cause notices lacked definite information, making inquiries illegal under Section 122(5A).\nCitation:\n•\n2009 PTD (Trib.) 121, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 111.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),115,122(5A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 1367/LB and 1368/LB of 2012, decision dated: 2-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Waseem Chaudhary and Muhammad Arshads. Nabila Iqbal D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAEED BUKSH (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 71 = 2013 SLD 71 = (2013) 108 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions Under Section 111(1)(b)\n1.\nImproper Inquiries:\no\nAdditions made without proper inquiry were deleted as they violated the scope of Section 122(5A).\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nTaxpayer appeals allowed, and departmental appeals dismissed for lack of merit.\nCitation:\n•\n2010 PTD (Trib) 1552, 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1593.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(l),111(1)(b),113(B),122(5A),174(2),209(8) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1696/LB/2012 Tax Year 2006, ITA NO. 1697/LB/2012 Tax Year 2007, ITA NO. 1698/LB/2012 Tax Year 2008, ITANO. 1825/LB/2012 Tax Year 2006, ITANO. 1826/LB/2012 Tax Year 2007, ITANO. 1827/LB/2012 Tax Year 2008, hearing DATE : 21-12-2012, DATE of order: 09-01 -2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI) CHAIRPERSON,(SOHAIL AFZAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. M. Iqbal Hashmi; Mr. Qadeer Ahmad; and Mr. Muhammad. Abubakar(Advocate) Miss. Ayesha Imran Butt (DR)", + "Party Name:": "Hamid Zaman & Seema Aziz (AOP) 21-Waris Road, Lahore \nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue ZonEVIII, RTO-II, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2020 695 = 2020 SLD 695 = 2020 PTCL 393 = 2020 PTD 1140 = (2020) 122 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=4A,4(1),53(2),74,114,115,148,PartV ofChapterX ofChapterXIII,PartIII oftheSecond Schedule ", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2013 AND CIVIL PETITION NO. 133 OF 2012, Order & hearing DATE : 09.03.2020 (On appeal against the judgments dated 13.03.2013 & 01.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. D-3336/2011 & Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P. No. 2895/2011)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL\nMR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB\nMR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED", + "Lawyer Name": "For the App/Petitioners. Mr. Abdul Hameed, ASC\nFor the Respondents. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "FBR THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD ETC. (IN BOTH CASES)\nVS\nM/S WAZIR ALI AND COMPANY ETC (IN CA 1460/2013)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 73 = 2013 SLD 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retroactive Application of Finance Act, 2011\n1.\nAmendment Scope:\no\nFinance Act, 2011 changes were deemed prospective and inapplicable to cases filed before 01/07/2011.\n2.\nRevenue Responsibility:\no\nTax authorities must substantiate tax levies with material evidence.\nOutcome:\n•\nTribunal upheld the lower authority’s decision in favor of the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),122C,111,128(5) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1641/LB/2011,hearing DATE : 20.01.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (ABDUL RAUF) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Dr. Muhammad Idrees, D.R", + "Party Name:": "CIR ZonEXII, RTO, Lahore \nvs\nMr. Karim Ahmad Sheikh, \"\" Prop" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 74 = 2013 SLD 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Profit Entities\n1.\nExempt Status Ignored:\no\nTaxpayer’s exempt income was incorrectly taxed, ignoring Section 62 and Clause 94, Part-I, Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal nullified the taxation order and vacated the appellate authority’s decision.\nCitation:\n•\n2006 PTD 1204, 2010 PTD 1904.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,6,132,66 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 216/LB/2011 (Assessment Year 2002-2003), hearing DATE :29.01.2013. DATE of order :18.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (MIAN MASOOD AHMAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Aqeel Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by .Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s All Pakistan Contractor Association, Lahore \nvs\nThe CIR RTO-I Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 75 = 2013 SLD 75 = 2013 PTD 837", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment and Deemed Orders\n1.\nLegislative Lacuna:\no\nPrior to the 2010 amendments, deemed assessments under Section 120 could not be replaced by orders under Section 121(1)(d).\n2.\nHigh Court Decision:\no\nReference answered in the negative, favoring the taxpayer.\nCitation:\n•\n2010 PTD (Trib.) 2602, Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner (1992 SCC 910).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,121(1)(d),177(10) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 41 of 2011, heard on 12-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKHR IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Shahina Akbar, along with Khalid Javed, Additional Commissioner and Farooq A. Nasir, Additional Commissioner for Petitioners. Hafiz Muhammad ldrees No 3.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 76 = 2013 SLD 76 = 2013 PTD 875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Suit Barred Under Income Tax Ordinance\n1.\nJurisdiction Challenge:\no\nHigh Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, upholding revenue authorities' jurisdiction under Section 122(5-A).\n2.\nPending Remedies:\no\nTaxpayer advised to seek redress within the Income Tax Ordinance framework.\nCitation:\n•\n1973 SCMR 282, 2009 SCMR 1279.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122(9),227(i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.11(d),O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2 ", + "Case #": "C.S. No. 51 and CM. No. 218 of 2012, decision dated: 19-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Bilal Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Tariq Shamim and Babar Bilal Advocate Supreme Courts for Applicants. Mansoor Usman.", + "Party Name:": "OCEAN PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 77 = 2013 SLD 77 = 2013 PTD 851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Amendments\n1.\nAmendment Intent:\no\nLegal amendments presume intent to change existing law or rectify issues.\n2.\nJurisdiction Overlap:\no\nConcurrent jurisdiction improperly conferred by second notification was set aside.\nCitation:\n•\nICI Pakistan Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2006 PTD 778).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,235 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54 ", + "Case #": "Suit 140, 1322 and C.M.As. Nos. 10305, 11608 and 11609 of 2012, decision dated: 30-01-2013, hearing DATE : 21st January, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIB AKHTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid S. Zuberi and M. Umer Lakhani for Plaintiff. Syed Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi for Defendant No. 3. Habibullah Khan, Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, RTO-II and Badar Ayub, Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Unit 2, Zone IV, RTO-II, Karachi", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. through Director Taxation\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 78 = 2013 SLD 78 = 2013 PTD 884", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Definite Information for Assessment\n1.\nDefinite vs. Estimated:\no\nOGRA formula deemed insufficient as definite information under Section 122(5).\n2.\nHigh Court Ruling:\no\nReference answered in the negative, favoring the taxpayer.\nCitation:\n•\nE.F.U. General Insurance Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1997 PTD 1693).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122,122(5),133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.31 of 2012, heard on 12-11-2012,", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR SHAH, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: G.M. Ch. and Qazi Ghulam Dastgir, Khalid Javed, Add. Comm. and Farooq A. Nasir Add. Comm., Inland Revenue, RTO, Rwp.\nRespondent(s) by: Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq and Atif Waheed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nVS\nMESSRS KHAN CNG AND FILLING STATION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 79 = 2013 SLD 79 = 2013 PTCL 398 = 2013 PTD 1165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Adjustment in Turnkey Contracts\n1.\nDouble Taxation Avoided:\no\nTax paid at import stage adjusted against contractual receipts to prevent double taxation.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nDepartmental appeals dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),148(7),153(5)(iii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.586/IB to 588/IB of 2009, decision dated: 5-01-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER, CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Sardar Ali Khawaja, DR. Respondent by: Mr. Muddassar Khalid, ACA", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T. (LEGAL DIVISION), LTU, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs ZHONGXING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 80 = 2013 SLD 80 = (2013) 108 TAX 67 = 2013 PTD 1181 = 2013 PTCL 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\n1.\nFresh Assessments:\no\nDepartment’s rectification under Section 221 upheld if within limitation.\n2.\nFinal Discharge:\no\nTaxpayer liable for adjustments but given credit for prior deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,153(1)(c),153(6),115(4),234A,235,236 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 124/IB/2012, Assessment Year 2005, decision dated: 4-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawad Khan, D.R. for Applicant. Akhtar Hussain", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs MOINSONS (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 81 = 2013 SLD 81 = (2013) 107 TAX 278 = 2013 PTD 1598 = 2013 PTCL 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Audit of Self-Assessments\n1.\nCommissioner’s Power:\no\nSection 177 allows audit to verify self-assessments, consistent with Section 214(c).\nOutcome:\n•\nConstitutional petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Finance Act, 2010=214(c) ", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No. 552/2013, decision dated: 28-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. CHIEF, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI & MR. JUSTICE SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Bashir and Kazim Jan. Nones", + "Party Name:": "WARID TELECOM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 82 = 2013 SLD 82 = (2013) 107 TAX 191 = 2013 PTD 1552 = 2013 PTCL 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Selection for Tax Audit\n1.\nTime-Barred Notices:\no\nAudit notices issued beyond the financial year were invalid.\n2.\nHigh Court Decision:\no\nPetition accepted, quashing the notice.\nCitation:\n•\nChenone Stores Ltd. v. FBR (2012 PTD 1815).", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120,122,177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Finance Act, 2010=214 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 1232 of 2012, decision dated: 17-1-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mian Naveed Gul Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NORTHERN BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PESHAWAR\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 83 = 2013 SLD 83 = (2013) 107 TAX 645 = 2013 PTCL 404 = 2013 PTD 1173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity and Salary Deductions\n1.\nApproved Gratuity Fund:\no\nDeductions for approved gratuity funds allowed.\n2.\nRemand on Lease Expenses:\no\nTribunal remanded for proper re-analysis of lease deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21(e),.20,130,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.219/IB of 2012, decision dated: 6-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asad Asam FCA. Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN REVENUE AUTOMATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 84 = 2013 SLD 84 = (2013) 107 TAX 186 = 2013 SCMR 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "ISAF-NATO Container Pilferage\n1.\nFBR Accountability:\no\nSupreme Court directed FBR and Federal Tax Ombudsman to recover significant losses and implement recommendations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(1),11(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=184(3) ", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos. 2243 and 3683 of 2012 in S.M.C. No.16 of 2010, decision dated: 4-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ, GULZAR AHMED, SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court, for FBR on Court Notice", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 102 = 1982 SLD 102 = (1982) 45 TAX 1 = 1982 SCMR 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Appeal in Tax Cases\n•\nLeave granted to examine if a claim under Section 10(2)(xvi) was valid or excluded.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 560 to 570 of 1975, decision dated: 25-02-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Zafar Sr. Advocate and Y.H. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record, for the petitioner, in all cases. Respondent not represented, in all cases", + "Party Name:": "MESSES ATTOCK OIL Co. LTD., RAWALPINDI \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 456 = 1983 SLD 456 = (1983) 48 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax as Deduction\n1.\nDeduction Allowability:\no\nWealth tax paid on house property considered an annual charge and allowable as a deduction.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9(1)(iv),3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 2914 to 2916 of 1977-78 (Assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77), decision dated: 29-12-1980. dated 2-6-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT (NOW CHAIRMAN) ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Salam, C.A., for the Appellant. Aftab Ahmad, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 457 = 1983 SLD 457 = (1983) 48 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Escaped Assessment\n1.\nTax Liability Established:\no\nAssessee, engaged in manufacturing abrasive tools, failed to file sales tax returns or pay sales tax. Section 28 provisions were applicable.\n2.\nFormality Issues:\no\nMisdescription of the section in the assessment order and non-prescribed forms (e.g., SST-15) did not invalidate proceedings.\n3.\nService of Notice:\no\nProper service of notice (Form SST-24) was a condition precedent, and compliance with Section 28 was duly met.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(1),10(3) Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=39,28(1)(a),28 ", + "Case #": "S. T. A. Nos. 49(KB) ; 50(KB) and 67 (KB) to 70(KB) of 1979-80 (Assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78), decision dated: 18-12-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Shahban, Advocate, for the Appellant. Abrar Ahmad, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 85 = 2013 SLD 85 = 2013 PTCL 298 = 2013 PTD 1620 = (2013) 108 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Audit of Self-Assessments\n1.\nCommissioner’s Powers:\no\nUnder Section 177, the Commissioner can initiate a tax audit but must provide reasons to the taxpayer in advance.\n2.\nIndependent Provisions:\no\nSections 177 and 214(c) operate independently; Section 214(c) governs the Federal Board’s oversight, not Commissioner’s audits.\n3.\nHigh Court Decision:\no\nThe petition challenging the audit was dismissed, affirming the constitutionality of Sections 177 and 214(c).\nCitation:\n•\nChenone Stores Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue (2012 PTD 1815).", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,199 Finance Act, 2010=214C ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 139/2012, announced on 12-03-2013, hearing DATE : 23rd January, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE RIAZ AHMAD KHAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirdar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, Ayyaz Shaukat M. Raheel Kamran Sheikh, Boshir Hussain Accountant (in Writ Petition No. 731 of 2011), Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, in his own petitions as well as on behalf of Ahmed Bashir, Atif Waheed Sh., Shahbaz Butt, Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Syed Tanseer Bukhari, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Sheikh Azfar Ameen for Petitioners.\nTariq Mahmood Jehangir D.A.G. for Attorney General for Pakistan, Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, Farhat Zafar, Babar Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, Hafiz Munawar Iqbal, Muhammad Irshad Chaudhary, Saleem Raza Qureshi, Farakh Aftab Chaudhary, Mian Touqeer Aslam and Syed Touqeer Bukhari,s.", + "Party Name:": "OMV PAKISTAN EXPLORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 104 = 1982 SLD 104 = (1982) 45 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Non-Resident Companies\n1.\nAdditional Depreciation:\no\nAssessee, a non-resident shipping company, was denied additional depreciation under Rule 9(2), which was declared ultra vires of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nLegislative Delegation:\no\nDepreciation allowances cannot exceed statutory limits unless explicitly authorized by the Act.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=1010(2)(vi), ", + "Case #": "Application No. 125 of 1972, decision dated: 23-6-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, for the Applicant. Mohammad Hasan, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHITTAGONG ZONE, CHITTAGONG\nvs\nEVERETT ORIENT LINES INC., CHITTAGONG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 660 = 1999 SLD 660 = (1999) 79 TAX 77 = 1999 PLD 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Assets Tax\n1.\nSalient Features:\no\nTax was levied as a one-time charge on companies holding assets worth Rs. 50 million or more.\n2.\nConstitutional Validity:\no\nLevy upheld under the Federal Legislative List, despite contentions about discrimination and its gross-value basis.\nCitation:\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (1997 SCMR 582).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1997=12 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1637 of 1992, decision dated: 30-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "lmtiaz R. Siddiqui, Advocate, for the Petitioner\nMuhammad Ilya Khan and Shahbaz Butt, Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ICC TEXTILES LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 661 = 1999 SLD 661 = (1999) 79 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Leased Assets\n1.\nLeased Asset Depreciation:\no\nBanking companies could only offset depreciation against lease rental income, not other income streams.\n2.\nCarry-Forward Provisions:\no\nUnabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and adjusted in subsequent years.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 22-4-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. SIBTAIN, AC COURTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHARTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Jamshed D. H, and Chaman Lal, D. C. I. T. , for the Appellant. Fatehali W. Vellani Abdul Mateen, Miss Dhaleh Akbar; Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 662 = 1999 SLD 662 = (1999) 79 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Precedence of Supreme Court Decisions\n1.\nPrecedence Principle:\no\nLarger bench decisions prevail in cases of conflict.\n2.\nSalary to Managing Partners:\no\nSalary paid to managing partners was taxable as individual income, not as income of the HUF.\nCitation:\n•\nR.M. Chidambaram Pillai v. CIT (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2,2(31) Constitution of India=141 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeais Nos. 2108 and 2109 of 1987, decision dated: 1-10-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. S. Ahuja, Ms. Renu George and B. K. Prasad, Advocates, for the Appellants. A. Sharan, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nTRILOK NATH MEHROTRA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 663 = 1999 SLD 663 = (1999) 79 TAX 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Exemption\n1.\nPrivate Trusts and Religious Purpose:\no\nTrusts solely propagating Jain religion and serving a specific group (trust founders) were denied exemptions.\n2.\nState-Specific Expense:\no\nAgricultural income spent outside Kerala was not allowable.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3020(NT) of 1986, decision dated: 8-5-1998, On appeal from the judgment and order dated 6-2-1986, of the Kerala High Court, passed in A. I. T. R. No. 337 of 1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D. P. WADHWA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Prakash, Advocate, for the Appellant. T. L. V. Lyer Senior Advocate, with Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "STATE OF KERALA\nvs\nM. P. SHANTI VERMA JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 101 = 1980 SLD 101 = (1980) 42 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trust Property and Tax Exemption\n1.\nScope of Property :\no\nThe term includes businesses, cash deposits, and securities held under trust.\n2.\nWaqf Income:\no\nIncome from a waqf for religious or charitable purposes is exempt if applied or set aside for such purposes.\nCase Reference:\n•\nTrustees of Tribune Press v. CIT (AIR 1939 PC 208).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(i) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-17 of 1971, decision dated: 10-3-1980. dates of hearing : 19th, 20th and 21st, January 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., G. SAFDAR SHAH, KARAM ELAHI CHAUHAN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASSAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K, Brohi, Senior, Advocate Supreme Court, S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record, Athar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and TanziI ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellate \nIqbal Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "HAMDARD DAWAKHANA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 496 = 1980 SLD 496 = (1981) 43 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Entertainment Duty as Trading Receipt\n1.\nNature of Liability:\no\nEntertainment duty collected by the assessee on behalf of the government, but not remitted, retained its character as a liability and was not taxable as income.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35,23(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151 ", + "Case #": "M. A. No. 11-A(KB) of 1979-80 (Assessment year 1975-76), decision dated: 30-3-1980, hearing DATE : 29-1-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHMAMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha and Mohammad Naseem, Advocates, for Applicant. Shakat Zaidi, D. R.,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 497 = 1980 SLD 497 = (1981) 43 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Commission as Allowable Expense\n1.\nExecutive Director’s Commission:\no\nCommission paid to an Executive Director who was also a shareholder was allowed as an expense under Section 10(2)(xvi) for remuneration and not under Section 10(2)(x).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(x),10(2)(XVI) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 662 of 1976-77 (Assessment year 1969-70)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFZALUL HAQUE, PRESDIENT, AND M. KABIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Gazi Ali Ahmed, I.T.P. for the Appellant, Lehaj-ud-Din Ahmed, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 477 = 2008 SLD 477 = (2008) 98 TAX 211 = (2007) 288 ITR 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=22 ", + "Case #": "TAX CASE APPEAL NOS. 260 AND 261 OF 2006 AND T. C. M. P. NO. 1284 OF 2006, MARCH 1, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P.D. DINAKARAN AND P.P.S, JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nS.M. Anandvel (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 87 = 2013 SLD 87 = (2013) 107 TAX 618 = 2013 PTD 1656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake\n1.\nScope of Rectification:\no\nLimited to mistakes apparent on record that can be detected without investigation or new arguments.\n2.\nTribunal Decision:\no\nDepartment’s plea lacked merit, as no glaring mistake was evident; rectification request was rejected.\nCitation:\n•\n1988 PTD 612, 2008 PTD 253, 2007 PTD 967.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,66A,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.210/LB of 2012, decision dated: 6-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, MIAN MASOOD AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Nasir Ali Gilani. Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 88 = 2013 SLD 88 = (2013) 107 TAX 253 = 2013 PTD 1620 = 2013 PTCL 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Audit Powers\n1.\nIndependence of Provisions:\no\nSections 177 and 214(c) are independent. Section 214(c) is not subordinate to Section 177.\n2.\nAudit Procedure:\no\nCommissioner must provide reasons before initiating an audit.\n3.\nHigh Court Decision:\no\nPetition dismissed; Sections 177 and 214(c) upheld as non-discriminatory.\nCitation:\n•\nChenone Stores Ltd. v. FBR (2012 PTD 1815).", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(1),122(4),174(2),174(6),174(8),175,176,177,177(1),177(1)(a),177(1)(b),214C,214C(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 139/2012, decision dated: 12-3-2013, hearing DATE : 23-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Sirdar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, Ayyaz Shaukat M. Raheel Kamran Sheikh, Boshir Hussain Accountant (in Writ Petition No. 731 of 2011), Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, in his own petitions as well as on behalf of Ahmed Bashir, Atif Waheed Sh., Shahbaz Butt, Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Syed Tanseer Bukhari, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Sheikh Azfar Ameen\nRespondent(s) by: Tariq Mahmood Jehangir D.A.G. for Attorney General for Pakistan, Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, Farhat Zafar, Babar Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, Hafiz Munawar Iqbal, Muhammad Irshad Chaudhary, Saleem Raza Qureshi, Farakh Aftab Chaudhary, Mian Touqeer Aslam and Syed Touqeer Bukhari", + "Party Name:": "OMV PAKISTAN EXPLORATION\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 664 = 1999 SLD 664 = (1999) 80 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Simplified Self-Assessment Scheme (SAS)\n1.\nCompliance with Circular No. 5 (1997):\no\nAssessee’s return met requirements, including presumptive income calculations.\n2.\nClarifications by CBR:\no\nInterpretations conflicting with SAS lacked legal authority.\nCitation:\n•\nCentral Insurance Co. v. CBR (1993) 68 Tax 86.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(B),80C3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 683/KB, of 1998-99, (Assessment year 1997-98), decision dated: 25-3-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, TAHSEEN AHMED BHARTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zar Khalil D.R., for the Appellants. Javed Zakaria, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 665 = 1999 SLD 665 = (1999) 80 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Orders Under Article 199(4) of the Constitution\n1.\nScope of Interim Orders:\no\nOrders must not impede public works or revenue collection, except under jurisdictional error.\n2.\nSix-Month Limitation:\no\nInterim orders under Article 199(4A) are valid for six months, with no extensions permitted.\nCitation:\n•\nMessrs Siddique Trust v. Income Tax Officer (1987 CLC 2366).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,199(4)(b),(4A) ", + "Case #": "On appeal from the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2910 1998, in C. M 1-2/97 in W. P. No. 1046/93, decision dated: 22-2-1999,", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C, J., SH. RIAZ AHMAD AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner (in C. P. No, 2112L of 1998). M. A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners (in C. Ps. No. 1539 to 1545 of 1998)\nMuhammad Akram Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Zaidi Advocate on-Records/Petitioners (in C. As. Nos. 1639 of 1997, 308 of 1998 and C. Ps. NOS. 1920L, 192BL, 1932L to 1943L, 1403 to 1406,1415, 1419 to 1424, 1478 to 1481, 1504 to 1538, 1550 to 1555 of 199B; 39 and 217 to 235 of 1999)\nAbdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and N. C. MoRani, Advocate on-Record (absents (in C. As. Nos. 1536 and 1537 of 1998)\nAkhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate on-Record, Naveed Rasoof, Advocate Supreme Court and M,A. Oureshi, Advocate on-Records (In C. A. No. 1295 of 1998 ands Nos. 3 and 4 (In CA. No. 1537 to 1998 ands 2 and 3 in CA. No. 1536 1998).\nHamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Petitioners ( in C. Ps. No. 1857L and 1865L of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "Zahur TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 666 = 1999 SLD 666 = (1999) 80 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Export Proceeds\n1.\nTax Deduction Validity:\no\nDeduction of 1% tax from export proceeds was deemed invalid for cotton yarn as it was manufactured in Pakistan.\n2.\nStrict Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes:\no\nAmbiguities resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\nCitation:\n•\nCollector of Customs Karachi v. Messrs Abdul Majeed Khan (1977 SCMR 377).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5A) ", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 12593 of 1999, decision dated: 19-8-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Omer Aziz Khan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ASIM TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE & OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 667 = 1999 SLD 667 = (1999) 80 TAX 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prosecution for Tax Evasion\n1.\nMens Rea Requirement:\no\nProsecution must establish intent to evade tax under Sections 276C and 277.\n2.\nHigh Court’s Error:\no\nConviction overturned due to insufficient evidence and failure to consider Sessions Judge’s findings.\nCitation:\n•\nI.T.O. v. Prem Dass (1992) 198 ITR 93.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=132 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 1992, decision dated: 9-2-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GB. PATTANAIK AND M, B. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Harish Salve, Senior Advocate, (V Shekhar, Advocate, with him), for the Appellant. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, B. K, Parsad and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him), for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PREM DASS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 668 = 1999 SLD 668 = (1999) 80 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment on Death of Partner\n1.\nSeparate Assessments Valid:\no\nFirms dissolved on partner's death require separate assessments under Section 187(2), retroactive amendment confirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=187(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 12 of 1982, decided 23-1-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J. S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ms. Luxmi Iyengar and S. N. Terdof, Advocates, for the Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nAYYANARAPPAN AND CO. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 670 = 1999 SLD 670 = (1999) 80 TAX 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessment\n1.\nUndervaluation of Stock:\no\nReopening valid due to suppression of material facts. Sufficiency of evidence not considered at notice stage.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1972 to 1992 with Civil Appeal No. 1973 of 1992, decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMAD QUADRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Vellapally, for the Appellant", + "Party Name:": "RAYMOND WOOREN MILLS LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 671 = 1999 SLD 671 = (1999) 80 TAX 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Returns\n1.\nContention Rejected:\no\nAssessee’s claim of income assessable under HUF required careful examination; revision petition referred back for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=264 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3914 to 1986, decision dated: 22-1-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B. N. KIRPAL AND S. P. KURDUKAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SAJAN KUMAR BHAWSINKA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 518 = 1997 SLD 518 = (1996) 75 TAX 117 = 1997 PTD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adequate Remedy for Appeal\n1.\nHigh Court Jurisdiction:\no\nConstitutional petitions not allowed where adequate statutory remedies are available under Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1069 of 1996. Decided on 14-10-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED IBNE ALI, C.J. AND, JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rauf Rohaila for Petitioner. Special Officer Income Tax etc.s", + "Party Name:": "HAJI GULA KHAN\nvs\nSPECIAL OFFICER, Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 679 = 1999 SLD 679 = (1999) 80 TAX 293 = (1999) 236 ITR 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Recovery and Arbitrator’s Award\n1.\nAttachment Validity:\no\nAttachment by TRO was valid as the arbitrator’s award creating a charge became effective only after court approval.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=220 ", + "Case #": "C.A. NOS. 2109 OF 1978 AND 1083 OF 1980, MARCH 13, 1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J.D. Jain and K.C. Dua for the Appellant. Dr. R.R. Mishra, S.N. Terdol and M.T. George for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Delhi Auto & General Finance (P.) Ltd.\nv.\nTax Recovery Officer" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 549 = 1998 SLD 549 = (1998) 78 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment and Jurisdiction of High Court\n1.\nJurisdiction Unchanged:\no\nAmended Section 136 preserved High Court’s jurisdiction without altering its fundamentals.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66(1),66(2),66(5),135,136,137 Limitation Act, 1908=5 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=98 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 11 of 1998, decision dated: 26-6-1998. dates of hearing: 25-5-1998, 26-5-1998, 28-5-1998 and 29-5-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND MIAN TARIQ MAHMOOD, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Ali Sabtain Fazli lmran Aziz and Syed lbrar Hussain Naqvi, Advocates, for the Appellant. Kh. SaeeduzZafan D. A. G. And Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents. Muhammad ilyas Khan and Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocates, as amicus Curaie", + "Party Name:": "IRAM GHEE MILLS (PVT. ) LTD. , LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 550 = 1998 SLD 550 = (1998) 78 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange and Customs Concessions\n1.\nConditions for Concessions:\no\nForeign exchange remitted outside regular banking channels disqualified the petitioner from customs duty concessions.\nCitation:\n•\nHudabiya Engineering (Pvt) Ltd. v. Pakistan (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4036 of 1997, decision dated: 20-7-1998, hearing DATE : 3-7-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHRY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Abdul Karim Malik, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "AFTAB (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 551 = 1998 SLD 551 = (1998) 78 TAX 234 = 1998 PTCL 690", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Presumptive Tax Provisions\n1.\nLegislative Power:\no\nSections 80C, 80CC, and 80D validly inserted; deemed income taxation upheld.\n2.\nNon-Confiscatory Nature:\no\nRates not expropriatory; provisions aim to curb evasion and broaden tax base.\nCitation:\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),50(5),80,80C,80CC,80D ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-999, 1004, 1111, 11133, 1134, 1157, 1158, 1163, 1171 to 1176, 1206 to 1208, 1210, 121510, 1672 to 1682, 1688 to 1693 of 1993, decision dated: 13-6-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, MAMOON KAZI AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Slrajul Haque Memon, Khalid Anwan Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Muhammad Maseem Khan, M. Farogh Naseem, Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Liaqat Merchant Fazle Ghani Khan, Mansoorul Arfin, Mohsin Tayyeb Ali Muhammad AlI Sayeed Tariq Jawaid Umer A, Bandial Rehan Hasan Naqvi Mrs. MaLida Rizvi Iqbal Kazi Khalil ul Rahman, M. Athar Saeed Muqtada Karim, Shaikh Abdul Aziz; Dr Nasim Ahmad Khan, Hyder Raza NaqvL Shams-ud-Din Khalid M. Azam Khan, Muhammad Mazhar-Ul-Hassan, Akbar Saad Irfan Saadaq Khan, Muhammad Farid Naimtoolah Khan, Suitan M. Tan0R Salim-ud-Din Ahmad M. MuzaffaruL Haq, Akhtar Ali Mahmood Abdul Karim Mangrani Mazhar Jafri M. Ashraf Malik, Iqbal Salman Pasha, Fasih-ud-Din Ahmad Shahanshah Hussain, S. Nasir H. Zaidi Sabih-ud-Din Ahmad Said-ud-Din Ahmad, A. Aziz, Muneerur Rehman, Ali Akban Jawaid Ahmad Siddiqui, S. Rehamruliah Oadri, S. Musawar Ali, Ismail Padhian M. Aziz Malik, Riaz Hussain Baloch, Ali Munaza Hussain, M. Akmal Wasim, H. A. Jafri, Bashir A. Sheikh, M. A. Essani, Sadiq Khan and S. Ishtiaq Aii, Advocates, for the Petitioners. lkram Ahmad Ansari, D. A. G. , Naimur Rehman, Shaikh Haiden M. G. Hasan, Nasrullah Awan and Abrar Hassan, Advocates, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN BURMA SHELL LTD. , ETC\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF A FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD, etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 713 = 2001 SLD 713 = 2001 MLD 1101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Remand of Cases\n1.\nJudgment Without Jurisdiction:\no\nA judgment or order without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be ignored entirely.\n2.\nAppellate Court’s Remand Powers:\no\nIf sufficient material exists, the appellate court should decide the case rather than remanding it.\n3.\nPecuniary Jurisdiction and Conversion of Suit:\no\nLower Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction when converting the suit for specific performance after valuing the suit at Rs. 2,60,000, as its appellate jurisdiction was capped at Rs. 50,000.\n4.\nVoid Orders:\no\nOnce an order is declared void for lack of jurisdiction, it cannot be validated by any appellate or revisional authority.\nCitation:\n•\nAhmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1971 SC 762), Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia (PLD 1958 SC 104).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-237,O.XLI,R.237 West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)=9 ", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.286 of 1991, decision dated: 17-03-2001, hearing DATE : 25-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hassan Farooqi for Applicant. Khalilur Rehman", + "Party Name:": "WAJAHAT HUSSAIN \nvs\nAFTAB AHMED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 89 = 2013 SLD 89 = (2013) 108 TAX 425 = 2013 PTCL 563 = 2013 PTD 1012", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delegation of Powers under Income Tax Ordinance\n1.\nDelegation of Powers:\no\nDelegation of powers by the Commissioner Inland Revenue to Additional Commissioners is valid and necessary for administrative efficiency.\n2.\nAssessment Notices:\no\nAdditional Commissioners can issue notices under Section 122, as delegation does not amount to abdication of the Commissioner’s powers.\n3.\nStatutory Interpretation:\no\nRedundancy in statutes is avoided, and delegation provisions align with the scheme of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitation:\n•\nCIT v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (2009 SCMR 1279), PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(3),2(12),114(2),114,120,120(1),122,122A,1225A,209,209(2),210,211 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-3048, D-2061, D-2180, D-2643, D-2648, D-3496, D-3954 and D-2705 of 2011 and D-231 and D-1498 of 2012, decision dated: 20-03-2013. dates of hearing: 24th, 25th, 26-04-3rd, 4th and 7th May of 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAISAL ARAB AND NADEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Advocate\nNaveed Andrabi and Anwar Kashif, Advocates\nSaleem Mangrio, Advocate\nChaman Lal, Advocate\nMuhammad Usman, Advocate\nMuhammad Altaf Mun, Javed Farooqi, Kafeel Abbasi Advocates", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHELL (PAKISTAN) LTD. through Associate Legal Counsel\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 90 = 2013 SLD 90 = (2013) 108 TAX 185 = 2013 SCMR 587 = 2013 PTD 1023", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Void Orders and Limitation\n1.\nVoid Orders:\no\nThe rule that limitation does not run against a void order is not inflexible; challenges must occur within prescribed time limits after knowledge of the order.\n2.\nSupreme Court Review:\no\nThe Supreme Court cannot function as an appellate court in its review jurisdiction.\nCitation:\n•\nChief Settlement Commissioner v. Muhammad Fazil (PLD 1975 SC 331), Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P. (PLD 1997 SC 397).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petitions Nos.47-L to 49-L of 2012 in Civil Petitions Nos. 1691-L to 1693-L of 2008, decision dated: 9-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TASSADAQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BLUE STAR SPINNING MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 92 = 2013 SLD 92 = 2013 PTD 1056", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation, Assessments, and Limitations\n1.\nDepreciation Adjustment:\no\nUnabsorbed depreciation from tax holiday periods is carried forward as per statutory provisions before amendments in R.1(3A).\n2.\nBarred by Limitation:\no\nTaxation officers’ orders issued beyond the statutory limitation period are invalid.\n3.\nRectification of Mistakes:\no\nRelief sought as rectification, which essentially constitutes a review, falls outside the mandate of Section 156.\n4.\nAmortization of Intangible Assets:\no\nAmortization of computer software over three years deemed reasonable due to rapid technological advancements.\nCitation:\n•\nCIT v. Azlak Enterprises (2003 PTD 1309), 2010 PTD 1506.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,ThirdSched,R.1(3A),22,23,24,25,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 208 and 241(PB) of 2011, decision dated: 1st December, 2011, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Badshah Wazir and Mir Alam Khan, L/DRss. Khaliq-ur-Rahman, FCA with Abdul Sattar Jomanis", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL) Zone-I, R.T.O., PESHAWAR\nvs\nMessrs GADOON TEXTILE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 93 = 2013 SLD 93 = 2013 PTD 1083", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendments of Assessments\n1.\nApplicability of Section 122:\no\nSection 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot be applied to assessments before 1-7-2003.\n2.\nDefinite Information Requirement:\no\nInvoking Section 122 requires new and specific information not previously considered during assessments.\n3.\nRelief Under Section 124A:\no\nThe Commissioner is obligated to follow prior rulings to avoid repetitive appeals on settled issues.\nCitation:\n•\nCIT v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (2009 SCMR 1279), Model Town Society Ltd. v. ITAT (2006 PTD 2456).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,Rr.5(1),5(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 914/LB to 916/LB, 1121/LB to 1123/LB of 2009 893/LB, 1052/LB to 1054/LB, 1090/LB to 1092/LB, 930/LB, of 2010, 3292/LB of 2004, 1328/LB, 5510/LB, 7141/LB, 7142/LB of 2005, M.A. No. 146/LB of 2011 and M.A. (Con) No.1/LB of 2012, decision dated: 7-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farrukh Majeed, DR and Muhammad Tahir DRs. Farrukh Majeed, D.R. for Muhammad Tahir, D.R.s Dr. lkramul Haq and Mansoor Begs", + "Party Name:": "BANK ALHABIB LIMITED, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 94 = 2013 SLD 94 = (2013) 108 TAX 113 = 2013 PTD 1121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment and Penalty\n1.\nAdjustment of Loss from Association of Persons (AOP):\no\nThe taxpayer’s claim to adjust losses from an AOP against salary income was disallowed. Gains from the sale of immovable property were classified as an adventure in the nature of trade, falling under taxable business income.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance and confirmed that the sale income was taxable.\n2.\nDeletion of Addition under Section 111:\no\nThe addition made under Section 111 (undisclosed income) was deleted after accepting the taxpayer's reconciliation.\n3.\nPenalty Modification:\no\nThe penalty imposed under Section 182(1) was modified to reflect the reduction in income after deletions.\n4.\nCapital Gain Claim Rejected:\no\nThe taxpayer contended that the gain from immovable property was exempt from tax under Section 37(5), as immovable property was excluded from the definition of capital assets. This argument was rejected.\n5.\nTribunal’s Findings:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the decisions on AOP adjustments and penalty modifications but ruled partially in favor of the taxpayer for deletions under Section 111.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.As. Nos.25, 26, 27/KB of 2012, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1700, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1733.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1)(9),120,177,37(5),111,182 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 87/KB, 22/KB to 24/KB of 2012, decision dated: 20-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FAHEEM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aleems (in I.T.A. No. 87/KB of 2012). Mumtaz Ali Bohyo, D.R.s (in I.T.A. No. 87/KB of 2012). Mumtaz Ali Bohyo, D.R.s (in 1.T.As. Nos. 22/KB to 24/KB of 2012). Muhammad Aleems (in I.T.As. Nos. 22/KB to 24/KB of 2012)", + "Party Name:": "YAWAR BADAT, KARACHI and another\nvs\nOIR, U-8 ADIII (RTO), KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 95 = 2013 SLD 95 = (2013) 107 TAX 663 = 2013 PTD 1127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depletion Allowance, Decommissioning Costs, and Re-computation\n1.\nDepletion Allowance:\no\nThe taxpayer was denied depletion allowance as oil and gas reserves, being State property, were not owned by the taxpayer. However, the taxpayer was entitled to depreciation on fixed assets such as machinery.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the department's stance.\n2.\nDecommissioning Costs:\no\nCosts for decommissioning were disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal, referencing established legal precedents.\n3.\nRe-computation and Arbitration Orders:\no\nThe Assessing Officer failed to implement arbitration orders and appellate directions. The Tribunal directed a fresh computation of income with due credit for taxes paid.\n4.\nJurisdiction under Section 122(5A):\no\nThe taxpayer’s claim that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction without delegation was dismissed. The Tribunal held the proceedings valid as the Additional Commissioner acted within his authority.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.As. Nos.433 to 436/IB of 2008, Messrs Elli Lilly (Pvt.) Ltd., CPD No.3048 of 2010.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FifthSched Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 306/IB to 309/IB, 209/IB, 210/IB, 1348/IB to 1350/IB, 203-A/IB, 205/IB, 1074/IB, 1075/IB, 251/IB, 252/IB, 171/IB, 381/IB, 390/IB, 391/IB of 2004 and 574/IB, 204/IB of 2006, decision dated: 20th,February, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSH KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Khan, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 306/IB, 307/IB, 308/IB, 309/IB, 209/IB, 210/IB of 2004 and 574/IB of 2006)\n Khalid Mehmood, FCA (in I.T.As. Nos. 306/IB, 307/IB, 308/IB, 309/IB, 209/IB, 210/IB of 2004 and 574/IB of 2006)\n Khalid Mehmood, FCA (in I.T.As. Nos. 1348/IB, 1349/IB, 1350/IB, 203-A/IB, 205/IB, 1074/IB, 1075/IB, 251/IB, 252/IB, 171/IB, 389/IB, 390/IB and 391/IB of 2004 and 204/IB of 2006)\n Tahir Khan, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos. 1348/IB, 1349/IB, 1350/IB, 203-A/IB, 205/IB, 1074/IB, 1075/IB, 251/IB, 252/IB, 171/IB, 389/IB, 390/IB and 391/IB of 2004 and 204/IB of 2006)", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs O.G.D.C. (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 96 = 2013 SLD 96 = 2013 PTD 1140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Revision and Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF)\n1.\nLimitation under Sections 66A and 122(5A):\no\nOrders revising assessments for tax years 1996-97 and 1997-98 under Section 66A were held invalid due to expiration of the statutory limitation period.\no\nAttempts to invoke Section 122(5A) for taxing bonus shares were similarly dismissed, aligning with prior Supreme Court judgments.\n2.\nExemption from WWF:\no\nThe taxpayer, a public limited company with over 60% government ownership, was exempted from WWF under Section 2(f)(vi) of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.\nCitations:\n•\n2009 PTD 662, PLD 2007 SC 308.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,2(f)(vi),4 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "1.T.As. Nos. 26/KB, 27/KB and 693/KB of 2011, decision dated: 20th, February, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHARTI, CHAIRMAN AND FAHEEM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Khuram (in I.T.As. Nos. 26/KB and 27/KB of 2011). Badar-ud-Din-Qureshi, D.Ri (in I.T.As. Nos. 26/KB and 27/KB of 2011). Badar-ud-Din-Qureshi, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 693/KB of 2011). Jawaid Khuram (in I.T.A. No. 693/KB of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nACIR-E, AIT (LTU), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 97 = 2013 SLD 97 = (2013) 107 TAX 650 = 2013 PTD 1152 = 2013 PTCL 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Limitation in Assessments\n1.\nStatutory Limitation:\no\nThe department amended assessments after the five-year limitation under Section 122(2), claiming retrospective applicability of amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2009.\no\nThe Tribunal ruled that the amendments were procedural and could not override taxpayers’ vested rights under the law prevailing at the time of filing returns.\n2.\nAssessment Annulment:\no\nThe amendment made on 30-6-2012, well beyond the limitation of 1-2-2011, was declared void ab initio.\nCitations:\n•\nZakria H.A Sattar Bilwani v. IACWT/Range-II (2003 PTD 52).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(2),120 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 818/IB of 2012, decision dated: 22-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Khan, D.R.. Muddassir Khalid, FCA.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs ZHONGXING TELECOM, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 1367 = 1981 SLD 1367 = (1981) 44 TAX 75 = 1981 PTD 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Valuation under Wealth Tax Rules\n1.\nImproper Valuation of Property and Jewelry:\no\nArbitrary estimates of property and jewelry valuations by the Wealth Tax Officer, without compliance with Rule 8(3), were annulled.\no\nThe Tribunal remanded the case for fresh proceedings, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W. T. A. As. Nos. 26-KB to 30-KB of 1978-79, decision dated: 22-04-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Abbas Ali Siddiqui. Feroze Shah, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 688 = 1982 SLD 688 = (1982) 45 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability for Cotton Ginning\n1.\nResponsibility for Sales Tax:\no\nA dispute arose over whether the ginner or the untraceable wholesaler was liable to pay sales tax. Leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court for interpreting Sections 3 and 9 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17(1),9,9(2),9(5),3(c),3 ", + "Case #": "C.P.S.L.A. No. 771 of 1976. March 8, 1980, hearing DATE : March 3, 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN, SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Jafari and Sh. A. Karim Advocate-on-Record, for the petitioners. Nemo for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM RASUL\nvs\nTHE Income Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 689 = 1982 SLD 689 = (1982) 45 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Interest as Business Expenditure\n1.\nInterest on Gifts to Minors:\no\nInterest paid on amounts gifted to minors and credited to their accounts was held deductible under Sections 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),10(2)(iii),66(A) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 32-P, 33-P and 34-P of 1972, decision dated: 15-3-1981. dates of hearing: 10-12-1980 and 15-12-1980. On appeal from the judgment and order dated 4-10-1971 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in reference application Nos. 62 to 64 of 1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL, DR. NASIM HASAN SHAH AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amirzada Khan, A.O.R. for the Appellant. Zahoorul Haq, A.S.C. and S. Safdar Hussain. A.O.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nM. BAHAR AHMAD AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 690 = 1982 SLD 690 = (1982) 45 TAX 222 = 1982 PTD 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Limitation and Refund Claims\n1.\nBarred Appeals:\no\nAppeals filed beyond the limitation period were dismissed as no satisfactory cause for delay was provided.\n2.\nRefund of Sales Tax:\no\nClaims for refunds were denied due to the taxpayer's failure to substantiate evidence of payments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,27(1),15(3) ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 1006 of 1973, decision dated: 24-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAIMUDDIN ACTG. C.J. AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Faruqui, for the Petitioner. Iqbal Kazi, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TOILET WORKS\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 691 = 1982 SLD 691 = (1982) 46 TAX 27 = 1982 PTD 128 = 1982 PLD 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bar on Civil Suits for Tax Matters\n1.\nCivil Court Jurisdiction:\no\nA suit seeking to restrain tax recovery was barred under Section 67 of the Income Tax Act. Courts emphasized that such disputes must be addressed through statutory forums.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=67 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=162 Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=114 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1981, decision dated: 13-03-1982. DATE of institution: 16-11-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. Muzaffar Ali Bhatti,s", + "Party Name:": "BASHIR AHMAD FAROOQI\nvs\nTEHSILDAR, MUZAFFARABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 692 = 1982 SLD 692 = (1982) 46 TAX 48 = 1982 PLD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Hammer Work Products\n1.\nSteel Almirahs Exempted:\no\nSteel almirahs manufactured predominantly using hammer work were held exempt from sales tax, as per Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 1972. December 12, 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, A.C.J., SHAH NAWAZ KHAN AND SHAFIUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan Advocate and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, AOR, for the appellant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nGENERAL EQUIPMENT MERCHANTS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 693 = 1982 SLD 693 = (1982) 46 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Refund on Packing Materials\n1.\nClaim Denied:\no\nThe taxpayer’s claim for a refund of sales tax paid on packing materials used for exempt products (guar-gum) was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17(2),17(1),4 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 77 of 1972, decision dated: 23-12-1981, hearing DATE : 16-12-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR A. ZAHID AND A. N. BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan, for the Applicant. Mrs. Rashida Patel, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nHAJI E. DOSSA & SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 694 = 1982 SLD 694 = (1982) 46 TAX 113 = 1982 PLD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Director’s Remuneration\n1.\nRemuneration Not Bona Fide:\no\nPayments made to a director without clear contributions to the business were disallowed, lacking commercial justification.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(1)(xvi),66(1),66(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 24 and 25 of 1972, decision dated: 13-4-1982. On appeal from the judgment and order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 9-3-1970 in Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 967 and 968 of 1970.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND ZAFFAR HUDDAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate and M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record,. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate,", + "Party Name:": "S. M. ILYAS ANS SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 695 = 1982 SLD 695 = (1982) 46 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-qualifying Trading Loss\n1.\nLoss from Discounted Share Sale:\no\nA 30% discount on the sale of shares was ruled not to constitute trading loss or bad debt as per statutory definitions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),10(2)(xi),10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1972 and Civil petition No. 387 of 1969 decided on 26-1-1982. On appeal from the judgment and order dated 10-9-1969 of the former High Court of West Pakistan, passed in Civil Reference No. 5 of 1963", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTING C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, M.S.H. QURAISHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court, Instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ROBERTS COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NORTH ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 696 = 1982 SLD 696 = (1982) 46 TAX 147 = 1980 PTD 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Registration Renewal\n1.\nLimitation and Condonation:\no\nApplications for renewal of registration filed after the statutory deadline were rejected, affirming strict adherence to time limits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A(1),66(1),33(4) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference no. 204 of 1973, decision dated: 27-1-1980, hearing DATE : 23-1-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.S.H. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sahibzada Rashid Masood, for the Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MINHAS INDUSTRIES, WAZIRABAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 697 = 1982 SLD 697 = (1982) 46 TAX 165 = 1982 PTD 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bulk Valuation of Business Properties\n1.\nBusiness Income from Rentals:\no\nRental income earned by a company was classified as business income, subject to bulk valuation under Wealth Tax Rules.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(9),8(3) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27,2(e) Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4),10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1981, decision dated: 2-12-1981. On appeal from the judgment and order dated 10-6-1980 passed by the High Court Division in Application No. 155 of 1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KEMALUDDIN HOSSAIN, C.J., FAZLE MUNIM, RUHUL ISLAM, BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY AND SHAHABUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, Advocate instructed by Md. Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellant. Rafiqul Haq, Senior Advocate, instructed by Syed Sakhawat Ali, Advocate-on-Record, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, CHITTAGONG ZONE\nvs\nFREE SCHOOL STREET PROPERTIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 104 = 1980 SLD 104 = (1980) 42 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Foreign Technicians\n1.\nApproval of Contracts:\no\nContracts for foreign technicians within five years of the commencement of an undertaking were eligible for exemptions under Section 4(3)(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(xiii),proviso(ii) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3392 of 1977 decided on 30-10-1979, hearing DATE : 24-10-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL MOHAMMAD KHAN, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Falak Sher for the Petitioner. Akhtar Hussain, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MURREE BREWERY CO. LTD., ETC\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 105 = 1980 SLD 105 = (1980) 42 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973\n1.\nKey Issue: Jurisdiction Challenge via Writ Petition:\no\nA writ petition under Article 199 is competent when the adequacy or efficacy of alternative remedies, such as appeals or references under the Income Tax Act, is questionable. Where the jurisdiction of the authority passing the impugned order is in dispute, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction becomes applicable.\n2.\nRule of Adequate and Efficacious Remedy:\no\nThe writ is inadmissible if an appeal is pending or remedies under the Income Tax Act remain unexhausted unless the remedy is found to be inadequate or ineffective. Questions of jurisdiction override this limitation, validating the writ petition.\n3.\nJudicial Precedents:\no\nCases cited affirm the principle that when jurisdictional questions arise, appellate remedies may not suffice, making writ jurisdiction appropriate.\nCitations:\n•\nS. A. Haroon v. Collector of Customs, Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty, Premier Cloth Mills Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, and others.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,2(6),2(9),218(2),218(3),22,23(4),24(2),24B,24B(3),28,48,49-F,51,34,34(1),53,74,113 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4262 of 1979, decision dated: 8-3-1980. dates of hearing 4th and 8th March 1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFTAB HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussain,.Akhtar Hussain.", + "Party Name:": "BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE V. RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 707 = 1979 SLD 707 = (1980) 41 TAX 14 = 1979 PTD 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance for Idle Machinery\n1.\nKey Issue: Machinery Kept Idle:\no\nDepreciation is denied when machinery is kept idle, even if available for use under a pooling arrangement, as it fails to meet the use for business criterion.\n2.\nDefinition of Used :\no\nThe term implies active utilization for generating income or serving business operations. Merely holding machinery without operational use does not qualify for depreciation.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe claim for depreciation was denied, reinforcing the principle that functional utility and business use are prerequisites.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 116 of 1972 decided on 23-4-1979, hearing DATE : 4-11-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Petitioner. Khalil-ur-Rahman Khan, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nS. MUHAMMAD DIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 253 = 1979 SLD 253 = (1980) 41 TAX 19 = 1979 PLD 739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Anti-Competition Agreements\n1.\nKey Issue: Payments to Prevent Price Wars:\no\nPayments made under agreements with other dealers to avoid price wars and ensure profitability were held as business expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\n2.\nNature of Agreement:\no\nThe agreement was not a joint venture to divide profits but an effort to stabilize market competition, qualifying the expenses as deductible.\nOutcome:\n•\nPayments were considered legitimate business expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 30 of 1970, decision dated: 6-3-1979, hearing DATE : 16/23-8-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND MOHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the Applicant. Ali Athar for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMOOSA OMAR AND CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 107 = 1980 SLD 107 = (1980) 42 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability on Revised Turnover Limits\n1.\nKey Issue: Retrospective Application of Turnover Limits:\no\nReduction of turnover limits for sales tax liability via a subsequent notification cannot adversely affect rights acquired under the previous notification.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe taxpayer’s claim of immunity under the earlier turnover threshold was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=8,8(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 70 of 1978,decided on 18-2-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Utakhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-record for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/SALES TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nKAUSAR ICE FACTORY, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 108 = 1980 SLD 108 = (1980) 42 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership with Minors\n1.\nKey Issue: Validity of Partnerships Including Minors:\no\nA partnership agreement including minors does not invalidate the partnership. Minors are considered admitted to the benefits of the partnership under Section 30 of the Partnership Act, 1932.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe inclusion of minors in partnerships was upheld as valid, ensuring their legal protection and recognition.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 ", + "Case #": "C.Ps. L.A. Nos. 885 and 891 of 1976, decision dated: 13-4-1980, hearing DATE : 8-3-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate, Sh. Riazul Haq, Advocate and Iftakhar-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record, for Petitioner. Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nSH. FEROZE DIN ALLAH BAKHSH, M. RAMZAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 109 = 1980 SLD 109 = (1980) 42 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Tax Amendments\n1.\nKey Issue: Applicability of Amendments:\no\nLeave to appeal was granted to determine whether amendments to Section 26A of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1974, have retrospective effect.\nOutcome:\n•\nAwaiting the Supreme Court’s determination.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26 ", + "Case #": "C.P.S. L.A. No. 19 of 1980, decision dated: 16-3-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DUMB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate, S. Riazul Haque, Advocate and lftikar-ud-Din Ahmad, A.0.R. for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMAHBOOB COTTON FACTORY AND OIL MILLS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 498 = 1980 SLD 498 = (1981) 43 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consolidated Assessments Over Extended Periods\n1.\nKey Issue: Consolidated Assessments:\no\nConsolidated assessments spanning an extended period, such as 15 months, raised questions about their justification under tax law.\n2.\nDelay in Filing Appeals:\no\nThe Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing a special leave petition, recognizing procedural challenges.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(11),66A ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 886 of 1976, decision dated: 02-03-1980. On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1973 in Tax Reference No. 24 of 1967", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court with Riazul Haq Sh. Advocate, Supreme Court and Iftakhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on- Record, for Petitioner. Nemo,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax LAHORE, ZONE, ALHORE\nvs\nSHIHANA PERFUMERY STORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 499 = 1980 SLD 499 = (1981) 43 TAX 34 = 1981 PTD 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Refund on Exempt Products\n1.\nKey Issue: Refund for Packing Materials:\no\nTax paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of exempt products (soap) is non-refundable, as they do not qualify as partly manufactured goods. \nOutcome:\n•\nRefund claims were denied based on strict interpretation of tax provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27(1),2(12),8,7,3,27,2(8) Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=1stSchedule ", + "Case #": "S. T. A. Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 1978-79 (Assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76), decision dated: 18-6-1980, hearing DATE : 10-12-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Humayun Akhtar, D. R.,. Muhammad Ali Khan and Ziaullah Kayani, Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 111 = 1980 SLD 111 = (1980) 42 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Share Transactions\n1.\nKey Issue: Trading vs. Investment in Shares:\no\nProfits from occasional share sales, without evidence of trading intent or regularity, were deemed capital gains rather than business income.\n2.\nDistinction:\no\nThe Memorandum of Association alone does not determine trading activity; actual business conduct must support the classification.\nOutcome:\n•\nProfits were treated as capital accretion, not taxable revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4),4(3)(vii),10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Case No. 1 of 1971 and Income Tax Cases Nos. 82 to 85 of 1971, decision dated: 31-3-1980, hearing DATE : 22-8-1979, 5-9-1979 and 12-9-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PRESIDENTFAKHRUDDIN G, EBRAHIM AND B. G. NI KAZI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Mansoor Ahmed Khans.", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 218 = 1994 SLD 218 = (1994) 70 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interlocutory Orders in Customs Duty Cases\n1.\nKey Issue: Bank Guarantee vs. Cash Deposit:\no\nHigh Court orders requiring cash deposits instead of bank guarantees for disputed customs duty were upheld.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe Supreme Court reinforced the High Court's discretion in such matters.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=18 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for leave to Appeal Nos. 330-K, 334-K to 349-K and 353-K of 1993, decision dated: 2-11-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAMAL MIAN, SAJJAD A/I SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abul Khair Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate on-Record, for the Petitioner. lkram Ahmad Ansari, Advocate/D.A.G., on Court notice", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI and OTHERS\nvs\nABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUR REHMAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 220 = 1994 SLD 220 = (1994) 70 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Imported Goods\n1.\nKey Issue: Waste vs. Serviceable Scrap:\no\nClassification of imported auto parts as scrap hinges on their usability. Serviceable parts cannot be classified as scrap.\nOutcome:\n•\nCustoms authorities were directed to expeditiously determine the classification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 3297 of 1993, decision dated: 24-1-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMMON KAZI AND NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Navin S. Merchant Advocate, for the Petitioner.A. Aziz Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "KHYBER TRADERS\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ETO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 222 = 1994 SLD 222 = (1994) 70 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Remuneration Classification as Salary\n1.\nKey Issue: Employee vs. Other Sources:\no\nRemuneration of managing directors, tied to minimum guaranteed payments, was classified as salary, not income from other sources.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision was overturned, favoring revenue classification.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=15 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Cases No. 94 and 95 of 1990, Decided 4-12-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Haghavendra Rao and M. V. Seshachala, Advocates, for the Applicant. 1994 C.I.T. v. M. S. P. RAJES K.S. Ramabhadran and K. Gajendar Rao, Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM. S. P. RAJES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 223 = 1994 SLD 223 = (1994) 70 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income vs. Capital Gains\n1.\nKey Issue: Sale of Assets:\no\nProfits from the sale of property acquired as a one-off transaction were classified as capital gains, unrelated to business income.\n2.\nDepreciation and Loss Set-Off:\no\nUnabsorbed depreciation and losses from earlier years were allowed for set-off against income from the same business, as job work was deemed a continuation of the same business.\nOutcome:\n•\nProfits treated as capital gains; set-off claims for losses and depreciation upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=32 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 234 of 1977,Decided on 25-11-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr, V. Balasubramaniam, P.S. Jetley and Ms. S. Sengupta, Advocates, for the Applicant. S.J. Mehta and I.M. Maul, Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPRINCIPAL OFFICER, LAXMI SURGICAL PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 224 = 1994 SLD 224 = (1994) 70 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Presidential Ordinance and Legislative Powers under the Constitution\n1.\nKey Issue: Validity of Finance Ordinance II of 1988:\no\nThe President of Pakistan issued the Finance Ordinance II of 1988 during the dissolution of the National Assembly. It was held as a valid legislative act under Article 89(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which allows the President to legislate on money bills when the Assembly is not in session, including when dissolved.\n2.\nSaving of Rights and Obligations:\no\nArticle 264 of the Constitution, akin to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, preserved rights, obligations, and liabilities accrued under the ordinance, ensuring that past transactions and pending proceedings initiated during its tenure were protected.\n3.\nRepeal and Its Effect:\no\nSection 25-B of the Customs Act, inserted via Finance Ordinance II of 1988, lapsed with the ordinance. Notifications issued under the repealed ordinance were not saved, as there were no equivalent constitutional provisions like Sections 6-A or 24 of the General Clauses Act.\nJudicial Precedents:\n•\nGovernment of Punjab v. Ziaullah Khan, Ziaullah Khan v. Government of Punjab, and others clarified the constitutional boundaries of ordinance-making and the effects of their expiration.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "General Clauses Act, 1897=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=73,89 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 533 of 1991,Decided on 15-3-1993. dates of hearing: 16-2-1993, 17-2-1993 and 18-2-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "A.G. Siddiqui and Naimur Rehman, Advocates, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NEW ELECTRONICS (PVT) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 384 = 1994 SLD 384 = (1994) 69 TAX 151 = 1998 PTD 17 = (1993) 202 ITR 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of High Courts in Tax References\n1.\nKey Issue: Jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court:\no\nThe Bombay ITO issued the original assessment order, and subsequent appellate proceedings transferred to the Bangalore Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal. However, jurisdiction for references under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act lies with the High Court of the assessing authority, in this case, the Bombay High Court.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Karnataka High Court returned the reference unanswered, holding that it lacked jurisdiction.\nJudicial Analysis:\n•\nReferences such as Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India and CIT v. Eldee Wire Ropes Ltd. support this principle of jurisdiction based on the location of the original assessing authority.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,35B(1)(b)(iii),126,127,121,122,123,124,269 Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963=4 Income Tax Act, 1922=5(7A),64,66 ", + "Case #": "I. T. Reference No. 34 of 1990. December 4, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Raghavendra Rao and M.V. Seshachala, Advocates, for the Appellant. K.R. Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMADANLAL AND CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 385 = 1994 SLD 385 = (1994) 69 TAX 179 = (1993) 202 ITR 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Actual Cost and Depreciation under Income Tax Act\n1.\nKey Issue: Interest on Deferred Payments:\no\nInterest on deferred payments for dumpers, payable after the asset's first use, was excluded from the actual cost under Explanation 8 to Section 43(1).\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nThe amount of interest was deemed not part of the cost for allowing depreciation and development rebate, aligning with the legislative intent to exclude post-usage interest.\nJudicial Precedents:\n•\nDecisions in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. JK Cotton Spg & Wvg Mills Ltd. shaped the interpretation of actual cost. ", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),43(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. Reference No. 514 of 1977. January 27, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with P.S. Jetley for Commissioner. G. Krishnan with S.N. Inamdar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAJARAM BANDEKAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 386 = 1994 SLD 386 = (1994) 69 TAX 187 = (1993) 202 ITR 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)\n1.\nKey Issue: Income in Malaysia and Indian Taxation:\no\nUnder the DTAA between India and Malaysia, income from immovable property situated in Malaysia is taxable only in Malaysia. The Indian government cannot tax such income, overriding Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nOutcome:\no\nIncome arising in Malaysia was excluded from the assessee’s total income in India.\nCirculars and Precedents:\n•\nCircular No. 333 of 1982 and P. Val Kulandayan Chettiar v. ITO clarified that the DTAA takes precedence over domestic tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),4,5,90(a) ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 46 of 1991. December 11, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Raghavendra Rao and M.V. Seshachala for Commissioner. K.S. Ramabhadran and K. Gajendar Rao", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nR.M. MUTHAIAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 289 = 1994 SLD 289 = (1994) 69 TAX 38 = 1994 PTD 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income and Penalty\n1.\nKey Issue: Adventure in the Nature of Trade:\no\nThe assessee’s profits from the purchase and sale of agricultural land were treated as business income. The activities constituted an adventure in the nature of trade.\n2.\nPenalty for Concealment:\no\nPenalty under Section 111 was not upheld as the assessee had disclosed the income in the wealth statement, showing no fraudulent intent.\nJudicial Precedents:\n•\nCases like CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. clarified the concept of real income and adventure in trade.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,2(11),12(7),22,65,111,136(1),136(2) Income Tax Act, 1922=10,4(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1989, decision dated: 19-12-1993. dates of hearing: 17-5-1993 and 5-12-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND AKHTAR ALI G. KAZI", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Akhtar Ali Bhurgri, Applicant in person. Nasrullah Awan, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SYED AKHTAR ALI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 228 = 1994 SLD 228 = (1994) 70 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Association of Persons and Income Tax\n1.\nKey Issue: Taxability of Lease and Interest Income:\no\nLease income was not assessable as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), but interest income on loans advanced by the AOP was taxable in its hands.\nPrecedents:\n•\nThe decision aligns with principles laid out in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. and State Bank of Travancore v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 112 of 1979, decision dated: 1-3-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND UI SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Advocates, for the Applicant. Dilip Dwarkadas with AM Sonde and B.D. Damodar Advocates for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income tax\nvs\nSHIVSAGAR ESTATES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 229 = 1994 SLD 229 = (1994) 70 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in the Nature of Trade for Agricultural Land\n1.\nKey Issue: Taxability of Profits from Land Transactions:\no\nFrequent purchases and sales of agricultural land over short periods indicated organized business activity, taxable as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 5 of 1979, decision dated: 8-6-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GI NANAVATI AND KB. BHATT, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "B.J. Shelat, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HEMACHAND HIRACHAND SHAH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 230 = 1994 SLD 230 = (1994) 70 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Representation by Auditor in Tribunal Hearings\n1.\nKey Issue: Adequacy of Representation:\no\nAn auditor, as an authorized representative, arguing the case in the assessee's presence constituted valid representation, dismissing claims of denial of proper hearing.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5,24(5),44 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 7705 and 7706 of 1984, decision dated: 10-3-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJU, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Mani, Advocate, for the Petitioner. N.V. Balasubramanian, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "S. GOVINDARAJA MUDALIAR\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 231 = 1994 SLD 231 = (1994) 70 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Arrears of Sales Tax\n1.\nKey Issue: Business Expenditure Deduction:\no\nInterest on sales tax arrears paid under statutory obligations was allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37.\nJudicial Precedent:\n•\nMahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT supports the deduction of statutory interest.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 402 of 1983, decision dated: 22-1-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.C. VARMA AND R.D. SHUKLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS.S. RATANCHAND BHOLACHAND (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 232 = 1994 SLD 232 = (1994) 70 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Expenses on Amalgamation\n1.\nKey Issue: Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure:\no\nLegal expenses incurred for amalgamating a marketing company were treated as capital expenditure, as the amalgamation resulted in acquiring a capital asset with enduring benefits.\nPrecedents:\n•\nDecisions in CIT v. Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. and Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. CIT clarified the distinction between capital and revenue expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 320 of 1980, decision dated: 31-3-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashish Fonda, Advocate, for the Applicant. Dr. V. Balasubramanian and J,P. Devadhar, Advocates, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 234 = 1994 SLD 234 = (1994) 70 TAX 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nA re-assessment was initiated without issuing a fresh notice after the High Court declared the prior proceedings as invalid due to procedural lapses.\no\nThe ITO proceeded with re-assessment based on directions from a superior without independently applying his mind.\n•\nHeld:\no\nRe-assessment proceedings initiated without issuing a fresh notice under the statutory framework were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.\no\nAny influence from superior officers on the ITO undermines the independence of tax administration and violates statutory safeguards.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nAl-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. ITAT (1992) 66 TAX T47 (SC Pak)\no\nMuhammad Haneef Mannoo v. ITO (1984) 50 TAX 37 (HC Lah.) emphasized the necessity for ITOs to independently apply their judgment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3385 of 1981, decision dated: 15-11-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.), Ltd. v. I.T.A.T. (1992) 66 TAX T47 (S.C. Pak)=( 1993 SCMR 29) and Muhammad Haneef Mannoo v. I.T.O., Central Circle Lahore (1984) 50 TAX 37 (H.C. Lah.) =(PLJ 1984 Lah. 423). Sh. Zia Ullah and Suhail Akhtar Advocates, for the Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SH. AKHTAR ALI\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 235 = 1994 SLD 235 = (1994) 70 TAX 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nClassification of computer installation charges paid by the assessee for leased computers.\n2.\nWhether bonus payments made to employees qualify as perquisites under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nRevenue Expenditure: Installation charges for computers rented temporarily did not confer any enduring benefit and were therefore revenue expenses.\n2.\nBonus Classification: Bonus payments were treated as salary and not as perquisites for tax purposes.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nCIT v. India Radiators Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 680 supported the exclusion of bonus payments from the definition of perquisites.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 304 of 1980, decision dated: 9-6-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G.T. NANAVATI AND KB. BHATT, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "B.J. Shelat Advocate, for the Applicant. K.H. Kaji, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 236 = 1994 SLD 236 = (1994) 70 TAX 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Addition of Income in Mercantile Accounting\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nThe ITO added transportation charges received by the assessee during the assessment year 1983-84 to that year's income, even though the charges pertained to services rendered in earlier years.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTribunal held that the income had already been accounted for in prior years under the mercantile system. Adding the same amount in 1983-84 was unjustified.\n•\nNature of Decision:\no\nFinding of fact based on the assessee's accounting records and prior transactions. No legal question arose.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "income Tax Reference No. 1 of 1991, decision dated: 6-7-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.F.R.K. Nair, Advocate, for the Applicant.P. Balachandran, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS.P. NAYAK AND, RAMESH H. (SREE GANESH TRANSPORT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 237 = 1994 SLD 237 = (1994) 70 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cessation of Liability\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether a liability claimed by the assessee could be considered ceased and taxable while a dispute regarding the liability was pending in court.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLiability had not ceased, as evidenced by ongoing litigation in the Bombay High Court.\no\nTaxable addition was unwarranted in the absence of a concluded cessation.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nSupported by the principle that pending litigation prevents a liability from being deemed extinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=41,41(1),256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 18 of 1990, decision dated: 8-1-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.B. SHARMA AND M.R. CALLA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "MK. Singhal, Advocate, for the Applicant. Nemo, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nJAIPUR OIL PRODUCTS PVT, LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 239 = 1994 SLD 239 = (1994) 70 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Power to Rectify\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nTribunal recalled an earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, citing an apparent mistake. \n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, as rectification is confined to correcting manifest and self-evident errors.\no\nAttempting to rewrite or revise a previous order is not permissible under the guise of rectification.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nT.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC): Rectification applies only to errors that are obvious and require no detailed argumentation.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254(1),254(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14166 of 1991, decision dated: 12-3-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SLVARAMAN NAIR AND S. V. MARUTHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.R. Ashok, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Nemo, for the Respondent No. 1.Ch. Sreeram Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 240 = 1994 SLD 240 = (1994) 70 TAX 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Shares for Wealth Tax\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDetermination of whether shares with sporadic trading activity qualify as regularly quoted under Rule 1A(1) of the Wealth Tax Rules.\n•\nHeld:\no\nShares not frequently traded on stock exchanges were classified as unquoted shares, with valuation based on the break-up value method.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nCWT v. Mahadeo Jalan (1972) 86 ITR 621 (SC): Emphasized the importance of regularity in trading for determining share valuation.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1957=1A(1),7(1),1D Income Tax Act, 1961=3 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No.3 of 1987, decision dated: 19-2-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): U.L. BHAT, C.J. AND R.K. MANISANA, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "A.R. Bannerjee, Advocate, for the Applicant. D.K. Talukdar and B.J, Talukdar, Advocates, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "AJAY KUMAR SAHAFLLA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 112 = 1980 SLD 112 = (1980) 42 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 8457\nSpecial Leave to Appeal\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nApplication for leave to appeal dismissed due to being filed beyond the limitation period without an application for condonation of delay.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe application was dismissed as barred by limitation. No discretion exercised in the absence of a condonation request.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition Nos. 463 and 502 of 1976, decision dated: 8-3-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATE/ AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court and MZ. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record, for Petitioners. Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record,s.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION)\nvs\nMISS SHIREEN AYUB KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 113 = 1980 SLD 113 = (1980) 42 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nInterpretation of exemptions for raw materials imported for manufacturing washing soap, following abolition of sales tax on the finished product.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLeave to appeal was granted to clarify the interplay between exemptions granted under the Sales Tax Act and subsequent tax policy changes.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nNoorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer (PLD 1965 SC 161): Relevant for understanding tax exemption interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.PS.S.L.A. NDS. 468, -470 and 994 of 1975,decided no 19-3-1980, hearing DATE 1 16-2-1980.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DARAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Hashmi, Advocate, Sh. Abdul Karim and M.A. Qadri. Advocates-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "NEW PUNJAB SOAP FACTORY, SARGODHA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 708 = 1979 SLD 708 = (1980) 41 TAX 30 = 1979 PTD 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Payment of Tax\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nImposition of penalties for default in tax payment during the pendency of appeals and installment agreements.\n•\nHeld:\no\nPenalties are discretionary and must consider surrounding circumstances, including the financial condition of the assessee and the reasonableness of the default.\no\nAppeals pending decision mitigate the technical default nature.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC): Penalty proceedings must evaluate real income and actual defaults.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),26A,46,46(1),33A,66(1),45,46,220,220(6) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 59 of 1972. decided on 11-4-1979, hearing DATE : 26-3-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI AND ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the Appellant. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nMOHAMMADI REROLLING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 98 = 2013 SLD 98 = (2013) 107 TAX 281 = 2013 PTD 1293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Freedom of Information Ordinance (XCVI of 2002)---Ss. 3, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19(2)---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.216---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.19-A---Refusal to provide requested information---Commissioner Inland Revenue refused to provide the requester/complainant information pertaining to specific aspects of the Federal Board of Revenue's working---Commissioner had declined to provide requested information, contending that under S.216(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, such information being confidential could not be disclosed---Validity---Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, enabled citizens to ask for publicly held information as a matter of right and enabled citizens to have access to public records---Purpose of the said Ordinance was to ensure transparency and promote good governance by making the Government more accountable and open and was meant to make Government more efficient and citizen friendly delivering public services---Access to information was a sine qua non for a constitutional democracy---Public had a right to know everything done by the Public Functionaries, subject to any restriction imposed by law---In the present case, the data/documents requested by the requester did not fall within any of the exemptions provided under Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002---No exemption could be claimed on the basis of any other law---Provisions of the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 also had overriding effect over the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as given in its S.3 (a non obstante provision)---Article 19-A of the Constitution enshrined the right to information as a Fundamental Right, subject to regulation and reasonable restriction---Authorities were bound to disclose information requested by the requester---Federal Tax Ombudsman directed that, Federal Board of Revenue would ensure that the provisions of the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, were implemented in letter and spirit and with minimum delay; that Board would collate the requisite data and forward a consolidated report to the requester; that Board would appoint a \"\"designated official\"\" under S.10 of Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, if not already done and that submit compliance report within 30 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=216,3,8,10,15,16,17,1819(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1015/2012, decision dated: 8-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, TAX RESOLUTION SERVICES COMPANY, LAHORE\nvs\nCHAIRMAN, F.B.R., and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 219 = 1989 SLD 219 = 1989 PTD 1257 = (1990) 61 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 65, 62, 59 & 12(7)--Self-assessment scheme--Immunity--Re-opening of assessment under S.65--Essentials--Whether on the pretext of non-declaring of any interest under S.12(7) of the Ordinance on the interest free loans advanced by the assessee company to its Directors, notice under S.65 could be issued--Non­ charging of interest under S.12(7) on the loans advanced to the Directors would not come within the ambit of concealment entitling the Income Tax Officer to re­open the assessment completed under S.59(1).\n \nUnder Section 65 of the Ordinance the assessment as a whole can be reopened if definite information is available with the I.-T.O. regarding escaped assessment, under assessment and concealment of income. In the facts and circumstances of the present case no definite information or material was available with the I.-T.O. for under-assessment or escaped assessment. Even in the notice issued under section 62 of the Ordinance, the I-T.O. had neither pointed out any defect nor sought any explanation of the assessee on quantum of assessment. Immunity available to the assessee company from detailed scrutiny could not be withdrawn without establishing under assessment, escaped assessment or concealment of income. That being so, the only issue requiring determination is whether on the pretext of non-declaring of any interest under section 12 (7) of the Ordinance on the loans advanced to the Directors, notice under section 65 of the Ordinance could be issued. Admittedly the assessee company had obtained loans from Bank for the purposes of importing machinery required for modernising the company's business. This loan facility was partly availed by the assessee company much earlier than advancing of loan to its Directors. As per wealth statement interest free loan obtained by the Directors was invested in purchase of agricultural land. Loans received by the Directors were neither utilized in any business or profession nor channellised for investment in securities or shares. It is fully established that the Directors had not purchased Defence Saving Certificates or other securities out of the loan obtained from the company.\n \nUnder sub-clause (a) of subsection (7) of section 12 of the Ordinance a specific bar was provided by the legislature for non-application of the provision for charging of interest on any loan or advance made by the assessee to an employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and for such purpose or purposes. The Central Board of Revenue clarified the position regarding charging of interest on loans advanced by a company vide S.R.O. 750 (i)/ 81 dated 23-8-1979 which was amended by S.R.O. 197 (i)/ 81 dated 7-3-1981.\n \nUnder C B R Circular dated 7-3-1981, it has been explained that the provisions of Section 12 (7) of the Ordinance are only applicable if the amount has been directly or indirectly used for investment in business or shares securities etc. Since the amount advanced by the assessee company to its four Directors in both the years were not used by them for business purposes, provisions of section 12 (7) of the Ordinance were not applicable. The I-T.O: s observation that the assessee company itself having obtained loan from the bank was not in a position to advance interest free loan to its Directors is not only fallacious but against the established facts. Borrowing of money by way of loan from a bank for boosting up and betterment of business activities is an independent facility available to a trader and it cannot be co-related with advancing of loan by a company to its Directors. Mere fact that the assessee company itself was paying interest to the bank on the obtained` loan could not operate as a bar for advancing of loan to the Directors within four corners of law. In the instant case the loans obtained by the company from the bank were mainly utilized in purchase of machinery earlier than advancing of loan to its Directors.\n \nThe borrowed capital was utilized by the assessee company purchase any of machinery and the borrowed capital had no relation with the loan advanced to its Directors. The fact of payment of interest on the borrowed capital thus has no relevance towards grant of interest free loan to the Directors. Under sub-clause (e) of section 16(2) of the Ordinance, the Directors were employees of the company irrespective of designation and as such no interest was chargeable on the loans advanced to them under proviso to subsection (7) of section 12 unless the I.-T.O. could establish that as per terms and conditions the Directors were not entitled for obtaining of interest free loan.\n \n Non-charging of interest under section 12(7) of the Ordinance on the loans advanced to the Directors did not come within the ambit of concealment entitling the I: T.O. to reopen the assessments completed under section 59(1) of the Ordinance. I: T.O. being not in possession of any definite information or material for under-assessment or escaped assessment, the immunity available to the assessee company was erroneously withdrawn by issuance of notice under section 65 of the Ordinance. There being no material for issuance of that notice, the reassessments' as made by the I.-T.O. under section 65/62 of the Ordinance were rightly cancelled.\n \n1986 SCMR 968 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65,62,59,12(7) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.141/LB and 142/LB of 1987-88, decided-on 21st August, 1989, hearing DATE : 26-06-1989.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mujahid Akbar, D.R.. Ghulam Sarwar Nasir, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 175 = 1990 SLD 175 = 1990 PTCL 58 = 1990 PTD 50 = (1990) 61 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.7--Valuation of buildings comprising more than one storey, how to be determined--Illustrated.\n \nThe valuation of buildings comprising more than one storey has all along been a complicated and confusing affair. The valuation of such buildings becomes more intricate and cumbersome when the land and building method is adopted and the value of each floor of the building is determined separately. Normally the Assessing Officers while determining value of each floor of the building, include the cost of land and the construction of foundation upto the plinth level alongwith the cost of construction of ground floor. The upper floors are valued on the basis of the respective cost of construction on each floor starting from the floor of that particular storey upto the roof. The result of adopting such method is that the ground floor is valued at much higher rate as compared to the upper floors which is totally disproportionate. If the value of ground floor and the upper floors so arrived is compared with the market value of each floor it becomes clear that it does not represent the true state of affairs. On adopting such method a very important factor is overlooked that although the upper floors are not directly and physically in touch with the land but nonetheless they ultimately stand on the same land and cannot maintain their existence without the land beneath the ground floor. Secondly, the foundation although remains in physical touch with the ground floor only but the cost of construction laid on the foundation depends on the number of storeys intended to be constructed. The strength of foundation is to commensurate with the number of storeys intended to be raised on the foundation. Thus the land and the foundation though not in direct physical contact with the upper floors but they arc the integral part of the entire building and, therefore, the cost of land and the foundation should necessarily be apportioned in the cost of each floor in order to represent the correct valuation of each floor of the building. In order to arrive at the correct valuation of the buildings comprising of more than one storey the Assessing Officer should estimate the value of land and foundation separately. Thereafter the cost of construction of the ground floor and each upper floor should be worked out. The cost of land and foundation should then be apportioned and clubbed with the cost of construction of the each floor worked out. In apportioning the cost of land and the foundation with each floor, the ground floor should be apportioned higher than the upper floors. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf and the Assessing Officer should exercise reasonable discretion in this behalf which may differ from building to building keeping in view the nature thereof, the size of building, the number of storeys, etc. For example, if a building is two storeyed, 55% of the cost of land and foundation may be apportioned to the cost of ground floor and remaining 45% may be added to the cost of construction of the first floor. If a building is three storeyed then 40% of the cost of land and foundation may be apportioned to the ground floor and 30% to the first and second floor each.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=7 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 4/KB, 5/KB and 6/KB of 1985-86 and 52/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 14-09-1989, hearing DATE : 10-07-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I.N. Pasha. Shahid Jamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 99 = 2013 SLD 99 = (2013) 107 TAX 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)]........Sections 221 & 133 - Rectification of mistakes - Reference to High Court - Deptt. moved application seeking rectification of error which was declined by CIT(A) - Tribunal dismissed appeal - Validity - While defining scope of rectification, Supreme Court has held that mistake should be apparent from record, floating on surface and may not require any investigation or further evidence - Held yes - Whether scope of rectification is limited to extent of rectification of error apparent from record, hence provision of section 133 cannot be invoked as alternative or substitute of appeal, revision or review - Held yes.\nWe do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), while rejecting the rectification application moved by the applicant, whereas the Tribunal has rightly concurred with such findings, which otherwise depicts correct legal position. The Hon\"\"ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of M/s. National Foods v. CIT reported as (1992) 65 Tax 257 1992 SCMR 687=1992 PTD 570 while defining the scope of rectification, has held that a mistake should be apparent from record, floating on surface and may not require any investigation or further evidence. It has been further held that a mistake which is sought to be rectified must be so obvious and apparent from record that it may immediately strike on the face of it. It may not be something which may be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on issues on which there could be conceivably two views or opinions. We may further observe that the scope of rectification is limited to the extent of rectification of an \"\"error apparent from record\"\" hence the said provision cannot be invoked as an alternate or substitute of an appeal, revision or review.\nCases referred to:\n(1959) PLD 45 (SCP); 1964 PLD 40 (SCP) and M/s National Foods vs. CIT (1992) 65 Tax 257.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. N0. 304 of 2010, decision dated: 20-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Altaf Mun, Advocate, for the Applicant. Nemo, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI\nvs\nE.N.I. PAKISTAN (M) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 176 = 1990 SLD 176 = 1990 PTD 844 = (1990) 62 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Precedent---\n \n----Judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court, lay down the correct law--­Laws are daily interpreted at' different levels of proceedings in lower Courts which ultimately attain finality at the top, the Supreme Court; it is thus a continuous and unending process.\n \n(b) Precedent---\n \n----Interpretation of statutory provision of law by superior Judicial forum has the retrospective effect---Retrospectivity to financial obligations, however, should be given only after the law is finally settled.\n \n(c) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S. 35---Rectification of mistake---Order of Division Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could not be altered or modified by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of a subsequent order of a Full Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on similar points and questions of fact and law between different parties in exercise of the powers of rectification under S. 35.\n \nPer Manzoorul Haque, Accountant Member---[Majority view]\n \nPer Muhammad Mujibullali Siddiqui, Judicial Member---[Minority view]-\n \nPer Saiyid Saeed Ashhad, Judicial Member agreeing with Manzurul Haque, Accountant Member--[Majority view]---\n \nSalmond On Jurisprudence; Pir Bakhsh and others v. Chairman, Allotment Committee and others 1987 SC 1.45; On the Constitutional Limitations and Octavias Steel & Co., Ltd., v. C.I.T. P L D 1960 SC 371 ref.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---Courts move very carefully in interpreting a statute.\n \n(e) Review-\n---- Courts move very carefully in reviewing an earlier decision.\n \nUnion of India and another v. Raghubir Singh 178 ITR 548; (1966) 3 All. ER 77 (Note); Dr. Alan Paterson's \"\"law Lords\"\" (1982) pp. 156 and 157 and (1975) 100 ITR 651 ref.\n \nPer Saiyid Saeed Ashhad, Judicial Member agreeing with Manzurul Haq, Accountant Member---\n \n(f) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Ratio decidendi\"\"---Definition.\n \nThe ratio decidendi is the reason or ground of a judicial decision and constitutes a binding precedent for the future and it becomes a principle of law to be applied in future cases.\n \nConcise Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., p. 267 ref.\n \n(g) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Precedent\"\"---Definition\n \nPrecedent is a decision or determination of a point of law made by a Court in a case to be followed by a Court of the same or of a lower rank in a subsequent case presenting the same legal problem, although different parties are involved in the subsequent case.\n \n(h) Precedent---\n \n---- Law laid down by a Tribunal or a Court including the Supreme Court does not have restrospective effect and it operates prospectively from the date of its pronouncement.\n \nPir Bakhsh and others v. Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145; Jalal Din v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1965 SC 261 and Muhammad Yousaf v. C.S.C. Pakistan, Lahore P L D 1968 SC 101 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=35 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. 47/HQB of 1988-89, decision dated: 30-07-1959, hearing DATE : 10-07-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURAL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mazhar Jafri for Applicant. Shahid Jamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 177 = 1990 SLD 177 = 1990 PTD 1059 = (1990) 62 TAX 123 = 1991 PTCL 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S. 5(xv)---Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificate Rules, 1985, Rr. 5 to 13--­S.R.O. 469(1) of 1985, dated 1-7-1985---C.B.R. Circular No.I.T.J.-1(42) of 1985 dated 22-8-1985---Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificate being transferable by delivery of possession only, from mere possession, a presumption might be raised that the bearer was rightful owner of the Certificate but it could not be presumed that the same had been purchased out of foreign exchange ---No restriction existed in law on possession, import or export of such certificates---Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates thus, were exempt from wealth tax and not the amount received after their encashment.\n \n1988 PTD 585 and 1989 PTD 367 ref.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S. 5(xv)---Claim of exemption by assessee---Conditions to be fulfilled--­Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates---Where an asset is not made entirely out of remittances received in or brought into Pakistan through normal banking channels, the exemption was to be applied in ratio of the foreign exchange remittances and local currency used in Pakistan and burden of proof regarding claim of exemption would be on assessee---Where the assessee hail failed to adduce the proof regarding the receipt of foreign exchange in Pakistan through normal banking channels, his case would not be covered either by para.(I) or (II) of Cl. (xv) of S.5 of the Act.\n \nBefore an exemption is claimed, an assessee has to establish that the asset claimed to be exempt was either--\n \n(i) brought by him into Pakistan, or\n \n(ii) remitted by him to Pakistan, or\n \n(iii) received by him from outside Pakistan, or\n \n(iv) created by him out of remittances received in or brought into Pakistan, through normal banking channels.\n \nWhere an asset is not made entirely out of remittances received in or brought into Pakistan through normal banking channels, the exemption was to be applied in ratio of the foreign exchange remittances and local currency used in Pakistan.\n \nThe burden of proof regarding claim of an exemption was always on assessee.\n \nIt was the duty of the assessee to establish that they had either brought or received the Certificates into Pakistan from outside. They could have also established, if the circumstances so required, that they had remitted Certificates from outside Pakistan into Pakistan.\n \nIn the present case assessee had acquired the Certificates out of remittances received in Pakistan. However, in such cases, the exemption could be granted only if it was also established that such remittances were brought into Pakistan through normal banking channels.\n \nWhere the assessee had produced the certificate of encashment of such certificates but no proof had been adduced regarding receipt of foreign exchange in Pakistan through normal banking channels, the case of assessee was not covered either by paragraph (I) or (II) of clause (xv) of section 5 of the Act.\n \n(c) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---\n \n----(. 8(3)---Addition of interest on account of security deposits/advances and its addition to Annual Letting Value for the purposes of determining the market value ---Not justified.\n \n1988 PTD 585 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5,5(xv) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.392/HQ to 396/HQ of 1989-90, decision dated: 3rd September, 1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Zaman, CA.. Abdul Razzak Memon, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 714 = 2001 SLD 714 = 2001 PTD 3919 = (2002) 85 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963----R.8(2)(c)(i)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the reasons for finding of the High Court to the effect that the provisions of R. 8(2)(c)(i) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 were ultra vires, were in consonance with law.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.25(1)---Equal protection of law---Principle of reasonable classification/ distinction---Scope---Constitution provides that all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law---Equal protection, however, does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike and that reasonable classification/distinction is permissible.\n \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.25(1)---Equal protection of law---Reasonable classification of companies---Bar laid down in Art.25 of the Constitution--- Applicability--- Constitution does not forbid reasonable classification of companies for the purpose of taxation---Bar laid down in Art.25 of the Constitution is that there should be no discrimination within the same class of people or group of people and it does not prohibit reasonable classification but such classification must be rational and based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those which are let, oat of the group and that difference must have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by such classification.\n \nI.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 and Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.\n \n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n \n----Art.25---Equal protection of law---Taxation---Scope---Equal protection ref law in the field of taxation does not mean that the tax burden should be equally imposed on every person, property or thing but it means that the persons or objects similarly situated and in similar circumstances, should be taxed by the same standard---Taxing statute, rules or any provision thereof cannot be struck down merely on the ground that different tax is imposed on differently placed companies---Differentiation between a group of companies on the basis of rational and reasonable classification is­ permissible.\n \n(e) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---\n \n----R.8(2)(c)(i)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.25---Equal protection of law---Discrimination---Difference in determination of value of shares of companies quoted on a stock exchange and those not quoted on stock exchange---Such difference not an act of discrimination---Where both types of companies are differently grouped, the circumstances in determining the value of shares by different modes cannot be discriminatory.\n \n(f) Wealth Tax Rules; 1963--\n \n----R.8(2)(c)(i)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.25---Equal protection of law---Discrimination---Reasonable classification--- Assessment---Vices of R.8(2)(c)(i) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---Determination of value of shares of unquoted companies unlike that of .the quoted companies---High Court declared the provisions of R.8(2)(c)(i) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, as ultra vices---Plea raised by the assessees was that the rule in question was confiscatory in its nature---Validity---Plea was misconceived, as the rule in question was neither discriminatory nor overriding any provision of Wealth Tax Act, 1963--- Provision of the rule was based on reasonable classification as the two sets of companies were distinct and different from each other--­Determination of value of shares of unquoted companies unlike that of the quoted companies was controlled by private limited companies, therefore, their break-up/market value being not freely determinable in the open market---Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the formula laid down in the rule in question---Judgment of High Court was set aside and the provisions of R.8(2)(c)(i) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, were held to be intra vires.\n \nI.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 and Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.\n \nM.U.A. Khan v. M. Sultan PLD 1974 SC 228; Ziauddin v. Punjab Local Government 1985 SCMR 365 and Federation of Pakistan v. Azam Ali 1985 SCMR 386 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-8,R.8(2)(c)(i) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),25(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2221 to 2229 of 1998, decision dated: 28-03-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam C hattha, Advocate-on-Records.Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Records.", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nvs\nMrs. SAMRA SHAKEEL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 490 = 2002 SLD 490 = 2002 PTD 221 = (2002) 85 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 31-B, 35, 16 & 2(21)---Additional tax ---Assessment--­Rectification---Assessment was rectified under S.35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 enhancing the liability of tax and charging---Additional tax-­Assessee contended that additional tax under S.31B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 could only be charged through an order passed under S.16 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and not through the order passed under S.35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Validity---Assessment framed under S.16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was rectified under S.35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Liability of tax was also to be re-determined as consequence of change made in the assessment through order of rectification---Assessee was liable to pay additional tax under S.31B alongwith the demand of wealth tax determined on the basis of amended assessment of wealth tax.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S. 31-B, proviso---Proviso, added to S.31-B, Wealth Tax Act, 1963, by Finance Act, 1998---Retrospective effect---Amendment brought through the insertion of the proviso to S.31-B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, though being a part of substantial law yet was effective retrospectively in the case of pending assessment being remedial in nature.\n \nCIT v. Shahnawaz Limited and others 1993 SCMR 73 rel.\n \n(c) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)----\n \n----S. 31-B, proviso---Additional tax---Calculation---Additional tax should not be charged for a period more than the period mentioned in the proviso added to S.31-B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 through Finance Act, 1998.\n \nCIT v. Shahnawaz Limited and others 1993 SCMR 73 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=31B,31B(1)(b),35,16,2(21),proviso ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Stay) Nos. 483/LB to 487/LB and W.T.As. Nos. 1253/LB to 1257/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-07-2001, hearing DATE : 24-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tanveer Aslam, I.T.P./A.R. for Applicant. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 491 = 2002 SLD 491 = 2002 PTD 582 = (2002) 85 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---S. 8(3)---Valuation of land and building---Procedure---Steps to be taken by Assessing Officer for valuing the lands and buildings stated.\n \nAssessing Officer has to take following steps for valuing the lands and buildings:----\n \nAssessing Officer is to determine the value of lands and building with due regard to the nature and size of the property, the amenities available and the price prevailing for similar property in the same locality or in the neighbourhood of the said locality.\n \nAssessing Officer is to determine the gross annual rental value (GARY) of the property which means the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.\n \nIf G.A.R. fixed by the Assessing Officer is higher than the rent actually paid or payable by the tenants of the building, then the Assessing Officer has to seek approval of his I.A.C. for taking this amount of G.A.R.V. of the building.\n \nAssessing Officer is to compare the value determined by him with the G.A.R.V. as fixed by him according to the prescribed procedure and where the value of the building is higher than 10 times of the G.A.R.V. he is to seek the approval of Commissioner for taking this value.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S. 3A(6)---Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R.8(3)---Valuation of assets for wealth tax purpose---Value of property was declared 10 times of the rent received---Assessing Officer had valued the property on the lines the value of undisclosed asset was made under S.3A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Validity---Assessment was set aside with the direction that assessment will be re-framed by valuing the said property in accordance with the procedure explained in R.8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=3A(6),8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 181/KB/DB and 182/KB/DB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 17-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Raees-ul-Hassan. Rehmatullah Wazir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 492 = 2002 SLD 492 = 2002 PTD 586 = (2002) 85 TAX 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---R. 8(3), proviso---Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Ss. 2(16), 2(24), 3, 7 & Second Sched.---C.B.R. Circular No. 11 of 1994, dated 17-7-1994-­Net wealth---Valuation of land and building---Valuation on the basis of actual rent received---Self-occupied house was rented out 8 days before the valuation date i.e. 22-6-1999---Rent was admittedly realized only for 8 days during the assessment year---Exemption for self-occupied house was claimed as the house remained under the occupation of assessee even up to the date of valuation i.e. 30-6-1999 due to repairs and renovation to be carried out as per lease agreement---Assessing Officer adopted the Gross Annual Rental Value on the basis of annual rent on the valuation date---Validity---Rule 8(3), proviso, Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 puts some restrictions on the power of the Assessing Officer in estimating the gross annual rental value at a sum higher than the rent paid or, payable by the tenant---Superficially it would show that if the assessee's tenant had paid rent of a period shorter than a year, say for 8 days as in the present case, then Assessing Officer could not expand such amount to cover the whole year on that basis, in other words, it would appear that by virtue of R.8(3), proviso the Assessihg Officer was obliged to estimate annual rental value equal to the actual rent of 8 days only---Only actual rent received for 8 days be counted for the purpose of net wealth of assessee as for remaining period the house was in self-occupation of the assessee.\n \n2001 PTD (Trib.) 22 rel.\n \nI. T. A. No.255/KB of 1998-99; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1403; 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404; W.T.A. No.472/KB of 1999-2000 and 1988 PTD 605 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=2(16),2(24),3,7,SecondSched.,8(3), ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 375/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 31st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 16-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Mukhtar, I.T.P.. Agha Hadayatullah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 493 = 2002 SLD 493 = 2002 PTD 598 = (2002) 85 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes and Wealth Tax Deduction\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation principles: Favoring the taxpayer where two reasonable interpretations exist.\n2.\nDeductibility of loans secured against exempt foreign currency accounts.\n•\nHeld:\no\nIn fiscal statutes, provisions granting relief are to be interpreted beneficially for the taxpayer, while charging provisions require strict interpretation.\no\nLoan Deduction: Loans secured against foreign currency accounts (exempt from wealth tax) were not deductible as liabilities under Section 2(1)(16)(ii). Allowing the deduction would create a dual benefit, offsetting taxable assets and maintaining the exempt status of the account.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\n1993 PTD 69 and 1985 153 ITR 11 emphasized the principle of beneficial interpretation for relief provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(1)(16)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1004/113 of 1999-2000 and 32/113 of 2000-2001, decision dated: 4-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Aslam Anwar (in W. T. A. No. 1004/IB of 19992000). Abdul Jaleel, D.R. (in W.T.A. No. 1004/IB of 19992000). Abdul Jaleel, D.R. (in W.T.A. No. 32/IB of 20002001). Aslam Anwar (in W.T.A. No. 32/IB of 20002001)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 494 = 2002 SLD 494 = 2002 PTD 676 = (2002) 85 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Self-Occupied Residential Houses\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether a house in Lahore, used occasionally by the assessee and her son, qualifies for exemption under Part I, Clause 12(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.\n•\nHeld:\no\nA self-occupied house includes a residence used during holidays or by family members (e.g., the assessee’s son studying in Lahore).\no\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner’s decision to deny the exemption due to the assessee’s primary employment in Faisalabad was unjustified.\no\nOriginal exemption allowed by the Assessing Officer was restored.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17B,SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.12(1) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.592/LB to 597/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st May, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas. Muhammad Asif; D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 495 = 2002 SLD 495 = 2002 PTD 760 = (2002) 85 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Wealth Tax and Cumulative Liability\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nCalculation of additional tax for delayed assessments.\n2.\nTreatment of cumulative wealth tax liabilities in subsequent years.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAdditional tax was correctly calculated on 80% of the demand from the prescribed due date to the assessment date.\no\nCumulative liabilities for prior years' wealth tax were allowed as deductible debts in subsequent assessments.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax v. Fozia Mughis (1988 PTD 629) affirmed the deduction of cumulative liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(16),31B(1)(b)(ii),proviso ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.314/KB to 319/KB of, 2000-2001, decision dated: 29-11-2001, hearing DATE : 28-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. H. Faridi. Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 496 = 2002 SLD 496 = 2002 PTD 773 = (2002) 85 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowability of Liabilities Not Secured by Taxable Assets\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether liabilities unconnected to taxable assets could be disallowed in computing net wealth.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe law permits deductions for liabilities even if they are not directly tied to taxable assets.\no\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner’s addition of liabilities was invalid, and the original assessment was reinstated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17B,2(1)(16)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A.,No.2321KB of 2000-01, decision dated: 10-11-2001, hearing DATE : 6-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mehtab Khan. Syed Riaz-ud-Din, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 497 = 2002 SLD 497 = 2002 PTD 1192 = (2002) 85 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Use\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValuation of land undergoing conversion to “Sikni” (residential) status.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLand cannot be deemed residential based solely on revenue records without evidence of formal conversion.\no\nAssessing Officer’s valuation based on Collector’s rates was overturned as the conversion process was incomplete.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 553/KB and 554/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 6th September 2001, hearing DATE : 30-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Agha Hidayatullah, D.R.. Makhdoom Hasamul Haq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 498 = 2002 SLD 498 = 2002 PTD 1543 = (2002) 85 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of a Plot Held for Business Purposes\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether a plot held by a company for over 25 years without construction constitutes a taxable asset.\n•\nHeld:\no\nA plot not used for construction, business, or rental purposes remains non-taxable under Section 2(5)(ii).\no\nTribunal upheld the company’s claim of non-taxability.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(5)(ii),14(2),17(1) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1251/LB to 1256/LB of 2000, decision dated: 26-06-2001, hearing DATE : 19-06-2001.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,KHALID WAHEED AHMAD AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar and Zulfiqar Ahmad, A.C.As.. Yousaf Umar, Muhammad Asif, D.R. and Amjad Iqbal, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 499 = 2002 SLD 499 = 2002 PTD 2014 = (2002) 85 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Reserve for Tax Purposes\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether a revaluation surplus qualifies as a reserve for determining the break-up value of shares.\n•\nHeld:\no\nRevaluation surplus is not a reserve as it merely adjusts the notional value of assets without adding tangible value.\no\nExclusion of revaluation surplus from the break-up value of shares was upheld.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nMetal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 clarified the distinction between reserve and surplus.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(2)(c)(ii) Companies Ordinance, 1984=235 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 2083/LB of 2000, decision dated: 26-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.. Kamran Sial, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 500 = 2002 SLD 500 = 2002 PTD 2292 = (2002) 85 TAX 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Ownership and Wealth Taxability of Property Under Agreement to Sell\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether possession under an unregistered agreement to sell qualifies the property for inclusion in net wealth.\n•\nHeld:\no\nOwnership requires a registered sale deed. Possession alone does not create a taxable asset.\no\nThe Tribunal vacated the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner’s order, ruling the property as non-taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17B,16(3),2(16) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 124/LB to 126/LB of 2002, decision dated: 26-02-2002, hearing DATE : 19th February 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rizwan Bashir F.C.A. Mehboob Alam D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 715 = 2001 SLD 715 = 2001 PTD 2329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Proceedings for Concealment of Wealth\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValidity of penalty initiated after the original assessment order lacked references to penalty proceedings.\n•\nHeld:\no\nPenalty proceedings initiated without explicit reference in the original order are invalid.\no\nThe Tribunal annulled penalties, citing procedural lapses and lack of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,18,14,15,16(3),17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1308/LB to 1311/LB of 1998, decision dated: 22-03-2001, hearing DATE : 16-12-2000.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Shah. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D. R. and Shafqat Mehmood Chohan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 501 = 2002 SLD 501 = 2002 PTD 2370 = (2002) 86 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease vs. Rent in Wealth Tax Context\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nClassification of lease income and its implications for wealth tax.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLease and rent are interchangeable for wealth tax purposes, making the property taxable under Section 2(5)(ii).\no\nAssessing Officer’s valuation using the 10-times rental rule was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,30(2)(d) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(5)(ii),Expln.(i) ", + "Case #": "W.T.-As. Nos. 986/LB of and 1123/LB 2000, decision dated: 19-03-2002, hearing DATE : 16-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Kamal, D.R..Javed Ahmad Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 502 = 2002 SLD 502 = 2002 PTD 2390 = (2002) 86 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Assets for Wealth Tax\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether valuation by a bank for loan purposes can be used for wealth tax assessments.\n•\nHeld:\no\nBank valuations are not binding under the Wealth Tax Act. Valuation must follow prescribed rules, considering market factors.\no\nAssessing Officer directed to reassess in compliance with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(16)(2)(ii),7,46 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 248/LB, 249/LB, 486/LB and 487/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-03-2002, hearing DATE : 1st March, 2002", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Kamal. Khurshid Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 503 = 2002 SLD 503 = 2002 PTD 2399 = (2002) 86 TAX 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Leased Assets and Taxability\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nInclusion of property let on a license in the net wealth.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDespite being labeled a license, the arrangement conferred rights akin to tenancy.\no\nThe property was rightly included in the assessee’s net wealth.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(1)(5)(ii),16(3),19,30 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.548/KB to 552/KB of 2001, decision dated: 10-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.D. Gangat. Bishrat Ahmed Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 504 = 2002 SLD 504 = 2002 PTD 2413 = (2002) 86 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Foreign Remittances\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nInterpretation of exemption period for remittances received in foreign currency.\n•\nHeld:\no\nExemption applies to assessment years following the valuation date, not the calendar year.\no\nAssessee’s remittances remained exempt for the relevant years.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched.Cl.(7)(i),Ss.2(4)(24),3 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 107/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11th April. 2002, hearing DATE : 26-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.H. Qamar, I.T.P.. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 505 = 2002 SLD 505 = 2002 PTD 2512 = (2002) 86 TAX 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Wealth Tax Assessments\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of notices issued under Sections 14(2) and 17 concurrently.\n2.\nEffect of filing returns in response to invalid notices.\n•\nHeld:\no\nJurisdiction assumed under invalid notices renders proceedings void.\no\nFiling returns under such notices does not validate jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 Income Tax Act, 1922=22(2) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3,14(2),10(5),17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.286/KB to 288/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 4-02-2002. dates of hearing: 15-11-2001, 26th January and 2-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Arshad Siraj. Aqeel Abbasi, Legal Advisor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 506 = 2002 SLD 506 = 2002 PTD 2528 = (2002) 86 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Trusts as Companies\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether a trust can be treated as a company for wealth tax purposes.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTrusts are not companies under the Wealth Tax Act.\no\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner’s order treating a trust as a company was quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(9),(19),17B,21,16(3),2(9),2(19),2(5);SecondShed;Cl.(22) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16),2(31) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 371/KB to 374/KB of 2001, decision dated: 10-04-2002, hearing DATE : 17-11-2001.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Wasi Haider Rizvi, ITP. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. and Javed Iqbal Rana, IAC", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 507 = 2002 SLD 507 = 2002 PTD 2621 = (2002) 86 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Leased Plots in Cantonment Areas\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether leased plots in cantonment areas should be valued under Rule 8(3) or Rule 8(6).\n•\nHeld:\no\nLong-term leased plots with proprietary rights are taxable under Rule 8(3), with valuation aligned to Collector’s rates.\no\nTribunal upheld the valuation by the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3),8(6) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1124/LB to 1126/LB of 1999, decision dated: 28-03-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.R. Farooqi, ITP. Shahid Azim Khan, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 508 = 2002 SLD 508 = 2002 PTD 2629 = (2002) 86 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Assets under Special National Fund Bonds\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether assets created from or covered by Special National Fund Bonds qualify for exemption from wealth tax.\n•\nHeld:\no\nOnly the bonds themselves, as a distinct class of assets, are exempt from wealth tax under the notification.\no\nExemption does not extend to other assets created using encashed bonds.\no\nAssessing Officer and First Appellate Authority's rejection of the exemption claim was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 1378/LB of 1997, decision dated: 18-10-2001, hearing DATE : 2-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shabbir-ur-Rehman. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 509 = 2002 SLD 509 = 2002 PTD 2653 = (2002) 86 TAX 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Loan Secured Against Tax-Exempt Deposits\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether loans secured against foreign currency deposits, which are tax-exempt, qualify as liabilities for wealth tax purposes.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLoans secured against non-taxable assets do not qualify as deductible liabilities, regardless of how the loan amount is utilized.\no\nAssessing Officer’s decision to disallow the liability was upheld, reversing the First Appellate Authority’s direction.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 1 clarified the non-deductibility of such liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(16) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 645/IB to 647/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 10-06-2002, hearing DATE : 6-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MEHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naushad Ali Khan, D.R.. S. A. Kazmi, I.T.P.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 510 = 2002 SLD 510 = 2002 PTD 2755 = (2002) 86 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cancellation of Assessments\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether cancellation of an assessment based on subsequent information is valid.\n2.\nClassification of car showrooms as shops for wealth tax exemption purposes.\n•\nHeld:\no\nCancellation of assessments based on subsequent information is invalid (2000 PTD (Trib.) 2133).\no\nCar showrooms qualify as shops for exemption under Clause 12(2) of the Second Schedule. The Tribunal restored the exemption granted by the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17B,SecondSched.Cl.12(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1473/LB, 1474/LB, 1 of 2001 and 1250/LB of 2000, decision dated: 6-05-2002, hearing DATE : 12-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEERN SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RUNJHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Dar/Assessee. Mehboob Alam, D. R./Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 511 = 2002 SLD 511 = 2002 PTD 41 = (2002) 85 TAX 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Review of Appellate Tribunal Decisions\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nScope of constitutional petitions under Article 199 regarding rejection of accounts and application of G.P. rate by the Tribunal.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAppellate Tribunal’s decision based on valid reasons and material evidence cannot be interfered with under Article 199.\no\nRejection of accounts and application of G.P. rate upheld.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\n1986 PTD 368, 1988 PTD 907, and 1988 PTD 882 support limited judicial review in such cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1123 of 1985, decision dated: 19th September, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAMEED MASOOD LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE; LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 512 = 2002 SLD 512 = 2002 PTD 397 = (2002) 85 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Property Taken Over by Liquidation Board in Net Wealth\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether property taken over by the Liquidation Board after the valuation date should be excluded from net wealth.\n2.\nImpact of failure to exhaust statutory remedies before filing a constitutional petition.\n•\nHeld:\no\nProperty in possession on the valuation date (30-06-1991) remains part of the net wealth for the assessment year 1991-92. Subsequent possession by the Liquidation Board is irrelevant.\no\nFailure to exhaust statutory remedies undermines the constitutional petition.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(16),2(m) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1608 of 1994, heard on 25-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid. Muhammad Ilyas Khans.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE II, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 513 = 2002 SLD 513 = 2002 PTD 1450 = (2002) 86 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Wealth Tax Assessments\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nNon-consideration of court decrees by the Assessing Officer.\n2.\nJurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman to redress grievances.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessing Officer’s failure to consider evidence and court decrees rendered the assessments unjust, attracting Federal Tax Ombudsman intervention.\no\nOmbudsman recommended setting aside assessments for de novo proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3,25(1),35 Federal Staff Relief Fund Regulation 2000=2(3)(i),9(1),11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.56 of 2002, decision dated: 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Hakeem for the Complainant. Syed Mehboob Alam, A.C.I.T..", + "Party Name:": "Sheikh ABDUL HAMEED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 514 = 2002 SLD 514 = 2002 PTD 1470 = (2002) 85 TAX 406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Principles of Estoppel and Federal Tax Ombudsman Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of estoppel in tax matters.\n2.\nJurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in cases of maladministration.\n•\nHeld:\no\nNo estoppel applies against statutory provisions.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance allows redress against maladministration, even where alternate legal remedies exist.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nPLD 1966 SC 738 and 1993 SCMR 1513 on statutory estoppel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=77,77(2) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=31A ", + "Case #": "Review Application No.39 in Complaint No. 1209-L of 2001, decision dated: 9-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain and Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, Representatives for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. (NESPAK), LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 515 = 2002 SLD 515 = 2002 PTD 2129 = (2002) 85 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Compliance with Remand Directions\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nScope of reassessment proceedings after remand with specific directions.\n•\nHeld:\no\nReassessment must strictly comply with remand directions. Any deviation or expansion beyond the specified scope is unauthorized and amounts to maladministration.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended re-hearing and adherence to remand instructions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62/132,138,13(l)(aa) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1639-L of 2001, decision dated: 29-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sikandar Hayat Khan for the Complainant. Raza Munawar, Special Assistant", + "Party Name:": "EXCEL LABORATORIES\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 516 = 2002 SLD 516 = 2002 PTD 2140 = (2002) 85 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Harassment Complaints Against Tax Officials\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nHandling of frivolous complaints and their withdrawal under pressure.\n•\nHeld:\no\nFrivolous complaints against tax officials should be discouraged.\no\nComplainants withdrawing complaints under duress face penalties (e.g., Rs.1,000 costs imposed).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,14(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1609-L of 2001, decision dated: 20-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Hafiz GULZAR AHMAD, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 517 = 2002 SLD 517 = 2002 PTD 2143 = (2002) 86 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Review of Federal Tax Ombudsman Orders & Additional Assessment Under Income Tax Ordinance\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nReview of Orders: Notice served after hearing led to recall of Ombudsman’s order.\n2.\nStamp Duty Valuation: Validity of additional assessment based on Collector’s rate rather than declared stamp value.\n•\nHeld:\no\nOmbudsman’s order was rightly recalled due to procedural lapses in notice service.\no\nAdditional assessment lacked definite information, and Collector’s rate valuation applied post-assessment does not constitute new information. Action deemed maladministration.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nCentral Insurance Co. v. CBR 1993 PTD 766.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,13(1)(dd) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=14(8),9 ", + "Case #": "Review Application No. 29-K in Complaint No. 849-K of 2001, decision dated: 24-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nizam-ud-Din, ITP for the Complainant. Ahmed Saeed, IAC, Range-III, Zone C. Hamid Saeed Khan, Special Officer for the Department", + "Party Name:": "RAO & COMPANY, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 518 = 2002 SLD 518 = 2002 PTD 2436 = (2002) 86 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Wealth Tax Assessments\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValidity of ex parte wealth tax assessments based on lump sum estimates of movable assets.\n•\nHeld:\no\nEx parte assessments must involve honest, fair, and itemized estimations of assets. Failure to do so renders assessments arbitrary and illegal.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended reassessment with fresh opportunities for evidence presentation.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\nIn re: Sakhi Contractors & Engineers, Multan 1981 PTD 210.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3,4(3),16(5) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1438-L of 2001, decision dated: 9-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Pervez for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasool, D.C.I.T..", + "Party Name:": "ATTIQURREHMAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 520 = 2002 SLD 520 = 2002 PTD 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing of Monthly Statements\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nJurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officers under Section 108(b).\n2.\nValidity of penalties imposed before amendments requiring monthly statements.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTax Recovery Officers have jurisdiction under Section 108(b).\no\nPenalties imposed before the amendments requiring monthly statements were invalid.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nI.T.A. No.384(IB) of 1999-2000.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,5(1)(c),108(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 141/113 of 1998-99, decision dated: 17-08-2001, hearing DATE : 16th August; 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAMEEL AHMAD BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIZAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R.. Riffat Hussain Malik", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 178 = 1990 SLD 178 = 1990 PLC 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Upgradation of Cadre and Ex-Cadre Posts\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nEntitlement to upgraded positions for incumbents of cadre posts.\n•\nHeld:\no\nUpgraded cadre positions must follow seniority. Incumbents of the original posts are not entitled to automatic upgradation if senior officers exist.\no\nUpgradation without seniority consideration violates service rules.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class I) Rules, 1965=R-3,5(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4573 of 1985, heard on 18-06-1989. dates of hearing: 23rd September, 1987; 29-05-1988; 5th and 20-02-1989; 17th and 18-06-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner. Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.G. with Muhammad Rashid Maliks. Nos. 1 and 2. Muhammad Anwar Sipra and Ch. Mushtaq Masoods Nos. 3 to 7", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN RANA\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 100 = 2013 SLD 100 = (2013) 107 TAX 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation in Telecom Sector Contracts\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nWhether taxation on imports and subsequent contractual fulfillment constitutes double taxation.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTaxation Officer’s approach of taxing at import and contractual stages was incorrect.\no\nCIT(A)’s finding that full tax liability should be settled at the final stage upheld.\no\nDepartmental appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 586 to 588/IB of 2009 (Assessment Years 2003 to 2005) decided on 5-1-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Ali Khawaja, DR, for the Appellant. Muddassar Khalid, ACA, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 101 = 2013 SLD 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendments in Assessments & Cross Appeals\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAdmissibility of purchases without proper documentation.\n2.\nJustification for additions to income during reassessment.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAdditions without evidence, even informal (e.g., katcha vouchers), were restricted to Rs. 700,000.\no\nRelief provided by CIR(A) under other heads upheld.\no\nBoth taxpayer and departmental appeals disposed of accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120(1),177,122(9),122(1)(5) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1063/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2008) hearing DATE 18-06-2013. ITA No.1093/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2008)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Tariq Javed Raja, Advocate. Respondent by Dr. Idrees Ahmad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Taj Mahal Banquet Hall, 9-A Abubakar Block, New Garden Town, Lahore. \nvs\nCIR, ZonEVIII, RTO-II, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 102 = 2013 SLD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misclassification of Trade Advances as Income\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nTreatment of trade advances under Section 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAdvances not routed through banking channels do not automatically qualify as income unless specific requirements under Section 39 are met.\no\nAddition of Rs. 4,433,164 reversed as trade advances were appropriately accounted for.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=124,177,120(1),122(1),111(1)(c),39(4) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 2014/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2007) hearing DATE 16.04.2013. DATE of order 22.04.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Abdul Rasheed Gill, ITP. Respondent by Mr. Qaiser Mehmood, D.R alongwith Mrs. Naheed Lakho, D.R\nExpert Advertising & Packaging (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore. Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Expert Advertising & Packaging (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore. \nvs\nThe C.I.R, (Appeals-II), Lahore. 2. The C.I.R, (Zone-II), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 103 = 2013 SLD 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Withholding Obligations\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValidity of withholding tax rates and compliance for specific transactions.\n•\nHeld:\no\nWithholding tax on transport services reduced from 6% to 2% as per Section 153 and CBR’s SROs.\no\nPayments below Rs. 25,000 exempt from withholding tax.\no\nDepartmental appeal dismissed for lack of merit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,161,205 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.70/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2010), NTN No. 1537478, hearing DATE 10.06.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant By Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, D.R. Respondent By Mian M. Tahir, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "The C.I.R Zone-IV, R.T.O., Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. CoNCast Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 104 = 2013 SLD 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Wealth Statements\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nAcceptance of revised wealth statements declaring reduced wealth.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTaxpayer’s claim to reduce wealth statement denied as onus to prove misdeclaration lay with the taxpayer.\no\nTribunal dismissed the application, noting procedural non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116,116(3),122(1),122(4) ", + "Case #": "MA(R) No. 24/IB/2012 Tax Year 2009 hearing DATE 09.03.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Ziaullah Khan, DR. Respondent by Zahid Masood Chatha. Advocate/AR", + "Party Name:": "CIR (Legal Division) R.T.O. Rawalpindi. \nvs\nRashid Mehmood, PropM/s. Kiran Jewelers, Main Bazar, Dina." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 105 = 2013 SLD 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retailer-Cum-Wholesaler Assessment\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nApplicability of Section 113(B) for bifurcation of retail and wholesale turnover.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTaxpayer’s dual role as retailer and wholesaler necessitated turnover bifurcation.\no\nCase remanded for CIR to reassess based on retail sales exceeding Rs. 5,000,000.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,120(1),122(9),122(5A),113B ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1639/IB/11 Tax Year 2007 hearing DATE 01-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Yasir Pirzada, D.R. Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "CIR, ZonEVI, RTO-I, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Makhdoom Corporation, 56-McLeod Road, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 106 = 2010 SLD 106 = 2010 PTCL 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wastage and Penalty in Customs Act Violations\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLiability for duties on wastage under Customs Act.\n2.\nValidity of penalties imposed for improper removal of goods.\n•\nHeld:\no\nWaste generated in manufacturing bonded goods is subject to duties when consumed domestically.\no\nPenalties under Section 32 were excessive and reduced for being harsh.\no\nCustoms and criminal proceedings are concurrent but independent.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=18 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 537/PB/2007, decision dated: 5-01-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Muhammad Azam, Superintendent, Mr. Taj Malook, Superintendent and Mr. Naseer Khan, D.S.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Shahzad Ghee Mills Ltd., Gadoou Amazai\nvs\nCollector of Customs, Sales Tax & Federal Excise (Appeals), Peshawar and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 106 = 2013 SLD 106 = 2013 PTD 1186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Income or Assets\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nAdditions made for three motor vehicles registered under taxpayer’s name without proper verification.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDepartment lacked definite information as required under Section 122.\no\nOnly one vehicle belonged to the taxpayer, leased under a hire purchase agreement, not deemed as investment.\no\nOther vehicles’ ownership was not verified, rendering proceedings invalid and violating the principles of natural justice.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\n1994 SCMR 2232.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),121,122,120 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. N0.1037A/LB of 2012, decision dated: 7-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Riaz Ahmed ITP. Syed Bahadar Ali, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ABDUL RASHEED, Prop. MODern Steel House, Layya\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 107 = 2013 SLD 107 = (2013) 108 TAX 192 = 2013 PTD 1219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Assessment Amendments\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLimitations on amending assessments for issues previously addressed.\n2.\nSimultaneous proceedings for deemed assessments.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessments can only be amended for new issues, not for previously resolved matters.\no\nTwo amendments for the same deemed assessment are invalid unless the first is declared void.\no\nJurisdiction under Sections 122(5) and 122(5-A) requires notice under Section 122(9).\n•\nPrecedents:\no\n2011 PTD (Trib.) 1807 and 2009 PTD 1392 (S.C. Pak).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(f),2(36),20,21,21(n),120,120(1)(b),121,122,122(1),122(3)(b),122(4),122(5),122(5A),122(8),129,177,Second ScheduleClause92 ", + "Case #": "l.T.As. Nos. 853/IB and 960/IB of 2012, decision dated: 28-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Jawaid, Khura for Applicant (in I.T.A. No. 853/IB of 2012). Tahir Khan, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 853/IB of 2012). Tahir Khan, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 960/IB of 2012). Muhammad Jawaid, Khuram (in I.T.A. No. 960/IB of 2012)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS FOUNDATION, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 108 = 2013 SLD 108 = (2013) 108 TAX 216 = 2013 PTD 1265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments Without Mandatory Approvals\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nNon-compliance with mandatory approval for additions to income.\n2.\nPenalty imposition without Additional Commissioner’s approval.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAdditions to income and penalties imposed without obtaining mandatory approval from Additional Commissioner were invalid and deleted.\no\nTechnical lapses in appointing agents for non-residents do not void assessments.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\n2005 PTD 2345 and 2007 PTD (Trib.) 676.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),56,62,114,108,116 ", + "Case #": "I T.As. Nos.639/IB to 651/IB of 2011, decision dated: 25-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees. Ziaullah Khan, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Malik FURRUKH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 107 = 2013 SLD 107 = (2013) 108 TAX 113 = 2013 PTCL 579 = 2013 PTD 1274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxpayer Audit and Selection Processes\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValidity of audit selection under risk parameters and distinctions between parametric and random balloting.\n•\nHeld:\no\nFBR's audit policy must be transparent, and parameters must be publicly advertised.\no\nSingle risk parameters can qualify cases for high-risk audits.\no\nCourts validated audit selection and dismissed intra-court appeals.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\nPremier Industrial Chemical Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=214C Federal Excise Act, 2005=42B Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3 Sales Tax Act, 1990=72B ", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No. 116 of 2013, heard on 23rd May, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar. Asif Rasool, Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenues", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ITTEFAQ RICE MILLS\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 109 = 2013 SLD 109 = 2013 PTD 1297 = (2013) 107 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court for Assessment Amendments\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDistinction between tribunal procedures under repealed and new ordinances.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTribunal's role under Section 136(6) of the repealed ordinance was administrative, but under Section 133(5) of the new ordinance, orders stand modified automatically by High Court judgments.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\nElli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009) PTD 1392.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133(5),136(6) ", + "Case #": "l.T.As. Nos. 5545/LB and 5546/LB of 2005, decision dated: 21st May, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHEER-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Tasleem D.R.. Viqar A. Khan,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 110 = 2013 SLD 110 = (2013) 108 TAX 20 = 2013 PTD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wastage of Stock and Sales Tax Liability\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWastage allowance for stock of lubricants.\n2.\nSales tax liability for self-consumed stock.\n•\nHeld:\no\nNo statutory provisions allow wastage benefits for lubricants, and sales tax must be applied to all self-consumed stock.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(46),3 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.241/IB of 2012, decided 17-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Mehmood. Syed Imran Shah, FCA, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNIQUE ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 111 = 2013 SLD 111 = (2013) 108 TAX 1 = 2013 PTD 1319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Workers’ Welfare Fund\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nRequirement for a speaking order under Section 4 of Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance.\n•\nHeld:\no\nProper confrontation and separate speaking orders are mandatory before levying Workers’ Welfare Fund.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\n2007 PTD 163.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1)(b),122(5) ", + "Case #": "l.T.A. No.154/LB of 2012, decision dated: 24-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asif Rasool, D.R. for Applicant. None.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., MULTAN\nvs\nKhawaja BASHIR AHMAD & CO., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 112 = 2013 SLD 112 = 2013 PTD 1375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Imported Raw Materials\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nJurisdiction of Intelligence Department and Customs Adjudication.\n•\nHeld:\no\nIntelligence Department lacked jurisdiction to act under Section 32.\no\nOnly the Collectorate at the import stage could address misdeclaration.\no\nProceedings declared void for jurisdictional overreach.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\n2002 SCMR 134 and Messrs Capron Overseas' case 2010 PTD 465.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=18,19,32,156(1) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.252/LB of 2012, decision dated: 15-04-2013, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND CH. MUHAMMAD MUBEEN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar. Muhammad Ismail, D.R.s.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PIONEER STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 113 = 2013 SLD 113 = 2013 PTD 1389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nRequirements for condoning delays in filing appeals.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDelay without valid reasons or application for condonation renders appeals time-barred.\no\nCourts favor vigilant parties.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nNazakat Ali v. WAPDA (2004 SCMR 145).", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=136 Limitation Act, 1908=5 ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No.152 of 2000, decision dated: 12-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, C.J. AND NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Munawar Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nSARHAD WOOLLEN MILLS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 114 = 2013 SLD 114 = 2013 PTD 1413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Goods Under Tax Laws\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nCharacteristics of fast-moving consumer goods and their taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,SecondSched.,Part-III,Cl.(8) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.834/IB of 2012, decision dated: 16-05-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Saifullah Waseem. Ehsan Ullah, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHZAD ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI\nvs\n C.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 115 = 2013 SLD 115 = (2013) 108 TAX 58 = 2013 PTD 1420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Tax Exemptions\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nApplicability of Section 113(2)(c) for losses declared in previous years.\n•\nHeld:\no\nExemption provisions must be strictly interpreted, favoring taxpayers only when applicable.\n•\nPrecedents:\no\nCape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (1921) 1 KB 64.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,113(1),113(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 132 of 2011, decision dated: 7-05-2013, hearing DATE : 24-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM SARWAR KAMI AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Javed Hashmi for Applicant. Abdul Rahim Lakhani.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs KASSIM TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 116 = 2013 SLD 116 = (2013) 107 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provincial Professional Tax\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nValidity of professional tax levied by Punjab for sales offices.\n•\nHeld:\no\nProvinces have the right to impose professional tax for entities operating within their territories, regardless of taxes paid in other provinces.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\nProvince of Punjab v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 2005 SC 988).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=11,18 Punjab Finance Act, 1977=3 ", + "Case #": "17004 OF 2010, 13-09-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Sarfraz ul Hassan, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Faisal Zaman Khan, Addl. Advocate General, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS\nvs\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 117 = 2013 SLD 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Erroneous Tribunal Listings\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nAppeals fixed in error due to ongoing civil litigation.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAppeals were disposed of as per procedural rules.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001= ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.2504/LB/2003, (Assessment Year 1996-97), ITA No. 2505/LB/2003 (Assessment Year 1998-99), hearing DATE 19-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Rana Munir Hussain, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Qaiser Mehmood, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s ALHamra Industries (Pvt) Ltd. Lahore. \nvs\nDCIT/WT CirclE04, Companies Zone-I, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 118 = 2013 SLD 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection and Disallowance of Purchases\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nDisallowance of deductions without pointing specific defects.\n•\nHeld:\no\nCIR(A)’s power to remand cases withdrawn by Finance Act, 2005.\no\nAdditions deleted as unsupported by specific evidence.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\nITA Nos. 1078 & 1079/LB/2010.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177,122(1),122(5),174(2),127 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.862/LB/2012 hearing DATE 15.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mian Masood Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR", + "Party Name:": "Haji Pervaiz Akhtar, Prop. Khussa Mahal, Liberty Plaza, GulberGIII, Lahore. \nvs\nC.I.R, ZonEXII, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 119 = 2013 SLD 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendments Based on Gross Commission Information\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nUse of definite information to amend assessments.\n•\nHeld:\no\nNo concealment of income; departmental appeals dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),122(9),164 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 403/IB/2012 Tax Year 2005, ITA No. 404/IB/2012 Tax Year 2006, hearing DATE 25.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Naveed Hassan, DR. Respondent by Mr. Zahid Masood Chatha and Syed Muhammad Ali, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "The Commissioner Inland Revenue, ZonEll, (Regional Tax Office), Islamabad. \nvs\nM/s Cellular One Plus, Office No.02, G.D Arcade, Blue Area, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 120 = 2013 SLD 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Default and Exchange Rate Issues\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nTaxpayer declared in default for short deduction of income tax.\n•\nHeld:\no\nTax demand upheld, but appellant given opportunity to rectify exchange rate differences.\n•\nPrecedent:\no\n2003 PTD 1167 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,151,221,161,205 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.827/IB/2010 Tax Year 2001-02, ITA No.828/IB/2010 Tax Year 2002-03, hearing DATE 27.03.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNS1F KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tahir Khan, DR. Respondent by Mr. Farrukh Jamil, FCA", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal Division), LTU, Islamabad. \nvs\nM/s. National Highway Authority, G9/1 Mauve Area, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 121 = 2013 SLD 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition\n•\nKey Issue:\no\nImposition of 5% penalty despite vacated appellate order.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAppeals allowed; penalties vacated due to lack of recoverable demand.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=183,183(1) ", + "Case #": "ITA No/1332/LB/2011 (Assessment Year 2002-03) NTN:-0136155, hearing DATE 06.01.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tipu Sultan, ITP. Respondent by Mr. Naeem Hasan, DR.", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Suhaib Ahsan Prop. Paper Point, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR ZonEVI, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 122 = 2013 SLD 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nAppeal dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 22(1)\n•\nBackground: An appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) by the department. However, the department failed to send a representative to argue the case.\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal could dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal under Rule 22(1) of the ATIR Rules, 2010, for lack of interest and non-appearance by the department.\n•\nReference: A.T.I.R. Rules, 2010, Rule 22(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010=R-22,22(1) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1392/LB/2011 (Tax year 2008), hearing DATE 08.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Respondent by Mian Muhammad Tahir, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "CIR, ZonEVI, RTO, Lahore. \nvs\nSh. Farooq Ahmad, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 123 = 2013 SLD 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nApplicability of Section 113(B) to retail and wholesale turnover\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer, registered as a retailer-cum-wholesaler, was assessed as a retailer. The CIR (Appeals) annulled the assessment, holding the taxpayer outside the purview of Section 113(B).\n•\nIssue: Whether Section 113(B) applied to the taxpayer's retail activities, given a turnover threshold of Rs. 5 million.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that Section 113(B) applies only if retail sales exceed Rs. 5 million. The case was remanded to determine the bifurcation of retail and wholesale turnovers, ensuring proper verification before proceeding.\n•\nReference: Sections 120(1), 122(9), 122(5A), 113(B); C.B.R Circular No. 3(12) ST-L & P/2004(PT), dated 10/10/2010.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,120(1),122(9),122(5A),113B ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1639/IB/11 Tax Year 2007, hearing DATE 01-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Yasir Pirzada, D.R. Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "CIR, ZonEVI, RTO-I, Lahore\nvs\nM/s. Makhdoom Corporation, 56-McLeod Road, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 124 = 2013 SLD 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nWithholding tax on transport services and compliance with S.R.O. 586(I)/91\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer, a steel manufacturer, was required to deduct withholding tax on payments. The CIR(A-II) reduced the tax rate to 2% for transport services and dismissed demands below Rs. 25,000 based on S.R.O. 586(I)/91.\n•\nIssue: Whether the reduced rate (2%) for transport services and exemptions below Rs. 25,000 were valid.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR’s decision, maintaining a 2% rate for transport services and invalidating demands below Rs. 25,000. The department's appeal was dismissed.\n•\nReference: Sections 153, 161, 205; Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 50; S.R.O. 586(I)/91.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,161,205 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.70/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2010), NTN No. 1537478, hearing DATE 10.06.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant By Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, D.R. Respondent By Mian M. Tahir, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "The C.I.R Zone-IV, R.T.O., Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. CoNCast Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 125 = 2013 SLD 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRevision of wealth statements and rectification under Section 116(3)\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer revised a wealth statement, reducing declared wealth from Rs. 6.85 million to Rs. 1.72 million, claiming errors in the original statement. The department rejected the revision, alleging misdeclaration.\n•\nIssue: Whether the revised wealth statement could be accepted under Section 116(3).\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled the department had the burden of proving misdeclaration. Since no evidence was provided, the revised wealth statement was upheld. The rectification application was dismissed.\n•\nReference: Sections 116(3), 122(1), 122(4).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116,116(3),122(1),122(4) ", + "Case #": "MA(R) No. 24/IB/2012 Tax Year 2009, hearing DATE 09.03.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Ziaullah Khan, DR. Respondent by Zahid Masood Chatha. Advocate/AR", + "Party Name:": "CIR (Legal Division) R.T.O. Rawalpindi. \nvs\nRashid Mehmood, PropM/s. Kiran Jewelers, Main Bazar, Dina." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 126 = 2013 SLD 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nAppeal against amended assessment for non-production of evidence\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer, a cloth store owner, did not produce sales evidence during an audit. The amended assessment was vacated by the CIR (Appeals).\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR's order and dismissed the department’s appeal.\n•\nReference: Section 122(9).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(9) ", + "Case #": "ITA.No.235/IB/2012 (TAX YEAR, 2009), hearing DATE : 16.11.2012. DATE OF ORDER: 24.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE1, R.T.O, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSH.MUHAMMAD ASGHAR 421, SULTAN MARKET, TENCH BHATTA, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 127 = 2013 SLD 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance, 1979]\n•\nAppeals regarding limitation under Section 52\n•\nBackground: The department filed appeals on limitation under Section 52 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which were remanded for a fresh decision.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, maintaining their validity.\n•\nReference: Section 52, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=52 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 4609/LB/2003 (Assessment year 1997-98), ITA No.4610/LB/2003 (Assessment year 1998-99). ITA No. 1700/LB/2004, hearing DATE , 18-01-2013. DATE of Order , 31-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Mr. Imran Rasool. Advocate, Respondent by . Mrs. Nabila Iqbal, DR, Appellant by . Mr. Imran Rasool, Advocate, Respondent by . Mr. Sarfaiaz Qazi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/s Enem Store (Pvt) Ltd, Liberty, Lahore.\nvs\nCIT (Appeals), Zone -II, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 128 = 2013 SLD 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nTax deduction under Section 161 and remand for further evidence\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer failed to deduct taxes on certain payments. The CIR(A-II) partially allowed relief, and the taxpayer sought remand to provide evidence.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case to the Taxation Officer for verification of documentary evidence.\n•\nReference: Sections 120, 161, 205.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,161,205 ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.1176/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009), hearing DATE : 20.12.2012 , DATE of Order: 30.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Khalid Aslam, ITP Respondent by: Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Said Naam (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore.\nvs\nCIR, RTO-II, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 129 = 2013 SLD 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRetrospective application of Section 122C\n•\nBackground: Appeals were filed against orders under Section 122C, effective from 29/10/2009. The CIR dismissed the appeals as time-barred.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal found that the CIR erred in applying the limitation incorrectly. Appeals were accepted, and the lower court's order was struck down.\n•\nReference: Section 122C.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122C ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 283/IB/2012. (TAX YEAR, 2009), ITA No. 284/IB/2012 (TAX YEAR, 2009), hearing DATE : 11-12-2012. DATE of Order: 12-2-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MR.IMRAN HUSSAIN S/O MUHAMMAD HSSSAIN, KASHMIR TOWN, DINA, JHELUM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 130 = 2013 SLD 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nNon-compliance with Section 52 and remand for de novo proceedings\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer was accused of not deducting taxes under Section 52. The CIR annulled the order due to procedural lapses.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo proceedings with directions for due process.\n•\nReference: Section 52.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=52 ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.1127/LB/2010, Assessment Year 1995-96, ITA NO.1128/LB/2010, Assessment Year 1996-97, hearing DATE : 25.08.2011. DATE of order: 16.12.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (M.A. , JAVED SHAHEEN), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (SOHAIL AFZAL), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Miss Fouzia Adil, DR. Mr. Abdul Rehman, FCA", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. Legal Division, (RTO), Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Ranjha Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 131 = 2013 SLD 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nNatural justice and selection for audit under Section 177\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged the audit selection as lacking prior notice. The Supreme Court ruled the selection was illegal.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal accepted the taxpayer’s contention, remanding the case for compliance with legal requirements.\n•\nReference: Sections 111(1)(b), 177, 221; 94 TAX (SC Pak) 317 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),177,221 ", + "Case #": "ITA. NO.778/IB/201T (Tax Year 2006), hearing DATE : 15-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant By . Mr. Khalid Hussain, Advocate. Respondent By . Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s Honda Autos, Rawalpindi\nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 132 = 2013 SLD 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRefunds under Section 170\n•\nBackground: The department failed to comply with Tribunal orders to process refunds.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed departmental appeals and directed compliance with refund issuance.\n•\nReference: Sections 170, 170(4), 221/124.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,170(4),221/124 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 606/IB/2012, ITA No. 607/IB/2012, ITA No. 608/IB/2012, Tax Year 2004 ITA No. 609/1B/2012, ITA NO.610/IB/2012, ITA No. 611/1B/2012, hearing DATE : 08-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTIL CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Tahir Khan, DR, Respondent by: Mr. Yousuf AH Chaudhry, Mr. M. Iqbal Hashmi, Advocate and Mr. Qadeer Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "The Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, Islamabad\nvs\nZarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, 1-Faisal Avenue, Zero Point, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 133 = 2013 SLD 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nNon-compliance with show-cause notices\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer's assessment was amended under Section 122 due to unresponded notices. The CIR upheld the amendment.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, finding the proceedings legally compliant.\n•\nReference: Sections 120(1), 122(1), 122(5), 122(9).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),122(1)r/w122(5),122(9) ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.277/LB/2011 (Tax year 2007), hearing DATE : 20-08-2011. DATE of Order: 06-01-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (SOHAIL AFZAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Tipu Sultan, Advocate, Respondent by: Mr. Nayyar Mehmood, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s Standard Food (Pvt.) Ltd, Lahore. \nvs\nCIR, Audit Division RTO-Il, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 134 = 2013 SLD 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRetrospective application of Section 122C\n•\nBackground: Appeals involved the effect of Section 122C on provisional assessments. The Lahore High Court found the section applicable retrospectively.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case for verifying provisional assessments.\n•\nReference: Section 122C; Circular No.02 of 2010.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116,116(2),120(a),121,121(1),122C,133 ", + "Case #": "Case No: I.T.R.No. 4/2012, hearing DATE : 13.11.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nSYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Advocate along with M/s Khalid Javed, Additional Commissioner and Farooq A. Nasir, Additional Commissioner. \nM/s Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocate and Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nVS\nISLAM UD DIN, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 135 = 2013 SLD 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nMinimum tax turnover\n•\nBackground: The department challenged the calculation of turnover for minimum tax.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the department’s appeals.\n•\nReference: Section 113; ITA No. 456/IB/2010.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113 ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.463/IB/2010 (Tax Year 2003), ITA NO.464/IB/2010 (Tax Year 2005), hearing DATE : 01.12.2011", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Dr. Shazia Gul, DR. Respondent by . Mr. Sajid Ijaz Hotiana Advocate", + "Party Name:": "The CIR (Legal Division) RTO, Lahore. .\nvs\nM/s Four Star (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 136 = 2013 SLD 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nJurisdictional issues post-Finance Act 2011\n•\nBackground: Amendments limited CIR(A)’s jurisdiction regarding Section 122C.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the amendment inapplicable to earlier cases.\n•\nReference: Sections 114(4), 122C, 111, 128(5).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),122C,111,128(5) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1641/LB/2011, hearing DATE : 20. 01. 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (ABDUL RAUF) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Dr. Muhammad Idrees, D.R Respondent by . None", + "Party Name:": "CIR ZonEXII, RTO, Lahore. \nvs\nMr. Karim Ahmad Sheikh, Prop M/s. Prince Fabrics 72-G, Raja Centre Main Market, GulberGll, Lahore.N.T.N.TR-2763" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 137 = 2013 SLD 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nExempt status of a non-profit organization\n•\nBackground: Taxpayer's income was deemed taxable despite exemption under Clause 94, Part-I, Second Schedule.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal vacated the assessment order and declared it null and void.\n•\nReference: Section 62; 2010 PTD 1904.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,132,66, ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 216/LB/2011, (Assessment Year 2002-2003), hearing DATE : 29.01.2013. DATE of order : 18.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (MIAN MASOOD AHMAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Mr. Aqeel Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by . Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s All Pakistan Contractor Association, Lahore. . \nvs\nThe CIR RTO-I Lahore. ." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 138 = 2013 SLD 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #8539\n[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRefund curtailment and procedural lapses\n•\nBackground: The department failed to follow Tribunal directions for refund processing.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal vacated the orders and directed a de novo assessment.\n•\nReference: Sections 120, 122(5A), 170.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5A),170 ", + "Case #": "MA (AG)No.64/LB/2012, (Tax Year 2006), ITA NO.1193/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2006), hearing DATE : 16.10.2012. DATE of order : 15.11.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (MIAN MASOOD AHMAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Mr. S. Zafar Shah, FCA. Respondent by . Mr. Shahid Safdar, DR.", + "Party Name:": "M/s Ghulam Rasool & Co. (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore\nvs\nThe CIR Companies ZonEll, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 139 = 2013 SLD 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nAppeals on assessment and additional tax\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged the imposition of additional tax and penalties.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR’s decision and dismissed departmental appeals.\n•\nReference: Sections 120, 122, 205.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,120,120(3),153(1)(c),162,153(6),169(1)(b),122(5A),115(4) ", + "Case #": "ITANO.64/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2004), ITA No. 2467IB/2011 (Tax Year 2003 ITA No. 247/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2003 ITA No.95/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2004), dated of hearing : 10-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI) CHAIRPERSON, (SOHAIL AFZAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Mr. Kaleem Ashraf, ACA Respondent by . Mr. Muhammad Tahir Khan, DR", + "Party Name:": "Inter City (Private) Limited, House No 15-A, St No. 12, F8/3, Islamabad, \nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal), LTU, Islamabad," + }, + { + "Case No.": "3260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 140 = 2013 SLD 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nApplicability of Section 113(B)\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer argued that Section 113(B) did not apply due to non-registration under Sales Tax Rules.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the order, agreeing with the taxpayer’s position.\n•\nReference: Sections 122(5A), 113(B).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,122(5A),113(b),120,122(9) ", + "Case #": "ITANO.135/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2007), ITA No. 136/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2008) ITANO.137/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2009), ITA No.138/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2010), hearing DATE : 08-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, (JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI) CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Rana Muhammad Afzal, Advocate. Respondent by . Ms. Sadia Sadaf, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s Salma Khalid Prop; M/s. Bashir Sons, Lahore\nvs\nThe CIR (Legal Division) RTO, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 141 = 2013 SLD 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nDeduction of market committee fees\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer contested the disallowance of deductions for market committee fees.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case for verification of unpaid items and upheld deductions for legitimate expenses.\n•\nReference: Sections 114, 120, 153.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001= ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.652/LB/2011 (Assessment year 2000-01), hearing DATE : 10.04.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Mr. Muhammad Tahir, DR. Respondent by . Mr, Manzoor Hussain Mir, FCA and Mr. Maqsood Ahmad, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "The CIR (Legal Division) LTU, Lahore\nvs\nM/s Chistia Sugar Mills Limited Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 142 = 2013 SLD 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nWithholding tax default and cancellation of tax charge under Sections 161 and 205\n•\nBackground: The department filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals), challenging the cancellation of an order regarding a taxpayer's alleged failure to withhold tax. The department argued that the taxpayer did not comply with the withholding requirements, and the Commissioner erred in canceling the order.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether the taxpayer's failure to withhold tax justified the order passed under Section 161.\n2.\nWhether the Taxation Officer followed the principle that tax charged under Section 161 pertains to another party, whose credit is governed by law.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal observed that tax charged under Section 161 is, by law, attributed to another party and requires proper credit allocation. This foundational principle was overlooked by the Taxation Officer, rendering the order unsustainable. While this deficiency invalidated the order on withholding tax, the Commissioner's decision regarding other charges was upheld.\n•\nReference: Sections 161 read with 205 and 148.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,148 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1593/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2010), hearing DATE : 14-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by . Mr. Yasir Pirzada, DR Respondent by . Mr. Nazir Ahmed Ch. FCA", + "Party Name:": "The CIR ZonEVIII, RTO-II, Lahore\nvs\nM/s. Swift Paper & Chemicals Pvt Ltd. 2-KM Katar Bund Road, Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 143 = 2013 SLD 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(9) ", + "Case #": "ITA.No. 247/IB/2012 (TAX YEAR 2009), hearing DATE : 22-02-2013. DATE OF ORDER: 20-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nHAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Ahsan Ullah Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Mr. Habib Ullah Khan, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLANDREVENUE, (LEGAL), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nVs\nM/s. DR. MUNIR TAHIR, TAHIR MEDICAL CENTRE, H2/B RAWALPINDI MEDICAL COLLEGE STAFF COLONY, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 144 = 2013 SLD 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRetrospective application of Section 177(10)\n•\nBackground: The department argued that the provision of Section 177(10), which enables the Commissioner to frame best judgment assessments, should be applied retrospectively. The CIR (Appeals) held otherwise.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether Section 177(10) could be applied retrospectively.\n2.\nWhether the assessment was legally framed.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR (Appeals)’ decision, ruling that Section 177(10) does not have retrospective applicability. The department’s appeal was dismissed.\n•\nReference: Sections 177(10), 121(1)(d), 122(9); Finance Act, 2010; 2012 PTD 184 = 105 Tax 413.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,177(10),121(1)(d),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 373/IB/12 Tax Year 2009, decided by 13.03.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Ihsan Ullah, DR. Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "CIR, Zone-I, RTO, Rawalpindi\nvs\nM/s. New Hussain Roller Flour Mills, G.T. Road, Dina, Jhelum. (NTN. 0792272-8)." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 145 = 2013 SLD 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRetrospective effect of Section 177(10)\n•\nConclusion: Identical to SLD #8545. The Tribunal upheld the CIR (Appeals)’ decision, rejecting the retrospective application of Section 177(10).\n•\nReference: Sections 177(10), 121(1)(d), 122(9); Finance Act, 2010; 2012 PTD 184 = 105 Tax 413.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,121(1)(d),122(9),177(10) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 374/IB/12 (Tax Year 2009), decided by 13.03.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON\nMR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Ihsan Ullah, DR\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "CIR, Zone-I, RTO, RAWALPINDI\nVS\nM. RIZWAN M/S. AL RIZWAN ROLLER FLOUR MILL, MACHINE MOHALLAH, JHELUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 146 = 2013 SLD 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nDefault surcharge deletion due to payment compliance\n•\nBackground: The department contended that additional tax was rightly imposed for late payment. However, the taxpayer had paid the dues, including default surcharge, as per the Tribunal’s earlier order.\n•\nIssue: Whether the deletion of additional tax was justified.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal found no outstanding tax liability since the taxpayer paid all dues, including Rs. 26,121 in additional tax. The department's appeal was rejected.\n•\nReference: Section 205.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.394/IB/2012 (Assessment Year 2001-02), decision dated: 05.03.2013, hearing DATE 06.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Ahsan Ullah Khan, D.R. Mr. Tahir Jameel, and Mr. Majid Razi Khan, Advocates.\nM/s. Shahzad-Ul-Arfeen, Prop; Medica-International House No. 129, Asghar Mall Scheme, Rawalpindi C/o Jameel Ahmed Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) R.T.O., Rawalpindi\nvs\nM/s. ShahzaDULArfeen, Prop; Medica-International House No. 129, Asghar Mall Scheme, Rawalpindi C/o Jameel Ahmed Advocate" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 147 = 2013 SLD 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nValidity of assessment and default surcharge deletion\n•\nBackground: The department alleged that the taxpayer failed to substantiate claims regarding advances from its Chief Executive's account. The CIR(A-1) deleted additional taxes after examining banking records.\n•\nIssue: Whether the CIR(A-1) was justified in deleting additions and surcharge.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR(A-1)’s findings, stating the department failed to verify evidence provided by the taxpayer. The appeal was dismissed.\n•\nReference: Sections 111, 122(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,122(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 413/IB/11 Tax Year 2008, decision dated: 03.04.2013, hearing DATE 27.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Naveed Hassan, DR. Mr. Maqsood Khan, ITP.", + "Party Name:": "CIR (Legal) Zone-I, RTO, Islamabad\nvs\nM/s East Side Services (Pvt) Ltd, , Green Trust Tower, Blue Area, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 148 = 2013 SLD 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nLate filing of return and penalty deletion\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer filed a return 21 days late and requested an extension, which was denied. The CIR(A) deleted the penalty imposed by the department.\n•\nIssue: Whether the penalty for late filing was valid.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR(A)’s decision, finding the penalty unwarranted. The department’s appeal was dismissed.\n•\nReference: Section 182(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182,182(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 673/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2009), decision dated: 24.01.2013, hearing DATE : 04.12.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, D.R.. Syed Abdul Saleem, Account Officer", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Zone-I), R.T.O., Islamabad\nvs\nM/s. Bridge Factor (Pvt) Ltd, 2-B, Street-47, F7/l, Islamaba" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 149 = 2013 SLD 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nAudit discrepancies and assessment amendments\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged additions made during an audit, including depreciation and donations. The CIR (Appeals-II) confirmed some additions and deleted others.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIR (Appeals)’s order for certain issues and deleted others based on the evidence. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.\n•\nReference: Sections 111(1)(c), 39(3)(a), 177, 122(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(c),39(3)(a),177,122(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 710/IB/2012 M.A. (AG) No.17/IB/2013, decision dated: 14.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Muhammad Safdar, Advocate. Mr. Naveed Hassan, DR.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Target Consulting Services (Pvt) Ltd, 7th Floor Green Trust Tower, Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad\nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-II), RTO, Rawalpindi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 150 = 2013 SLD 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nTax regime applicability and refund claim\n•\nBackground: The department amended the taxpayer’s assessment, citing non-compliance with Section 153(6B) under the Presumptive Tax Regime. The CIR(A) annulled the amendment.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, agreeing with the CIR(A)’s action.\n•\nReference: Sections 122(5A), 120(1), 153(6A), 153(6B); 2008 PTD 1563.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),120(1),153(6A),153(6B) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1610/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2008), decision dated: 08.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "None appeared. Mr. Javed Iqbal Qazi, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "CIR, ZonEX, RTO-II, Lahore\nvs\nM/s Prime Engineering Works, 18-K.M., Multan Road, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 151 = 2013 SLD 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nDeletion of penalties for NGO as withholding agent\n•\nBackground: An NGO claimed it was not a withholding agent. The CIR(A) annulled penalties, and the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal found no fault in the CIR(A)’s fresh decision and dismissed the departmental appeal.\n•\nReference: Sections 182(2), 128(5), 153.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=128,182(2),128,128(5),153 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.725/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2005) ITA.No.726/IB/20 11 (Tax Year 2006) ITA.No.727/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2007), hearing DATE 22-05-2013. DATE of Order 04-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Baloch, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, Advocate\nM/s. Mountain Institute for Educational Development, House No. 515 St No. 67, G-10/3, Islamabad", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Zone-I), R.T.O., Islamabad, \nvs\nM/s. Mountain Institute for Educational Development, House No.515 St No. 67, G10/3, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 152 = 2013 SLD 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRevisionary jurisdiction under Section 122(5A)\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged additions made under Section 122(5A), claiming they were based on presumptions and lacked evidentiary support.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the assessment, declaring the action under Section 122(5A) as illegal.\n•\nReference: Sections 39(3), 21(1), 122(5A); 2010 PTD 1506 (H.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,39(3),21(1)21(c),122(5A),122(9) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 720/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2005), hearing DATE 03.04.2013. DATE of order 04.04.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Shahid Bashir, A.R. assisted by Mr. Iqtidar Alam, A.R. Respondent by Asif Rasheed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Reshmatex Limited, 2-KM, Manga-Raiwind Road, Lahore. \nvs\nThe Commissioner, (Appeals-I), Lahore. The Additional Commissioner (LTU), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 153 = 2013 SLD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nWaiver of penalties under amnesty scheme\n•\nBackground: The department imposed penalties, which were annulled under the amnesty scheme.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the department’s appeals, finding the penalties unsustainable.\n•\nReference: Section 182(3); S.R.O. 574(I)/2012.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182,182(3) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.188/IB/2012 Assessment year 1992-93, ITA No.189/IB/2012 Assessment year 1992-93, ITA No.190/IB/2012 Assessment year 1993-94,...No.196/IB/2012 Assessment year 1998-99, hearing DATE 30.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tahir Khan, DR. Respondent by Mr. Waqar Zafar, FCA", + "Party Name:": "CIR, LTU, Islamabad. \nvs\nM/s. Hub Power Company Limited, Clifton, Karachi. (NTN 0800595)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 716 = 2001 SLD 716 = 2001 PTCL 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (XV of 1963)]\n•\nClassification of property as immovable asset\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer contested the assessment of a flour mill as an immovable asset subject to wealth tax.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the flour mill, embedded in the earth and leased for business, qualifies as immovable property chargeable under wealth tax.\n•\nReference: Section 2(e)(ii); General Clauses Act, 1897.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,(2)(e)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 132/1B to 136/1B of 1997-98, decision dated: 24-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD DAUD TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Javed A. Qureshi, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 717 = 2001 SLD 717 = 2001 PTCL 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969)]\n•\nValidity of income tax exemption certificate\n•\nBackground: The appellant sought an exemption certificate covering a gap period between its expiration and renewal.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the delay in issuance was attributable to the tax authorities, and the exemption was valid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=30 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. CA/1488/LB/2000. (Single Bench Appeal), decision dated: 26-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Arslan Pervaiz Durrani, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Amer Ahmed, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Kabir Poly Textiles Mills Ltd., Kabirwala\nvs\nCollector of Customs (Adjudication), Multan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 718 = 2001 SLD 718 = 2001 PTCL 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (XV of 1963)]\n•\nInclusion of assets already assessed in the hands of the son\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer claimed that assets taxed in the son’s wealth were incorrectly included in his wealth as a benami holder.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether assets taxed in the son’s wealth could be reassessed in the father’s wealth.\n2.\nWhether the father was the real owner or a benami holder.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that assets already assessed in the son’s wealth could not be reassessed in the father’s wealth. The claim of being a benami holder was uncontroverted by the department. The reassessment was deemed invalid.\n•\nReference: Section 17, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 408/KB to 410/KB of 1998-99. decided on 17-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Jawed Zakaria and Mr. Jan-e-Alam, Advocates. Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 719 = 2001 SLD 719 = 2001 PTCL 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (XV of 1963)]\n•\nTax under Section 14C as advance tax and not final liability\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer contested whether the tax under Section 14C was an advance tax or a final liability.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether assets under Section 14(1)(d) constitute a separate block.\n2.\nWhether tax under Section 14C is final or advance tax.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that Section 14C is an advance tax adjustable against final tax liability. It clarified that such tax is not the minimum tax payable if the net wealth tax is lower or exempt.\n•\nReference: Sections 14(1)(d), 14C; Constitution of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,14(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 816/IB of 1998-99 and 175/IB of 1999-2000. decided on 15-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MANSOOR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant Mr. Nadir Mumtaz Warraich, D.R. Respondent by: Mr. Oliver Peter, FCA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 720 = 2001 SLD 720 = 2001 PTCL 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nRectification application dismissed due to lack of error in Tribunal order\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer argued that the Tribunal misrecorded facts in its decision.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether factual errors existed in the Tribunal's decision.\n2.\nWhether the discount disclosed in trading accounts was considered.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that no apparent error existed in the order. Claims not raised during the hearing could not be considered later.\n•\nReference: Section 156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (RECT) 160/KB of 1999-2000 (Ref: I.T.O. No. 1502/KB of 1998), decision dated: 16-12-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Umer Farooque, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 154 = 2013 SLD 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nAlleged concealment and remand for fresh adjudication\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged additional taxes and penalties imposed on alleged inaccurate particulars and concealment.\n•\nIssue: Whether Section 111(1)(d) applied to the taxpayer.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication, instructing the Taxation Officer to ensure proper opportunity for the taxpayer to present evidence.\n•\nReference: Sections 205, 122(1), 111(1)(d).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,205,122(1),122(5),182,111(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 83/IB/2013, ITA No. 84/IB/2013, ITA No. 85/IB/2013 Assessment Year 2010, hearing DATE 18.06.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND MR. SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Hassan Brothers \nvs\nCIR, RTO. Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 155 = 2013 SLD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRectification under Section 221 and entitlement to salary exemptions\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer, a full-time professor and acting principal, challenged disallowance of salary exemptions.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether rectification under Section 221 was permissible.\n2.\nWhether the taxpayer was entitled to a 75% rebate under salary exemptions.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the Taxation Officer’s order, stating rectification was not applicable as no mistake appeared on the face of the record. Exemptions were granted.\n•\nReference: Sections 221(1), 120; 1992 PTD 570.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120205,221(1),120 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.881/IB/12 Tax year 2007 ITA No.882/IB/12 Tax year 2008, ITA No.883/IB/12 Tax year 2009 ITA No.884/IB/12 Tax year 2010, DATE of order 17.06.2013, hearing DATE 30.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Mirza Saqib Siddeeq, ITP Respondent by Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Baloch, DR", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. Rehana Rashid, Principal, IMCG, F6/2, Islamabad\nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 156 = 2013 SLD 156 = 2013 PTD 1749 = (2014) 109 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nAmendment of assessment ignoring revised returns\n•\nBackground: The department amended assessments based on earlier returns, disregarding validly revised returns.\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether revised returns filed during audit proceedings are valid.\n2.\nWhether assessments ignoring revised returns are lawful.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the amended order, emphasizing the validity of revised returns approved by the department.\n•\nReference: Sections 122(9), 122(5), 114(6); 2010 PTD 2602.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=49,122(9),122(5),122(4),120(3),111(1)(a)(e),18(1)(d),21(c),32,35,39,174(2)&177,111 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.929/IB/2012 Tax year 2009, ITA No.129/IB/2013 Tax year 2009, hearing DATE 30.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Tauqeer Bukhari, Syed Tanseer Bukhari and Mudassar Khalid, ACAs (in I.T.A. No. 929/IB of 2012)\nTahir Khan, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 929/IB of 2012)\nTahir Khan, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 129/IB of 2013)\nSyed Tauqeer Bukhari, Syed Tanseer Bukhari and Mudassar Khalid, ACAs (in I.T.A. No. 129/IB of 2013)", + "Party Name:": "DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nCIR, LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 157 = 2013 SLD 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nNon-service of notices and principles of natural justice\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer argued that notices for non-deduction of withholding tax were not properly served.\n•\nIssue: Whether the taxpayer was condemned unheard.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the orders, stating that ex-parte decisions without proper service of notice violated natural justice.\n•\nReference: Sections 165, 161(1)(a), 205; PLD 1965 (S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=165,161(1)(a),205 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.982/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2011), hearing DATE 26-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): APPELLANT BY MIAN TABASSAM BASHIR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY MR. JAMSHAID FAKHARI TAHIR, D.R", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mian Tabassam Bashir, Advocate Respondent by Mr. Jamshaid Fakhari Tahir, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Haidary Steel RERolling Mills, Shalimar Town, G.T. Road, Lahore. \nvs\nCIR., Zone-IV, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 158 = 2013 SLD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nPurchase of vehicles and assessment amendments\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer contested additions for unexplained vehicle purchases.\n•\nIssue: Whether statutory notices were properly issued and complied with.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case for de-novo assessment, instructing the Taxation Officer to reassess with due opportunity for the taxpayer.\n•\nReference: Sections 120, 122(9), 122(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,120,122(9),122(1),122(5),111(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.437/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009) ITA No.439/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009), hearing DATE 26.04.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. S. A. Raza Naqvi, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Asad Razzaq C/o Madina Kanta, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR (Legal Division), RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 159 = 2013 SLD 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nProper service of notices under Section 161\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer argued that notices for non-deduction of withholding tax were not properly served.\n•\nIssue: Whether the assessment was valid without proof of notice service.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the case for fresh adjudication with proper notice service.\n•\nReference: Sections 161, 205; 2010 PTD 1271.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=218,120,165,161(1A),161,205 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.290/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2011) NTN 1763075, hearing DATE 24.04.2013. DATE of Order 02.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Arif Hussain Ijaz, Advocate Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Envoy Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 160 = 2013 SLD 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nDefinite information and purchase of vehicles\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged additions based on presumed investment in vehicle purchases.\n•\nIssue: Whether definite information existed to justify amendments.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the assessment, finding sufficient evidence in government and dealer records to substantiate the amendments.\n•\nReference: Sections 122(1), 122(9).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(9),122(1) ", + "Case #": "ITA NO.398/LB/2012. Tax Year 2010, hearing DATE 18-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Ghazanfar Farrukh, ITP, Respondent by Dr. Idrees Ahmad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Tahir Khaliq R/o H.No.42A4, PGCEHS, College Road, Lahore. \nvs\nCIR (Appeals), Gujranwala." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 161 = 2013 SLD 161 = 2013 PTD 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemptions for self-occupied property and statutory limits\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that statutory exemptions could not be combined with other exemptions under Clause 12 of the Wealth Tax Act. The taxpayer had to choose between exemptions.\n•\nReference: Second Schedule, Clause 12(1), (2).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched,cl.12(1),(2),FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.27(IB) of 1999-2000, decision dated: 17-08-1999, hearing DATE : 28-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MASOOD UL HASAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Suleman, ACIT. Azhar Hussain Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 721 = 2001 SLD 721 = 2001 PTD 22 = (2000) 82 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nProperty valuation during vacancy periods\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal set aside the assessment, ruling that vacant periods should not be considered when calculating rental value without prior approval.\n•\nReference: Rule 8(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3),proviso,360(1)/92, ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 102/KB of 1998-99 and 422/KB of 1999/2000, decision dated: 5-09-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Salman Pasha, A.R.. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 521 = 2002 SLD 521 = 2002 PTD 1512 = (2002) 85 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963]\n•\nOwnership and compensation for confiscated gold\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that compensation for confiscated gold should be assessed based on the declared value at Rs. 43.43 per tola.\n•\nReference: Sections 17, 2(16).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(16),17 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.2280/LB to 2284/LB of 1999, 1013/LB to 1016/LB of 2000, 268/LB to 272/LB, 1325/LB and 1326/LB of 2000, decision dated: 17-05-2001, hearing DATE : 16-03-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Khan. Ahmad Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 522 = 2002 SLD 522 = 2002 PTD 1567 = (2002) 85 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963]\n•\nOwnership post-land acquisition\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that land acquired by the Development Authority did not remain part of the taxpayer's wealth.\n•\nReference: Sections 3, 2(m), 17.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(m),3,17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1366/LB to 1369/LB of 2000, decision dated: 30-11-2001, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mehboob Alam, D.R.. M. Anwar Pasricha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 523 = 2002 SLD 523 = 2002 PTD 1818 = (2002) 86 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963]\n•\nPrinciples of natural justice and exemptions\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the assessment order, stating that exemptions claimed on encashment proceeds of Zakat-paid assets were not allowable.\n•\nReference: Second Schedule, Part I, Clause 1.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=8(3),SecondSched.,Part1,Cl.(1) Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980=25(1) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1769/LB and 1770/LB of 2000, decision dated: 16-02-2002, hearing DATE : 29-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Anwar Mehdi, I.T.P.. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 524 = 2002 SLD 524 = 2002 PTD 1826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1963]\n•\nInfructuous appeal and departmental assistance\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous and highlighted lapses in departmental representation.\n•\nReference: Sections 24, 16(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,24,16(3),23,5(1)(i) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 582/LB of 1996, decision dated: 11-03-2002, hearing DATE : 9-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ishtiaq. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 525 = 2002 SLD 525 = 2002 PTD 1839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act, 1990]\n•\nAdmission of additional evidence before Tribunal\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that additional evidence could be admitted, and appeals should be based only on questions of law arising from Tribunal decisions.\n•\nReference: Sections 2(1), 47.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(1),47- ", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 154 of 2001, decision dated: 4th, April, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khan Muhammad Virk. Muhammad Ashraf Ali", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-II, (ADJUDICATION), CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs AHSAN & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 526 = 2002 SLD 526 = 2002 PTD 1860", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act, 1990]\n•\nAdjustment of input tax and absence of reasoning in Tribunal order\n•\nConclusion: The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh reasoning on adjustments for generator parts.\n•\nReference: Section 47; Notification S.R.O. 578(I).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.246 of 2001, decision dated: 1st April, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Anjum Alvi. \nA. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 527 = 2002 SLD 527 = 2002 PTD 1867 = (2002) 85 TAX 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act, 1990]\n•\nLate filing of monthly returns and penalty\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed for delayed filing, rejecting claims under Limitation Act, 1908.\n•\nReference: Section 33(1).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Limitation Act, 1877=4 Sales Tax Act, 1990=33(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1564 of 2001, decision dated: 8-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. Muhammad Saleem, Deputy Collector Sales Tax, Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TECHNOCRATE TRADING, PESHAWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 528 = 2002 SLD 528 = 2002 PTD 2257 = (2002) 86 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRevision of assessment by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nBackground: Assessment was framed under Sections 16(3)/17B following an Appellate Tribunal decision. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice for revising this assessment, alleging that exemption allowed for a shop was invalid since the shop was demolished and reconstructed into multiple shops.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNo evidence was presented to verify the shop's demolition date.\no\nThe Inspecting Assistant Commissioner’s action was deemed unauthorized since the original assessment was based on the Tribunal's order.\no\nIf the department believed the Tribunal erred, it should have sought a review or recall from the Tribunal rather than issuing a fresh notice.\no\nThe action was labeled as maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended withdrawing the notice issued under Section 17B.\n•\nReferences: Sections 16(3), 17B, Wealth Tax Act, 1963; Section 2(3), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,17B,16(3),SecondSched.,Cl..(12(2)) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1569-L of 2001, decision dated: 30-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name": "Habib-ur-Rehman for the Complainant. Laila Ghafoor, D-CIT", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAZIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 529 = 2002 SLD 529 = 2002 PTD 2274 = (2002) 86 TAX 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Finance Act (V of 1989)]\n•\nCapital Value Tax (CVT) on agricultural land.\n•\nBackground: CVT was demanded from the complainant along with additional tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nUnder Section 7(7) of the Finance Act, the department can only demand actual CVT.\no\nAdditional tax should be recovered from the registering authority as per Section 7(8).\no\nThe notice demanding CVT was inconsistent with these provisions.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revising the recovery notice in line with Sections 7(7) and 7(8).\n•\nReferences: Sections 7(7), 7(8), Finance Act, 1989.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=32 Finance Act, 1989=7(1)(7)(8) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1750 of 2001, decision dated: 27-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. Manzoor Ahmed, D.C.I.T., Circle -02 Sargodha", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 530 = 2002 SLD 530 = 2002 PTD 2276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nInitiation of assessment without proper notice.\n•\nBackground: Proceedings were initiated under Sections 14 and 16 without issuing a statutory notice under Section 17(1)(b).\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessment under Section 16(5) was invalid as it lacked proper notice.\no\nThe department was allowed to pursue proceedings only after issuing notices in compliance with the law.\n•\nConclusion: The assessment was annulled.\n•\nReferences: Sections 14, 16(5), 17(1)(b), Wealth Tax Act, 1963; 2002 PTD (Trib.) 168.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,17(1)(b),16(4)!,5),14(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 523/KB to 527/KB of 2001, decision dated: 10-04-2002, hearing DATE : 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. S. Jafri Sajjad Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "A. S. Jafri for Sajjad Ahmed, D.R. for" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 162 = 2013 SLD 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nValidity of demand based on vague inquiry reports.\n•\nBackground: Demand was raised for profits on vehicle sales based on a sketchy inquiry report.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe inquiry lacked definite information or substantiation.\no\nProceedings were based on presumption rather than concrete evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Orders were vacated as they lacked merit.\n•\nReferences: Sections 120, 122(9), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 187.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(9),122(1) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.416/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009) ITA No.417/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2010), hearing DATE 22.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Dr. Ghazanfar Farrukh, Advocate Respondent by Mr. Muhammad Idrees, DR", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Khawaja Muhammad llyas, R/o, Street No. 18, Gurunanakpura, Gujranwala. \nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), RTO, Gujranwala." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 163 = 2013 SLD 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nRetrospective application of law and ex-parte proceedings.\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer was proceeded against ex-parte in an audit-based amendment case.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRetrospective application of law requires explicit provisions.\no\nThe taxpayer was denied a fair hearing.\n•\nConclusion: The case was remanded for reassessment, ensuring an opportunity for the taxpayer to present their case.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Shahnawaz Ltd. (1992 SCMR 1652); Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121(1),120,177(4) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1375/LB/11 Tax Year 2008, hearing DATE 18-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Dr. Idrees Ahmad, D.R. Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "CIR , Zone-I, RTO, Lahore. \nvs\nMr. Naseer Ahmad Prop. Paradise Restaurant, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 164 = 2013 SLD 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nDeletion of tax charged for non-deduction at source.\n•\nBackground: The department contested the deletion of tax charged for non-deduction at source.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe CIT (Appeals) decided cases based on records proving the taxpayer fulfilled their legal obligations.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decisions, dismissing departmental appeals.\n•\nReferences: Sections 161, 205, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 255/LB/2008 (Assessment year 2001-02), ITA No.257/LB/2008 (Assessment year 2000-01), ITA No. 272/LB/2008 (Assessment year 2002-03), ITA No. 250/LB/2010 (Tax year 2008), hearing DATE 15-11-2011. DATE of Order 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Tahir, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Imran Rasool, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "CIT, Legal Division, LTU, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Poineer Cement Ltd., ALFalah Building, Mall Road, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 165 = 2013 SLD 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nTaxation of depreciable asset gains under presumptive tax regime.\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer challenged taxation under normal law instead of the presumptive regime.\n•\nFindings:\no\nGains from depreciable assets, subject to withholding tax, should be taxed under the presumptive regime.\n•\nConclusion: Orders were vacated, and the gain was directed to be taxed under the presumptive regime.\n•\nReferences: Sections 22(8), 153, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; M/s Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. ITO (1990 PTD 155).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=129,122,122(5),22(8)(a),75(7) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 753/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2009) hearing DATE 09.01.2013. DATE of Order 27.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Naved A. Andrabi, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Pride Forasol Pakistan, Lahore.\nvs\nOfficer Inland Revenue, Audit-VII, LTU, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 532 = 2002 SLD 532 = 2002 PTD 2316 = (2002) 86 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nCompensation for delayed refunds.\n•\nBackground: Refund due in 1997 was paid only in 2002.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe department provided no valid justification for the delay.\no\nThe complainant was entitled to compensation under Section 31-C.\n•\nConclusion: Additional payment for delayed refunds was recommended.\n•\nReferences: Section 31-C, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=31,31C Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.29-L of 2002, decision dated: 2-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Fazal Muhammad Firdousi, Circle 15, Zone B, Lahore for the Complainant Ghulam Rasood, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. NASEEMESEHAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 533 = 2002 SLD 533 = 2002 PTD 2329 = (2002) 85 TAX 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nPenalty for concealment.\n•\nBackground: Penalty proceedings were initiated after assessment without proper justification.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPenalty proceedings lacked legal basis as no notices were issued under Sections 14(1), 14(2), or 17.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties were deleted by the Tribunal.\n•\nReferences: Sections 18, 14, 17, Wealth Tax Act, 1963; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 1221.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=18,14,14(1),14(2),15,16(3),17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1308/LB to 1311/LB of 1998, decision dated: 22-03-2001, hearing DATE : 16-12-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Shah. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D. R. and Shafqat Mehmood Chohan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 534 = 2002 SLD 534 = 2002 PTD 2350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for property purchased from foreign remittances.\n•\nBackground: Exemption was claimed for property purchased in the wife’s name using remittances received in the husband’s account.\n•\nFindings:\no\nOnly the account holder (husband) could claim benefits under the law.\no\nThe exemption allowed was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the cancellation of the exemption.\n•\nReferences: Clause (7), Second Schedule, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 816/LB to 818/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st January, 2002, hearing DATE : 12-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Shuja Khan. Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 535 = 2002 SLD 535 = 2002 PTD 2468 = (2002) 86 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of land and buildings.\n•\nFindings:\no\nBuilding value could be assessed at ten times the annual letting value.\no\nThere was no provision to exclude plot value from this calculation.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman rejected the complaint.\n•\nReferences: Rule 8(3), Wealth Tax Rules, 1963; 1999 PTD 1060.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R.8(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1456 and 1457 of 2001, decision dated: 29-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Malik, Managing Director and Syed Pervez Kosar, General Manager for the Complainant. Nadir Mumtaz, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHALID CONSTRUCTION CO. (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 536 = 2002 SLD 536 = 2002 PTD 2580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]\n•\nAssessment ignoring pre-shipment inspection (PSI) reports.\n•\nFindings:\no\nIgnoring PSI reports violated norms of tax administration.\no\nRefund claims pending for over five years constituted maladministration.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended finalizing refunds based on PSI reports.\n•\nReferences: Section 25-B, Customs Act, 1969; PTCL 1985 CL 100.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1743-K of 2001, decision dated: 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SPECIALITY PRINTERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 537 = 2002 SLD 537 = 2002 PTD 2695 = (2002) 85 TAX 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRectification of mistakes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRectification proceedings were improperly initiated based on audit recommendations without independent application of mind.\no\nThe cancellation of assessments without hearing was illegal.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal rejected the department’s appeal.\n•\nReferences: Section 35, Wealth Tax Act, 1963; 1992 PTD 570.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16(3),35,SecondSched.,Cl.12(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1414/LB and 1415/LB of 2000, decision dated: 26-02-2002, hearing DATE : 9-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mehboob Alam, D.R.. Tahir Mehmood", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 538 = 2002 SLD 538 = 2002 PTD 2722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nGeneral penalties, tariff determination, and excise duty rates on metal containers.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe penalty under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act was improper as the central excise rate issue fell under the Central Excises Act.\no\nExcise duty on metal containers for certain products (e.g., vegetable oil, kerosene) was clarified as 5% ad valorem for the disputed period.\no\nLegislative intent did not support impractical conditions linking melting points with excise duty rates.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal vacated penalties and upheld the 5% duty rate for the disputed period.\n•\nReferences: Sections 33, Sales Tax Act, 1990; Sections 3C, 12B, Central Excises Act, 1944; relevant SROs and budget instructions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=33,12B,3C---S.R.O.545(1)/94 Sales Tax Act, 1990=33 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.914/LB of 2001, decision dated: 12-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashter Ausaf Ali and Zaeem-ul-Farooq and Muhammad Akram Nizami. Amer Ahmed, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 539 = 2002 SLD 539 = 2002 PTD 2830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption on foreign remittances and rectification of errors.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessee was granted exemption for 1991-92 but denied the same for 1992-96 despite eligibility.\no\nHigh Court found the denial unjustified and declared it an error apparent on the record.\n•\nConclusion: The constitutional petition was accepted; the case was remanded to rectify the error and decide according to the law.\n•\nReferences: Sections 3, 35, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3,35,SecondSched.,Cl.(7) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11343 of 2000, heard on 22-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Tabasam Maqsood Khan for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN C/O AIR TRAVEL CONCEPT (P) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 540 = 2002 SLD 540 = 2002 PTD 2967", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nClassification of soap for excise duty purposes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSeized soap samples were laundry soap, not toilet soap, and exempt from excise duty.\no\nCentral excise duty was imposed only on unaccounted-for toilet soap cartons found in the factory.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty reduced to ₹5,000; the Tribunal emphasized better case handling to avoid prolonged disputes.\n•\nReferences: Sections 3, 226, Central Excise Rules, 1944.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,Rr.210,226 ", + "Case #": "Excise Appeal No. 15/LB of 1999, decision dated: 12-03-2002. dates of hearing: 6th and 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA CHAIRMAN/MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar. Amer Ahmad, D.R. and Bahadur Ali", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 541 = 2002 SLD 541 = 2002 PTD 2973 = (2002) 86 TAX 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nExcise duty remission on tin containers for vegetable ghee.\n•\nFindings:\no\nEarlier interpretations of SRO 455(I)/96 were incorrect, leading to wrongful recovery of excise duty.\no\nThe Law Division and CBR clarified that no additional duty was owed for the disputed period.\n•\nConclusion: Recovery proceedings were deemed baseless and set aside.\n•\nReferences: Section 3, Central Excises Act, 1944; SRO 455(I)/96.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,R.10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 671 of 2001, decision dated: 19-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar Bhatti, A.R. for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Collector Customs and Central Excise", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISHAQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 542 = 2002 SLD 542 = 2002 PTD 3014 = (2003) 87 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nLimitation on notice issuance and assessment of joint property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNotices issued in 1997 for 1990-91 and 1991-92 were valid under the eight-year limitation period before its reduction by the Finance Act, 1995.\no\nA family-owned commercial building was rightly treated as an Association of Persons for wealth tax purposes.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the valuation under Rule 8(3) and dismissed the appeal.\n•\nReferences: Sections 17, 2(1)(5), Wealth Tax Act, 1963; Rule 8(3), Wealth Tax Rules, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(1)(5)(ii),2(1)(16),Expln.(iii),17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.186/LB to 192/LB of 2000, decision dated: 25-04-2002, hearing DATE : 16-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwarul Haq. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 543 = 2002 SLD 543 = 2002 PTD 3043", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nRefund of excess excise duty on aerated water.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe department’s objection that refunds were barred by limitation was invalid.\no\nThe complainant bore no burden of proving whether the incidence of duty was passed on to consumers.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the department to decide the refund claim within 30 days.\n•\nReferences: Section 3-D, Central Excises Act, 1944.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3D,R.11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-823/K of 2001, decision dated: 10-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 544 = 2002 SLD 544 = 2002 PTD 3051 = (2003) 87 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRefundable securities as liabilities.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRefundable tenant securities, distinct from unadjusted advance rent, should be allowed as liabilities.\no\nRelevant agreements and rent deeds clearly demonstrated the refundable nature of securities.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal accepted the appeal and allowed securities as admissible liabilities.\n•\nReferences: 1995 PTD (Trib.) 942; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1378", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=23 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 1894/LB of 2001, decision dated: 29-05-2002, hearing DATE : 11-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Raza Naqvi. Ahmed Kamal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 545 = 2002 SLD 545 = 2002 PTD 3142 = (2003) 87 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of land and buildings.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe value declared based on actual rent was enhanced by the Assessing Officer without prior approval of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner.\no\nThis contravened procedural requirements.\n•\nConclusion: Orders of authorities were vacated; the Assessing Officer was directed to accept the declared value.\n•\nReferences: 1996 SCMR 230, 2002 PTD 407, 1988 PTD 1014, 2001 PTD (Trib.) 22.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R8,R.8(3) ", + "Case #": "W. T. As. Nos. 411/LB to 413/LB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 19-08-2002, hearing DATE : 13-08-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sohail Mutee Babri, I.T.P.. Naseer Ahmad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 293 = 2003 SLD 293 = 2003 PTD 190 = (2003) 88 TAX 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Finance Act (V of 1989), Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRevision fee demand for Capital Value Tax (CVT).\n•\nFindings:\no\nNo provision in law or related rules required revision fee for applications under Section 7(8A) of the Finance Act, 1989.\no\nThe demand for revision fees was against the law and deemed maladministration.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended deciding the revision application on merit without demanding revision fees.\n•\nReferences: Section 7(8A), Finance Act, 1989; Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3(1)(a),3(b),9(2) Finance Act, 1989=7(8A) Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990=8 Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=25 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.241 of 2002, decision dated: 6-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Rana for the Complainant. Manzoor Ahmad, D.C.I.T. Circle 2, Sargodha", + "Party Name:": "Mst. ISMAT JAHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 294 = 2003 SLD 294 = 2003 PTD 906 = (2002) 86 TAX 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for assets created from encashment of foreign currency accounts.\n•\nFindings:\no\nEncashment of foreign currency was used to repay a loan for shares purchased earlier.\no\nRepayment of loans could not be considered as creating new assets.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption was denied, and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.\n•\nReferences: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.1372/LB and 1373/LB of 2000, decision dated: 12th June. 2002, hearing DATE : 16-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, C.A.. Mahboob Alam, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 295 = 2003 SLD 295 = 2003 PTD 2023 = (2004) 89 TAX 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Finance Act (XII of 1991)]\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction and corporate assets tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nConstitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could not replace appeal or revision mechanisms.\no\nLimitation periods did not apply where the statute lacked explicit provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Revenue’s claim was upheld despite delays.\n•\nReferences: 1989 PTD 1333.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17(1),17A(2),23,24,27 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16617 of 2001, decision dated: 28-04-2003, hearing DATE : 24-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAH JEWANA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 243 = 2004 SLD 243 = 2004 PTD 188 = (2004) 89 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nDefinition of asset for wealth tax purposes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLeasing out a flour mill included both the plant and the immovable property.\no\nProperty held for letting out was subject to wealth tax.\n•\nConclusion: Assessee was liable for wealth tax on the leased property.\n•\nReferences: 1981 PTD 217; PLD 1985 Karachi 407.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(e)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No.2 of 1999, decision dated: 30-06-2003, hearing DATE : 2-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND GULZAR AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi. Arif Motons", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AFZAL FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 245 = 2004 SLD 245 = 2004 PTD 632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]\n•\nRefund of unlawfully collected amounts.\n•\nFindings:\no\nA claim for refund could not be barred by limitation if the government unlawfully collected the amount.\n•\nConclusion: Constitutional petition allowed; refund claim upheld.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=32 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2966 of 2002, heard on 14-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Rukhshanda Shaheen for Petitioner. Mrs. Farhat Zafars", + "Party Name:": "MANZOOR A. MALIK\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD through Secretary and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 246 = 2004 SLD 246 = 2004 PTD 724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for foreign remittance assets and inheritance.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption applied only to the individual who created the assets using foreign remittances.\no\nLegal heirs could not claim the exemption.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption denied for inherited property.\n•\nReferences: Clause 7(ii), Second Schedule, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "W . T. A. No.2081 /LB of 2001, decision dated: 12-12-2003, hearing DATE : 10th December; 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.,. Ahmed Nauman Shaikh, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 247 = 2004 SLD 247 = 2004 PTD 730 = (2004) 89 TAX 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Income Tax Ordinances]\n•\nRectification of mistakes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDepartment’s applications for rectification under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act were not maintainable.\no\nEvidence must be presented at the initial stage of proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal rejected the applications as lacking merit.\n•\nReferences: Sections 35, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=156(1) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=35 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M. As. (Rect.) Nos.401/KB to 404/KB of 2003, decision dated: 29-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R. for Applicant. Athar Saeed", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 248 = 2004 SLD 248 = 2004 PTD 842", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAssessment of compensation for government-acquired land.\n•\nFindings:\no\nValue should reflect compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.\no\nAssessee was no longer the property owner but entitled to compensation.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal rejected the department’s appeal and upheld the compensation-based valuation.\n•\nReferences: Section 35, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16 ", + "Case #": "W. T. A. No. 170/LB of 1998, decision dated: 8-10-1998, hearing DATE : 24-07-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. Saadat Ali Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 249 = 2004 SLD 249 = 2004 PTD 852 = (2003) 88 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nValuation of co-owned commercial plots.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCo-owners were assessed individually rather than as an Association of Persons. \no\nRule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules applied to valuation.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments were to be finalized individually for co-owners.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1975 SC 331; Rule 8(3), Wealth Tax Rules, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(1)(5)(ii),16(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T. As. Nos. 662/LB to 666/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-06-2003, hearing DATE : 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. and Amjad Zubair Tawana, DCIT. Muhammad Ali Asghar Qazi, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 250 = 2004 SLD 250 = 2004 PTD 896", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nOwnership for wealth tax purposes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessee was considered the owner of a plot based on possession, full payment, and wealth tax return declaration.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld ownership and included the plot in the net wealth assessment.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1964 SC 456.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(1)(16),35,2(1)(16) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.662/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE ; 11-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Applicant. Dr. Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2553 = 2007 SLD 2553 = (2008) 97 TAX 444 = (2007) 290 ITR 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=250 ", + "Case #": "T.C. (A) NO. 2279 OF 2006, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. D. DINAKARAN AND P. P. S, JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nLotte India Corporation Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2515 = 2007 SLD 2515 = (2008) 97 TAX 448 = (2007) 290 ITR 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=69B ", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2002, MARCH 3, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B.LOKUR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jagdish R. Goel for the Petitioner. S.K. Aggarwal for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nLalit Bhasin" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 252 = 2004 SLD 252 = 2004 PTD 1084 = (2003) 88 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nOwnership and possession under wealth tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessee was treated as the owner of a plot based on possession and full payment under a registered sale agreement.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer’s order.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1964 SC 456; W.T.A. Nos. 124–126/LB of 2002.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(16),16(3),17B ", + "Case #": "W. T. As. Nos. 1271/LB and 1272/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-08-2003, hearing DATE : 13-8-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rasheed, D.R.. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 253 = 2004 SLD 253 = 2004 PTD 1178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nLeave to appeal for excise duty cases.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider precedents regarding excise duty assessments.\n•\nReferences: 1992 SCMR 1652, 2000 SCMR 1266.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,3C,12A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1356-L to 1359-L, 1404-L to 1416-L, 1447-L, 1448-L, 1457-L, 1458-L, -1468-L, 1508-L and 1540-L of 2002, decision dated: 10-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J. AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Ahmed Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. Ps. Nos. 1356-L to 1359-L of 2002).\nK.M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1404-L to 1416-L of 2002)\nShahid Karim, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1447-L and 1448-L of of 2002)\nIzharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1457-L, 1458-L, 1468-L. 1508-L of 2002).\nSheikh Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1540-L of 2002)\nSh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Records (In C. Ps. Nos. 1405-L, 1410-L, 1414-L to 1416-L and 1508-L of 2002)\nTariq Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 1407-L of 2002)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 254 = 2004 SLD 254 = 2004 PTD 1218 = (2004) 89 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Finance Act (XII of 1991), Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nCorporate assets tax assessments and jurisdiction.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments finalized by the Income Tax Panel were void due to lack of jurisdiction.\no\nTime-barred assessments were also invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal cancelled the assessments.\n•\nReferences: Sections 12(2), 17-A, Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(10) Finance Act, 1991=12(2),(12) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.271/LB of 2003, decision dated: 29-09-2003, hearing DATE : 18-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq. Abdul Rasheed D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 255 = 2004 SLD 255 = 2004 PTD 1282 = (2004) 90 TAX 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAssociation of Persons and inherited property taxation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDue to amendments in Section 2(5) of the Wealth Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1996, no assessment in the status of Association of Persons was legal for the assessment year 1996-97.\no\nCo-owners were assessed individually, but undisputed facts showed they collectively earned rental income, which indicated intent to hold the property for letting out.\n•\nConclusion: The assessment for Association of Persons was canceled; individual assessments were upheld.\n•\nReferences: 1984 PTD (Trib.) 157, 1967 PTD (Trib.) 160 (irrelevant).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(5)(ii),2(5) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1922/LB to 1926/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-02-2003, hearing DATE : 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shabbir Ahmed, FCA/AR. Mrs. Sameera Yasin, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 256 = 2004 SLD 256 = 2004 PTD 1301 = (2004) 89 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of shares and liabilities.\n•\nFindings:\no\nShares were valued at break-up value per the balance sheet. Reduction for unrecovered amounts (like income tax refunds) was disallowed.\no\nOnly liabilities directly secured against or incurred for non-taxable assets could be disallowed.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer’s valuation of shares and approved the inclusion of allowable liabilities.\n•\nReferences: 2001 PTD 1496.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8,R.8(2)(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 316/IB to 318/IB of 2002, decision dated: 15-08-2003, hearing DATE : 13-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naushad Ali Khan, D.R.. Akhtar Hussain", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 257 = 2004 SLD 257 = 2004 PTD 1460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Excise Duty on Production Capacity Rules, 1990]\n•\nDemand of excise duty before taxable activity.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe Central Board of Revenue's permission for spouts installation was granted on 27-2-1993, but the spouts were installed on 1-4-1993.\no\nDemand for excise duty before the actual installation was invalid.\n•\nConclusion: High Court set aside the demand for excise duty and additional tax for the disputed period.\n•\nPrinciples: Fiscal statutes should be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer when ambiguity exists.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990=R-7,7A(3),10(2) ", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No.380 of 2001, decision dated: 30-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli. Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\n and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 258 = 2004 SLD 258 = 2004 PTD 1876 = (2004) 89 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nDuplicate assessments and jurisdiction.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDuplicate assessments violated appellate directions to transfer the assessee's record from Islamabad to Peshawar.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revising assessments to avoid double taxation and ensure compliance with appellate directions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=10,16(2)(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1123 of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmad Siddiqui, C.A. for the Complainant. Sardar Ali Khawaja, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Mian ISMAIL CHAUDHRY\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 259 = 2004 SLD 259 = 2004 PTD 1940 = (2004) 90 TAX 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nBad debts as non-taxable assets.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe assessee failed to prove the loanee’s insolvency or inability to repay, making the exemption claim unsupported.\n•\nConclusion: High Court remanded the case for reassessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to provide evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(5)(ii),3 ", + "Case #": "F. A. O. No. 135 of 2001, decision dated: 23rd December, 2003, hearing DATE : 7-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, C.J. AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Eid Muhammad Khattak. M. Asif Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, PESHAWAR\nvs\nHaji ANWAR-UR-REHMAN through Universal Tobacco Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Mardan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 260 = 2004 SLD 260 = 2004 PTD 2123 = (2002) 254 ITR 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Indian)]\n•\nValuation Officer’s report as a legal reference.\n•\nFindings:\no\nWhether a Valuation Officer's report, directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, binds the Wealth Tax Officer was deemed a question of law.\n•\nConclusion: Questions of law on the validity and binding nature of Valuation Officer’s reports were acknowledged.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=16 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4620 to 4629 of 1994, decision dated: 9-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.N. KIRPAL AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Lakhsmi Iyengar, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Sui, Advocate. Sushil Kumar Jain and Pradeep Agarwal, Advocatess", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nA.A. PATEL through Legal Representative" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 166 = 2013 SLD 166 = (2013) 108 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002]\n•\nAccess to public information.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInformation requested under Article 19-A of the Constitution was not confidential and did not violate privacy.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the FBR to provide the requested information within 21 days.\n•\nPrinciples: Public’s right to information promotes accountability and transparency in governance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002=3,8(9),19 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1354/2012, registered on 11-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE", + "Party Name:": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE\nvs\nTHE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 261 = 2004 SLD 261 = 2004 PTD 2128 = (2002) 254 ITR 606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax]\n•\nInterest on refund of advance tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRevenue was held liable to pay interest on interest for wrongfully withheld refunds.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal decisions mandating interest on interest were upheld.\n•\nReferences: D.J. Works v. Deputy CIT, Chimanlal S. Patel v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=214 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2053 of 2000, decision dated: 26-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARIVAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate Lakhsmi Iyengar, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates. Krishnanand Pandey, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNARENDRA DOSHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 262 = 2004 SLD 262 = 2004 PTD 2180 = 2004 PTCL 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Finance Act (XII of 1991)]\n•\nChallenge to judgment as per incuriam.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSubordinate courts cannot declare apex court judgments per incuriam.\n•\nConclusion: Supreme Court’s earlier decision on the Finance Act, 1991 remained binding, and the petitions were dismissed.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1997 SC 351.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=23,24 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5246 of 1997, heard on 13-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashiq Hussain Mian, Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi; Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi, Siraj-ud-Din Khalid and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shahid Jamil Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERNATIONAL TANNERS & INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 205 = 2005 SLD 205 = 2005 PTD 762 = (2005) 91 TAX 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRevision of assessment for agricultural land.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInspecting Additional Commissioner acted on assumptions without definite evidence to revise assessments for agricultural land.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal ruled that the revision was invalid as it lacked objective basis and quantified errors.\n•\nReferences: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 902.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17B Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1517/LB to 1519/LB of 2001, decision dated: 10-09-2002 and 15-10-2004, hearing DATE : 7-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Bashir Malik. Mian Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 206 = 2005 SLD 206 = 2005 PTD 920", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nApplication of Tribunal's judgment retroactively.\n•\nFindings:\no\nJudgment delivered after assessments were finalized could not be applied retroactively to modify completed assessments.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal canceled the revision order and restored the original assessments.\n•\nReferences: 2001 SCMR 1161, PLD 1959 SC 9.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17B,SecondSched.,Cl.12(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 379/LB and 380/LB of 2004, decision dated: 20-10-2004, hearing DATE : 14-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ajmal Khan. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Responden", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 207 = 2005 SLD 207 = 2005 PTD 937", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for agricultural land and departmental appeal.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe Appellate Authority upheld the classification of the assessee's land as agricultural, based on findings from a joint committee.\no\nDepartment’s reliance on the taxation status of co-owners’ land was dismissed as irrelevant to the assessee’s case.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the exemption for the assessee, rejecting the Department’s appeal.\n•\nReferences: W.T.As. Nos. 1172/LB to 1178/LB of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16,SecondSched.,Cl.(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.542/LB to 547/LB and 557/LB of 2003, decision dated: 13-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R.. Liaqat Mehmood", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 208 = 2005 SLD 208 = 2005 PTD 1370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nJurisdiction of Taxation Officer.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments made by the Taxation Officer lacked lawful jurisdiction, rendering them void.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal annulled the assessments.\n•\nReferences: 2002 PTD 541, 1999 PTD (Trib.) 4026.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,2(10),8,16 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.326/LB and 325/LB of 2004, decision dated: 18-01-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Zafar-ul-Islam. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 209 = 2005 SLD 209 = 2005 PTD 2158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of constructed property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nConstructed property must be evaluated as a whole per Rule 8(3), rather than separating land and construction values.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal followed established valuation principles.\n•\nReferences: 1992 SCMR 2352, 1999 PTD (Trib.) 2283.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-88(3) ", + "Case #": "M. As. Nos. 138 to 143/LB of 2005, W.T.As. Nos.1204 to 1209/LB and 1178 to 1183/LB of 2001, decision dated: 24-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R.. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 285 = 2006 SLD 285 = 2006 PTD 96 = (2006) 93 TAX 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRetrospective application of S.R.O.650(I)/85.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal had overlooked the S.R.O., requiring reconsideration.\n•\nConclusion: High Court remitted the case to the Tribunal for evaluation of the S.R.O.'s impact.\n•\nReferences: 2004 PTD 1621, 2003 PTD 812.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5(1)(i),27 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No. 156 of 1999, decision dated: 12-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Siraj-ud-Din Khalid\nRespondent(s) by: Shahid Jamil Khan", + "Party Name:": "LAHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, LAHORE THROUGH SECRETARY\nVS\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 286 = 2006 SLD 286 = 2006 PTD 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nLevy of Wealth Tax on urban agricultural land.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessee’s land, though adjacent to urban property, retained its agricultural classification per revenue records and cultivation evidence.\no\nAdditional wealth tax was incorrectly imposed on vehicles and rental properties.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal directed reassessment, excluding agricultural land and correcting other discrepancies.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(16),16 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 140 to 143/PB of 2002, decision dated: 2-06-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Asad Khan. Mirza Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 287 = 2006 SLD 287 = 2006 PTD 282 = (2006) 94 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nBreak-up value of shares.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSurplus from revaluation of fixed assets was excluded from break-up value calculations, as it did not constitute free reserves.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal adhered to established principles for share valuation.\n•\nReferences: W.T.A. No. 317 of 2002.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.115 of 2001, decision dated: 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mian Yousaf Umer", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVS\nMIAN NAEEM UMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 288 = 2006 SLD 288 = 2006 PTD 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nLimitation on assessments and additional tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments made beyond the prescribed time were void.\no\nAdditional tax was deemed discretionary, requiring case-specific merit analysis.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the assessee’s appeal on both issues.\n•\nReferences: 1995 PTD 91, 2001 PTD 807.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17(1)(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. Nos. 1010/LB of 2004 and 18/LB of 2005, decision dated: 16-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R.. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 289 = 2006 SLD 289 = 2006 PTD 856", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nVerification deficiencies in assessments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessing Officer failed to verify evidence adequately.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal directed reassessment with specific findings and adherence to mandatory legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16(5) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.19/KB of 2005 decided on 30-06-2005, hearing DATE : 25-06-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P.. Gohar Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 290 = 2006 SLD 290 = 2006 PTD 1508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for residential houses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption under Clause 12(1) depends on ownership, occupancy, and intended purpose for residence.\no\nRevenue failed to prove that the house was not occupied for personal residence.\n•\nConclusion: High Court granted the exemption.\n•\nReferences: Black's Dictionary, 7th Edition.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5,SecondSched.,Cl.(12(1)) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.591 and 593 of 2000, decision dated: 8-06-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): . MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Iqbal Khawaja. Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "QAISAR A. MANOO\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 210 = 2005 SLD 210 = 2005 PTD 1876", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]\n•\nCustoms valuation of goods.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPredetermined values used for assessment were invalid under Section 25.\n•\nConclusion: High Court remanded the matter for reassessment following proper valuation methods.\n•\nReferences: 2006 PTD 232, 2006 PTD 674.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=25 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.533 of 2006, decision dated: 27-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Messrs Kausar Parveens Nos. 1, 3 and 5. Mian Shahid Iqbal No. 4", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SOHRAB GLOBAL MARKETING (PVT.) LTD. through Manager (Import)\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CFS, NLC and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 211 = 2005 SLD 211 = 2005 PTD 2064 = (2005) 91 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for assets created from foreign remittances.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption applied irrespective of asset type, provided the funds were from remittances through normal banking channels.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the exemption for shares acquired with such funds.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched.,Cls.7(i)&(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.180, 154 to 161, 198 of 2001, 339 to 342 of 2002 and 35 of 2003, decision dated: 22-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nZORAIZ LASHARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 291 = 2006 SLD 291 = 2006 PTD 2427 = (2007) 95 TAX 98 = 2007 PTR 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nErroneous property inclusion.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal dismissed the appeal as questions raised were factual and lacked legal merit for High Court review.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 475 and 476 of 1999, decision dated: 28-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Shuja Khan\nShahid Jamil Khans", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MUNAWAR HAYAT\nvs\nSPECIAL OFFICER OF WEALTH TAX/INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3, COMPANIES Zone-III, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 292 = 2006 SLD 292 = 2006 PTD 2814 = (2006) 93 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nTime-barred assessments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments beyond two years from the date of return were invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the invalidity of such assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17A(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.254 of 1999, decision dated: 3rd May, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zahid, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Shahid Jamil Khan, Ahmad Rauf and Sajjad Ali Jafaris", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PRODUCT SERVICES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 183 = 2007 SLD 183 = 2007 PTD 20 = (2007) 95 TAX 259 = 2007 PTR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAssessment validity and limitation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLate assessments were deemed void.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal confirmed their invalidity.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17A(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.432 to 479, 484 to 497, 499 to 531, 533 to 598, 601 to 647 and 649 of 2006, decision dated: 19-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SHAFIQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 167 = 2013 SLD 167 = (2013) 108 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance, 2001]\n•\nWorkers Welfare Fund (WWF) and Taxation Officer authority.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPost-repeal references to the Taxation Officer were interpreted as Officer of Inland Revenue. \n•\nConclusion: Tribunal ruled that WWF liabilities persisted despite nomenclature changes.\n•\nReferences: Haji Nasim-ur-Rehman v. CIT (2009).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),122(9) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(ha),2(ff),3(38A),4(4),207 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. N0.22/2012, hearing DATE : 30-5-3013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Ashraf Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Zafar-ul-Islam, Niaz Ahmad Khan and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocates, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN\nvs\nALLAH WASAYA TEXTILE & FINISHING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 168 = 2013 SLD 168 = (2013) 108 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance, 2001]\n•\nMinimum Tax Reduction for Distributors.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe appellant, a distributor of consumer goods, was entitled to an 80% reduction in minimum tax as per Clause 8, Part-III of the Second Schedule.\no\nInland Revenue Officer and CIR(A)’s rejection was overturned due to sufficient evidence supporting the appellant’s status as a distributor.\n•\nConclusion: Reduction of 0.80% granted; previous orders canceled.\n•\nReferences: Clause 8, Part-III of Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.834/IB of 2012 (Tax Year 2011) decided on 16-5-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Saifullah Waleem, Adv. for the Appellant. Ehsan Ullah, DR., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 184 = 2007 SLD 184 = 2007 PTD 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nLimitation in Wealth Tax Assessments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments made beyond two years from the date of filing a return or revised return were invalid.\no\nThe whichever is later clause in Section 17-A(1)(b) clarified that time limits were independent and non-comparable.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld invalidity of time-barred assessments.\n•\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No.2, Section 17-A(1)(b), Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=15,17A(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 9 of 2006, decision dated: 6-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Saghir Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nAAMIR NASEEM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 185 = 2007 SLD 185 = 2007 PTD 754 = (2006) 94 TAX 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nPenalty for Concealment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPenalty orders issued by unauthorized officers or beyond statutory time limits were invalid.\no\nAssessing officers failed to fulfill procedural requirements, including issuing notices and mentioning penalty details in the assessment order.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty orders were canceled due to procedural lapses and legal infirmities.\n•\nReferences: 1989 PTD 1221, 1986 PTD 588.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=18(1)(ii)(4),18(4),16(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.1059/LB to 1068/LB, 995/LB to 999/LB of 2005, decision dated: 31st August, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Hashmi and Yousaf Ali Ch. I.T.P.. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 186 = 2007 SLD 186 = 2007 PTD 889 = (2007) 95 TAX 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption Based on Foreign Remittance.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption for assets created from foreign remittance was upheld regardless of subsequent changes in residential status.\n•\nConclusion: High Court affirmed exemption validity as per prior rulings.\n•\nReferences: Mst. Zarina Yousaf (2005 PTD 108), Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Companies Zone-I (2005 PTD 2064).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5(1)(xv)&Sched.Cl.(7)(i)(ii) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.26 of 1995, heard on 7-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Ali Jaffari. Khawaja Ibrar Jamal", + "Party Name:": "C.W.T., CENTRAL, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs Malik MUHAMMAD ASHIQ, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 187 = 2007 SLD 187 = 2007 PTD 996 = (2004) 90 TAX 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nTime-barred and Manipulated Assessments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments were antedated and tampered with to circumvent statutory deadlines.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended inquiries and corrective actions.\n•\nConclusion: Manipulated assessments deemed invalid; investigation recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17A(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),2(3)(i)(a)(b),2(3)(i)(a)(d) ", + "Case #": "Complainant No.462-K of 2004, decision dated: 18-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid Shaban for the Complainant. Seema Jabeen, IAC and M. Nawaz, Special Officers", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. SAMINA SHAKIRULLAH DURRANI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 188 = 2007 SLD 188 = 2007 PTD 1094 = (2007) 95 TAX 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nDefinition of Shop for Tax Exemption.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRunning a school in a residential property did not qualify for exemption under Clause 12(2).\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld denial of exemption.\n•\nReferences: PTCL 2000 CL 38.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No.998 of 1999, decision dated: 28-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqui. Muhammad Aleem", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SYED IQBAL HAMID C/o Greenwich Public School, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 189 = 2007 SLD 189 = 2007 PTD 1195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Constitution of Pakistan (1973)]\n•\nLocus Standi in Constitutional Petitions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPetitioner must be an aggrieved party to invoke jurisdiction under Article 199.\no\nSpeculative grievances do not establish locus standi.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed, and special costs imposed for frivolous litigation.\n•\nReferences: Muhammad Rafiq (1985 SCMR 1226), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (1994 CLC 2318).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Balochistan Excise Regulations (I of 1915)=62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.210 of 2004 out of Civil Petition No. 94-Q of 2003, decision dated: 15-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JAVED IQBAL, ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Salah-ud-Din Mengal A.G. and Mehmood Raza, Addl. A.G.s. Shahid Hamid, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Quetta and 2 others\nvs\nMURREE BREWERY COMPANY LTD. through Secretary" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 190 = 2007 SLD 190 = 2007 PTD 1667 = (2007) 96 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nIssuance of Notices to Legal Heirs.\n•\nFindings:\n•\nNotices issued to a deceased person were invalid as assessments require strict compliance with procedural law.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments annulled; fresh notices to legal heirs allowed if permissible.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of 2007, decision dated: 2-04-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Saghir Ahmad. Sh. Zafar ul Islam", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX\nvs\nMst. KUNDAN BIBI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 191 = 2007 SLD 191 = 2007 PTD 1738 = (2007) 96 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nProperty Valuation for Wealth Tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAppellate Tribunal's decision to determine property value using GALVs and market rates was upheld.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s approach aligned with Rule 8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963.\n•\nReferences: (1998) 78 Tax 319, (1994) 78 Tax 217.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27,8(2)(c)(i),(3) ", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No.16 of 2002 with S.R.O. Nos.29, 17 to 24 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd December, 2003. dates of hearing: 7th October and 23rd December, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN SHAKIR ULLAH, JAN AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Eid Muhammad Khattak. M. Asif Khans", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHaji MASUDUR-REHMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 192 = 2007 SLD 192 = 2007 PTD 2046", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nInvalid Assessments under Section 16(4).\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments finalized under Section 16(4) were invalid as this provision only permits information gathering, not assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld cancellation of assessments.\n•\nReferences: 2006 PTD (Trib.) 987.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16(4) ", + "Case #": "W.T. As. Nos. 652/LB to 657/LB of 2006, decision dated: 5-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R.. Siraj ud Din Khalid", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 193 = 2007 SLD 193 = 2007 PTD 2122 = (2007) 96 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRetrospective Application of Exemption.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption provisions under S.R.O.650(I)/85 could not be applied retrospectively without explicit legislative intent.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption applied prospectively; appeal allowed in part.\n•\nReferences: Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. (2004 PTD 1621), Dawood Cotton Mills (2000 PTD 285).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,8.2(14) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=SecondSched:,CI.(25) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 205/LB to 207/LB of 1982-83, 356/LB, 357/LB of 1989-90, 300/LB of 1986-87 and 205/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 24-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOG SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R.. Siraj ud Din Khalid", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 194 = 2007 SLD 194 = 2007 PTD 2150 = (2007) 96 TAX 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 14, 18, 23, & 27---Imposition of penalty for filing return late---Appeal to High Court---Assessee was burdened with penalties under S.18(1)(a) of Wealth Tax Act, 1963 on account of having filed return late by a number of days---Commissioner (Appeals) refused to interfere finding the default of assessee wilful---Appellate Tribunal finding that Amount of penalties were higher than the tax demand created against assessee during each individual year, directed their reduction to the amount equal to the amount of wealth tax assessed---Validity---Appellate Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to reduce the fixed amounts of penalties provided for under the law.\n \nCommissioner of Income Tax, Special Zone, Lahore v. Musarat Textile Mills Ltd. Faisalabad 2005 PTD 2270 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,18,18(1)(a),23,27 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos.679, 602, 603 and 480 of 2000, decision dated: 18-04-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zahid", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT\nvs\nMessrs Sh. ZAFAR IQBAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 195 = 2007 SLD 195 = 2007 PTD 2155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---R.8(4C)---Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S.17-B---Hall let out on hire---Assessment was cancelled by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax holding the assessee to be owner of the land as well as the superstructure with the direction to make fresh assessment in view of R.8(4C) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 and explanation by the assessee was Pound to be unsatisfactory---Validity---Rule 8(4C) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 made it clear that it would only be applicable in case of \"\"Hall owned and managed by same person\"\" whereas assessee from very start of the proceedings under S.17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 had been stating that the assessee was not the owner of the land but only managing superstructure---Additional Commissioner, in spite of elaborate explanation by the assessee stressed that the hall and the land was owned and managed by the assessee---Contention of the assessee was that since the land in question was not owned by him, hence the assessment could not be made in his hands under R.8(4C) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---Ownership of the property, however, needed some verification with regard to the land---Case was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer with the direction to look into the matter again and if the assessee was not owner of the land then R.8(4C) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 was not applicable and only superstructure was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S.17-B---Power of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Wealth-tax Officer's order---Scope---Assessee contended that Additional Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to invoke provisions of S.17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as such powers vest in Inspecting Additional Commissioner---Validity---Assessee failed to make out a case with regard to jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Income 'Tax/Wealth Tax under S.17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---No interference was made by the Appellate Tribunal on the point of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-17,8(4C),17B ", + "Case #": "M.As. (A.G.) Nos. 1103/LB to 1107/LB of 2006 and W.T. As. Nos.537/LB to 541/LB of 2003, decision dated: 23rd January, 2007, hearing DATE : 16-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Abid Raza Kazmi. Ghazanfer Hussain D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 203 = 2008 SLD 203 = 2008 PTD 838 = (2008) 98 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statutes---Explanation to a section is always retrospective so far as it explains the original provision. \n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statutes---Charging provisions---Two interpretations---Scope---Method of interpretation of charging provisions in fiscal statute is that where two interpretations are equally possible, then issue is to be resolved in favour of tax payer and not in favour of the revenue.\n \n(c) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statutes---Tax charging---Principle---Tax cannot be charged by implication and there is no equity about tax---In taxing statutes one has to look at what is clearly said---One can only look fairly at the language used and there is no room for intendment. \n \nCape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 1921 1 KB 69; 1972 1985 ITR 121; Atlas Cycle Industry Limited v. State of Haryana and others (1974) 97 ITR 246; Commissioner of Income Tax Karnatka-I v. Academy of General Education Manipal (1984) 150 ITR page 135 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-VII Calcutta v. Doon Foundation (1985) 154 ITR page 208 rel.\n \n(d) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.2(1)(5)(ii)---Terms \"\"held\"\" and \"\"for the purpose of\"\"---Meaning---Term \"\"held\"\" pre-supposes perpetual right to possess and subsequent language i.e. \"\"for the purpose of\"\" means the basic object for the said holding---Subsequent words are ejusdem generis to the term \"\"held\"\" and hence are to be read as a whole---Term \"\"held for the purpose of\"\" conveys that the object should be the one which is of perpetual and regular nature---Some change in working or if it is let out for some period, would not affect the main object. \n \n(e) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----Ss. 2(1)(5)(ii), 3 & 27---Term \"\"held for the purpose of\"\"---Applicability---Assessee was aggrieved of assessment of his manufacturing unit which was let out against rent/lease and the authorities held that unit for the purpose of letting out, therefore, tax was accordingly charged---Validity---Asset of the assessee did not bear the purpose of letting out---If, for some span of time the asset was rented out, it would not remain within the charge created by definition of \"\"asset\"\" under S.2(1)(5)(ii) of Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and explanation provided therein---In such a case Court had to give benefit of doubt to assessee and the case could have been decided in favour of tax payer---Term \"\"held for the purpose of\"\" could not be extended to apply where for some time the property had been let out while the original purpose remained self use---Letting out was not the actual use but the purpose which was subject to charge under the provision---High Court decided that temporary let out of property was not subject to charge under wealth tax---Reference application was decided in favour of assessee. \n \nB. P Biscuit Factory Ltd; Karachi v. Wealth Tax Officer, II Circle, Karachi and another 1981 PTD 217; Ibrahim Brothers Limited's case PLD 1985 Kar. 407 and Messrs Homes Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax Zone V, Karachi 1989 PTD 1044 ref.\n \nB.P. Biscuit Factory's case 1996 SCMR 1470 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(1)(5)(ii),3,27 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.38, 144 of 2003, 9 to 12, 62 to 66 of 2004, 10, 28, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 161 to 167 of 2005, decision dated: 14-02-2008, hearing DATE : 16-01-2008.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Shahid Jamil Khan, Khadim Hussain Zahid, Miss Yasmin Nighat and Shahbaz Butt (in W.T.As. Nos.37 and 38 of 2005 only). Shahbaz Butt, Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALRAI FLOUR MILLS, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 204 = 2008 SLD 204 = 2008 PTD 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)----S.3---Charge of wealth tax---Association of persons---Assessment of property in the hands of co-owners assigning them the status of association of persons in spite of filing various documents as proof acknowledging the factum of family arrangement and copies of PT-I Forms issued by the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department---Assessee had also contended that present was the case of double assessment since individual shares had already been assessed in the hands of some of the co-owners---Validity---Record showed that division of property had been acknowledged by the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department----Assessing Officer's only reservation was that the same could not be accepted with retrospective effect---Family arrangement duly recorded in the Excise and Taxation Department's record was not accepted---Appellate Tribunal accepted the various explanations put forth by the assessee---Documentary as well as circumstantial evidence brought on record was sufficient to warrant the assessment of the subject property in the hands of its co-owners and not in the hands of association of persons----Orders of both the authorities below were set at naught by the Appellate Tribunal and Assessing Officer was directed to file the proceedings in the case of association of persons---Revenue was at liberty to proceed to assess the shares of various individuals in their own hands if so warranted. \n \nMuhammad Zaman v. Muhammad Jamil and 4 others 1992 CLC 873 and Income Tax Officers v. Narayanganj Company Pvt. Ltd. 1971 Taxation 223 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.1987/LB and 1986/LB of 2001, decision dated: 3rd November, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz-ul-Hassan. Abdul Rasheed Ch. D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 205 = 2008 SLD 205 = 2008 PTD 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 2(16), 3, 16, 17 & 25---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss, 9 & 11---Assessment in respect of property not belonging to assessee, but holding same as \"\"sub­lessee\"\"---Plea of authority was that such property belonged to assessee at least for period of tenancy---Validity---Lease deed did not contain any reference to establish that complainant was owner of land or superstructure---Unless ownership was established, property or superstructure could not be said to belong to complainant---Impugned order was contrary to law, rules and regulations---Authority had not proved such action to be bona fide and for valid reason---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended to Commissioner to set aside impugned assessment, conduct enquiry to ascertain, whether complainant after obtaining lease had made addition/modification or, raised fresh construction, which could be said to belong to him and then frame assessment on basis of findings of enquiry.\n \nW.T.As. Nos.199 to 203/LB of 1996 and W.T.As. Nos. 852 to 858/LB of 2000 ref.\n \n(b) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--\n \n---Ss. 2(3) & 9---Procedure adopted or decision taken by revenue - contrary to law/rules/regulations or a departure from established practice/procedure---Validity---Onus would lie on revenue to establish that such action was bona fide and for valid reasons---Failure to discharge such onus would result in maladministration vesting jurisdiction with Ombudsman.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(16),3,16,17,25 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1583-L of 2003, decision dated: 19-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor, Dealing Officer Zahid Parvez for the Complainant. Abdur Rehman Warriach (D-CIT)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARIM ENTERPRISES, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 206 = 2008 SLD 206 = 2008 PTD 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 14C, 35 & Second Sched., Part-I, Cl.(12)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)--Tax on owners of certain immovable assets---Rectification of mistake---Limitation---Non-payment of created refund on the ground that payment was final discharge of tax liability in respect of property---Assessing Officer's rectification orders declaring the amounts as refundable were not in accordance with the provisions of law---Validity---Assessing Officer rectified the original assessment under mistaken belief that the tax deposited was in excess of the demand and result was that the demand though due under S. 14C of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, had not at all been created---Such demand could legally be created by rectifying/revising the assessments---Subtle point was that the certificatory order had not created any demand but had simply allowed credit for tax paid---Department woke up to the reality too late in the day when action both under S.35 and S.17B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 had become time-barred by operation of the provision of S.17A(4) and 17B(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Issuance of notices under S.35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 were `contrary to law' being devoid of lawful authority and fell in the definition of \"\"maladministration\"\"---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue to direct the concerned tax functionaries to drop the proceedings initiated by issuing notices under S.35 on 27-7-2004; that initiate enquiry as to how the lapses committed by the Assessing Officer remained unattended despite the expected frequent inspection by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner and that tax functionaries found responsible for improper inspection be identified and warned for dereliction of responsibility placing the warning on the Performance Evaluation Report.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----Second Sched., Cl. (12)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Exemption---One residential house was exempted from tax on 9th July, 1996 vide S.R.O. 575(I)/96, dated 9th July, 1996 by amending Cl. (12) of the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.\n \n(c) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S. 14C---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Tax on owners of certain immovable assets---Application and explanation---Section 14C of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was for the first time introduced in the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 on 16-4-1997 through Finance Supplementary (Amendment) Act, 1997 which was to `come into force at once'---For assessment year 1997-98 the provisions of S.14C and Cl.(12) of the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 were applicable. \n \n(d) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n---Ss. 14C, 17B, 35 & Second Sched., Cl.(12)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Tax on owners of certain immovable assets---Assessing Officer when framing assessment rightly allowed exemption, as claimed, for the self-occupied property, and subject to the rest of the declared assets without regard to the basic exemption limit---Assessing Officer however, committed a mistake by not levying the `minimum tax liability' as per S. 14C of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 which had `come into force on 16-4-1997---Such mistake was apparent from record and attracted action by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner under S.17B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,14C,35,SecondSched ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 483-L and 484-L of 2004, decision dated: 15-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Ahmad Shujah Khan for the Complainant. Abdul Rehman Warriachs", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. UZMA KHURRAM ALI ABIDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 207 = 2008 SLD 207 = 2008 PTD 475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 17-B, 25 & 16(3)---Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R.8(2)(c)(ii)---Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to revise Wealth Tax Officer's order---Service of notice and merger---Assessee contended that impugned order did not mention the factum of service either on the assessee or his representative which clearly showed that no notice whatsoever was served upon the assessee; that in absence of proper service of notice the Assessing Authority could not be vested with jurisdiction to decide the case; that Original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax had merged in the subsequent order passed under S.25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax in his revisional jurisdiction that original order was also rectified by the Assessing Officer and that original order having merged with the subsequent revisional order as well as with the rectified order, original order passed under S.16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 would not hold the field and S.17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 could not be invoked in the case of assessee---Validity---Held, admittedly there was no order holding the field since the original order stood merged in a subsequent rectified as well as in the revisional order passed under S.25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and that no notice was served upon the assessee which was a sine qua non for initiating any proceedings under the law---Order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under S.17-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was vacated by the Appellate Tribunal and the original order restored. \n \n2006 PTD 37; 2000 PCTLR 28;1988 PTD (Trib.) 117 and PLD 1992 SC 549 = 1992 PTD 932 rel.\n \n2000 PTD (Trib.) 3773 and 1990 PTD (Trib.) 914 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,17B,25,16(3),8(2)(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.825/LB of 2004, decision dated: 20-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj Khalid. Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 208 = 2008 SLD 208 = 2008 PTD 668 = (2005) 91 TAX 374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 14(2), 16(2) &. 17---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Ex parte Assessment--Notices---Maladministration---Service of any statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer was not proved---Entire process of issue and service of various notices was found bogus and fictitious exercise---Assessment order framed without service of statutory notices was arbitrary, capricious, baseless, against facts of the case and contrary to law---Maladministration was proved---Objection as to the jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman to entertain a complaint was based on misreading of section 9(2) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Order passed without service of show-cause notice was void, contrary to law and without jurisdiction---Federal Tax Ombudsman had jurisdiction to investigate such cases---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended to revise the assessment order and to assess the complainant to the extent of his interest the property and other taxable assets.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14(2),16(2),17 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1396-P of 2003, decision dated: 25-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer. Abdul Malik Khan for the Complainant. Ashfaq Masood, Taxation Officer", + "Party Name:": "FAKHR-EALAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 280 = 2000 SLD 280 = 2000 PLC 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) \nS.O. 10 B Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), Ss. 2(b) & 4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional petition Disability by natural cause Death or injury Compulsory group insurance and medical expenses Payment of Workman was declared medically unfit because of weakness of his eyes Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directed employer to pay Group Insurance amount to the workman payable under S.O 10 B of the Ordinance for the disability suffered by him and towards reimbursement of medical expenses Contention of employer was that workman could not file claim on account of any disability suffered from .natural cause Validity Order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was upheld by the High Court with the directions to petitioner to pay compensation for every day of delay in payment of decretal amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum [Karachi Road Transport Corporation v. Kajeer Khan 1993 PLC 296 and Pakistan Tobacco Company v. Muhammad Siddique 1978 PLC 363 reversed].\nKarachi Road Transport Corporation v. Kajeer Khan 1993 PLC 296 and Pakistan Tobacco Company v. Muhammad Siddique 1978 PLC 363 reversed.\nMuhammad Siddique v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1979 Kar. 560 and Muhammad Habib Khan v. Pakistan Tobacco Company PLD 1991 SC 183 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Workmens Compensation Act, 1923=2(b),4 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.S 31 of 1994, heard on 25-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. AHMED SARWANA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Rafique Ahmed for Petitioner AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and others\nVs\nSHER MUHAMMAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 281 = 2000 SLD 281 = 2000 PLC 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) \nSs. 2(xxviii) & 25 A West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 3(i) Workman Determination Grievance petition Maintainability -Employees being Shift Officers looked after managerial and supervisory works of respective shift not concerning any manual or clerical work In case employees were required to do some manual or clerical work, that was merely ancillary, incidental and auxiliary in nature and hardly took half an hour in eight hours working which could not form pith and substance of their job Employees, in circumstances, were not workmen and their grievance petition filed under S. 25 A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.\nGeneral Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others PLD 1986 SC 103; Muhammad Sadiq v. Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another PLD 1988 SC 633; Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others 1993 SCMR 1370 and Imran v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLJ 1981 Kar. 413 ref\n(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) \nS. 25 A Grievance petition Competency Grievance petition against order terminating services was filed by employees without first serving upon employer notice as provided under S. 25 A(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was fatal to case of employees Labour Court in circumstances, was not justified in accepting grievance petition filed by employees Order of Labour Court reinstating employees with back benefits, being null and void, was set aside.\nObaidullah v. The Labour Court No.5 Karachi and 2 others 1981 PLC 321 and Koh e Noor Batteries Manufacture Company v. Lal Muhammad and another 1975 PLC 196 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=2(xxviii),25A ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. KAR 5 and KAR 6 of 1999, decision dated: 16-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Hafiz. Muhammad Nishat Warsi and S.P. Lodhi, Representatives", + "Party Name:": "COCA COLA BEVERAGES PAKISTAN LTD\nVs\nBASARAT HUSSAIN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 51 = 2009 SLD 51 = 2009 PTD 742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S. 31B(1)(b)---Additional Wealth Tax---Stay application against outstanding demand on the ground that rectification applications have been filed against restoring the additional tax charged for the period from the due date till the framing of assessments whereas under the provisions of S. 31B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 such tax was chargeable only for the period till the end of the relevant assessment year---Validity---Additional tax should have been charged in the light of proviso to S. 31B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Prima facie the calculation of additional tax did not appear to be correct---Final position of the matter will be determined at the time of hearing of rectification application---Assessee's request for grant of stay in respect of excess amount of additional tax having not been charged in accordance with the provisions of S. 31B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal with the direction that calculation of additional tax should be made keeping in view the provisions of S. 31B(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as well as the case law---Balance demand of additional tax was stayed for a period of two months or decision of miscellaneous application for rectification whichever was earlier. \n \n2002 PTD (Trib) 221 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=31B(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Stay) Nos.24/KB to 30/KB of 2009, decision dated: 11-02-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Applicant. Muhammad Asif and Mrs. Reema Masood, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1952 109 = 1952 SLD 109 = (1952) 22 ITR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Firm - Position prior to 1-4-1993 - Assessment year 1945-46 - Assessee carried on business in Colombo from 1935 and was assessed in status of individual - During relevant accounting year it was claimed that business ceased to be owned by individual and became business of partnership-firm evidenced by partnership deed dated 1-1-1944 - Said partnership was registered under Business Names Ordinance in Ceylon on assessee swearing to affidavit that partnership was genuine - Partners of firm were three major sons of assessee - Deed of partnership was also attested by Notary public - Assessee bound himself by said document to recognise interest of his sons in manner and to extent indicated in deed and sons inter se had agreed to share profits of that business and its capital in manner in which it had been agreed to under said deed - Whether, on facts, it could be said that firm constituted was real and was entitled to be registered - Held, yes\nFACTS\nThe assessee carried on business in piece goods in Colombo from 1935 and was assessed in the status of an individual. During the assessment year 1945-46, however, it was claimed by the assessee that the business ceased to be owned by the individual and that had become the business of a partnership which came into existence on 1-1-1944, evidenced by a deed of partnership of 13-1-1944.\nUnder the Business Names Ordinance obtaining in Ceylon this partnership was registered on the assessee swearing to an affidavit dated 11-2-1944, in which he pleaded that the partnership was real and genuine. The partners in this partnership were the three major sons of the assessee's first wife. He had also minor sons by the second wife but they were not made parties. On an examination of the various clauses of the deed of partnership the revenue authorities and the Tribunal found that the partnership was not real and therefore assessed the assessee as an individual during the assessment year. Even the application under section 26A was kept pending till the decision of the High Court on the reference application.\nHELD\nIt was found by the Tribunal that the document gave no indication as to why the father preferred the major sons by the first wife to the minor sons by the second wife. It was not usual in a deed of partnership to give reasons for entering into a partnership. It was not as if the father ignored the interests of the minor sons by the second wife as he provided that they should be entitled exclusively to the share capital and the profits of the business belonging to the father in the event of his death. It may be that the father wanted to make a distribution of an available asset belonging to him, viz., the business even during his lifetime so as to avoid future difficulties.\nMuch was made of the fact no share capital was distributed nor was it contributed by the sons at the time the partnership came into existence. It must be remembered that the sons had no independent property of their own to make the contribution from their own resources to the partnership. They were entirely dependent upon the father and it was the father that admitted each of them to a share in the business. That was the reason why it was provided that the capital of the partnership should consist of the net value of the stock-in-trade, book debts: and other assets of the business less of course the outstanding liabilities. This distribution could not be immediately done as income-tax up to the end of the year 1943 was not assessed till October, 1945, and it was thereafter that the net capital could be ascertained and could be distributed between the sons in the accounts. It was not disputed that and it had been adverted to by the Tribunal itself that the profits of each year were distributed to the sons though it was said that the circumstance was not conclusive. Of course the way in which the Tribunal and the income-tax authority treated the matter was to take each circumstance by itself and then reject it on the ground that each by itself was not conclusive. This method of approaching the question was not proper. The cumulative effect of all the circumstances should have been considered in arriving at the conclusion whether this partnership was real or not. This partnership was recognised immediately by the Ceylon authorities when it was registered under the Ceylon Business Ordinance. It was not as if they did it as a matter of course. They obtained an affidavit from the father himself to support the statements in the deed of partnership. It was on that information that they acted and registered the partnership deed. The next circumstance was that the deed itself was attested by the Notary Public and, therefore, no doubt could be cast upon the existence of the deed on the date on which it purports to have come into existence. As regards the reality of the partnership as pointed out above, there were many circumstances pointing to the conclusion that the father intended that this partnership should be real and should benefit his children by the first wife as well as the second wife. It would be open to any of the sons if there were disputes to claim under this document their share of the capital and the profits in the business. Even if it should happen that the father should die, they would not be entitled to claim any portion of the father's share so that the father bound himself by this document to recognise the interest of his sons in the manner and to the extent indicated in the deed and the sons inter se had agreed to share the profits of this business and its capital in the manner in which it had been agreed to under this deed. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal was not warranted by the evidence on record. It was, therefore, held that the partnership was real and it would be registered.\nNote : The case was decided in favour of the assessee.\nT.V. Viswanatha Iyer for the Appellant.\nC.S. Rama Rao Saheb for the Respondent.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "CASE REFERRED NO. 28 OF 1950, MARCH 25, 1952", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATYANARAYANA RAO AND RAJAGOPALAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "S.S.K. Haja Allauddin Maracair\nv.\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 53 = 2009 SLD 53 = 2009 PTD 1718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Ss. 17(1) & 17-A(2)(b)(c)---Wealth escaping assessment-'Definite information' received by Revenue regarding purchase of property by assessee in foreign country---Service of demand notice on assessee on 14-9-1998---Failure of assessee to declare such property in return filed after such notice---Passing of assessment order on 30-6-2001---Validity--Such notice would be deemed to have been issued under S.17(1)(a) of Wealth Tax Act, 1963 attracting period of limitation under S.17-A(2)(b) thereof---Such assessment order was not hit by period of limitation.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----Ss. 17(1)(a)(b)---Wealth escaping assessment, completion of---Limitation, determination of---Test stated.\n \nA notice under section 17, Wealth Tax Act, 1963 cannot be issued by the Deputy Commissioner unless definite information has come into his possession, therefore, the real test would not be whether the notice has been issued in consequence of any information. The criteria to determine as to notice has been issued under which clause of section 17(1) would be whether the wealth escaped assessment due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his net-wealth or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. In case, the wealth escaped assessment due to omission or failure of the assessee, notice under section 17(1) will be given and since the wealth escaped assessment due to the failure of the assessee, a longer period for completion of the assessment has been provided. This intention of the legislature can be gathered from the use of the phrase \"\"notwithstanding that there has been no such omission or failure as is referred to in clause (a)\"\" used in clause (b) of section 17(1).", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17(1),17A(2)(b)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 31 of 2003, decision dated: 11-05-2009, hearing DATE : 4-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Munawar Iqbal for Petitioner. Ghulam Sarwar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH, TAX COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nTARIQ AZIZ and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 108 = 2010 SLD 108 = (2010) 101 TAX 118 = 2009 PTD 1891", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990---Rr. 4 & 8---Finance Act (V of 1989), S.7 (7)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Additional Capital Value Tax (CVT)---Notice of recovery---Petitioner was aggrieved of notice issued by District Officer Excise and Taxation for recovery of additional CVT---Validity---Where for any reason CVT was not collected under R.4 of Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990, Deputy Commissioner Wealth Tax appointed under Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and having jurisdiction over the case of purchaser or transferee might declare under R.8 of Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990, Registration Authority, manufacturer, purchaser or transferee, as assessee in default and could proceed to collect tax as an officer designated under S.7 (7) of Finance Act, 1989, by Central Board of Revenue in such behalf---Role of District Officer Excise and Taxation in the matter was non-existent when Deputy Commissioner Wealth Tax had decided to proceed in the matter under R.8 of Capital Value Rules, 1990---Matter involved adjudication by competent authority i.e. successor-in-office of Deputy Commissioner Wealth Tax, to determine as to whether additional tax was liable to be paid, if so by whom and quantum thereof---Notice issued by District Officer Excise and Taxation was declared to be without lawful authority and void---High Court directed that matter of liability to pay additional tax should be adjudicated by successor-in-office of Deputy Commissioner Wealth Tax after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as District Officer Excise and Taxation---Petition was disposed of accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990=R-4,4,8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Finance Act, 1989=7(7) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.992 of 2005, heard on 29-07-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Farrukh Jawad Panni for Petitioner. Razzaq A. Mirza, Addl. A.G. with Shaukat Mehmood, E.T.O.s", + "Party Name:": "GHAZI BAROTHA CONTRACTORS, ATTOCK\nvs\nDISTRICT OFFICER EXCISE AND TAXATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, ATTOCK and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 109 = 2010 SLD 109 = (2010) 101 TAX 23 = 2009 PTD 1963", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.2(5)(ii)---Assets---Assessees contended that Taxation Officer treated the property owned by the assessee as taxable, whereas the property in question had not been held for the purpose of business of construction and sale or letting out and the same could not be subjected to tax as defined under S.2(5)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Validity;---If, for some span of time the asset was rented out, it would not 'remain within the charge created by the definition of \"\"asset\"\" under S.2(1)(5)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and explanation provided therein---Benefit of doubt had to be given to assessee and the case could have been decided in favour of the assessee---Term \"\"held for the purpose of\"\" could not be extended to apply where, for some time, the property had been let out while the original purpose remained self use---Letting out was not the actual use but the purpose which was subject to charge under the provision---Temporary let out of property was not subject to charge under Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Taxation Officer treated the property owned by the assessee as taxable without establishing that the purpose of assessee regarding the property was business of construction and sale or letting out under S.2(5)(II) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and orders passed by the Taxation Officer were cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal and levy of additional tax was also deleted. \n \n2008 PTD 838; 1996 SCMR 1670; PLD 1985 Kar. 407 and 1989 PTD 1044 rel.\n \n(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S.17---Wealth escaping assessment---Non-ticking of sub-clause of the provision on the notice---Effect---Assessee contended that notice issued under S.17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was vague and illegal as no specific sub-clause had been marked which was mandatory requirement and the order passed by the Taxation Officer was ab initio, unlawful, without jurisdiction and subsequent proceedings built thereon were unlawful---Validity---Taxation Officer issued notice wherein he had not properly ticked sub-clause of the provision under which he was going to tax the assessee---Such vague notice was ab initio illegal and any consequent proceedings were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed---Notice was not specifically ticked meaning thereby the Taxation Officer was not definite in his mind as to which clause of the provision mentioned on the notice was attracted to the facts of the case. \n \n2002 PTD (Trib.) 260; 2001 PTD 480; 1997 PTD 47; 2004 PTD (Trib) 1052; 2000 PTD (Trib) 531 and 1983 PTD 246 rel.\n \n(c) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---\n \n----S.2(5)(ii)---Assets---Temporary let out of property was not subject to tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. \n \n2008 PTD 838 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(5)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W. T. As. Nos. 1/KB to 5/KB of 2009, decision dated: 24-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Lakhani. Dr. Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 54 = 2009 SLD 54 = (2010) 100 TAX 135 = 2010 PTD 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.23---Appeal to Appellate Additional Commissioner from orders of Deputy Commissioner---Annulment of assessment---First Appellate Authority annulled the assessments for the reason that assessments were made by the Taxation Officer who was not a prescribed authority under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and assessments made were illegal, void ab initio---Department did not challenge the findings given by the First Appellate Authority before the Appellate Tribunal---Since annulled assessments were not hit by limitation, after issuing statutory notices, fresh assessments were framed by the competent/proper authority having the designation of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax---Assessee contended that assessment framed by the Taxation Officer was got annulled by the First Appellate Authority being without jurisdiction, a vested right was created in favour of the assessee and to provide an opportunity to frame fresh assessment tantamount to snatching away that right---Very fact of making fresh assessment would show that the original assessment framed by the Taxation Officer did not have the legal backing and hence no legs to stand on---Validity---Admittedly, the department did not challenge the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority in the first round of litigation and it attained finality---It was not the issue that whether original re-assessment order was made by the competent authorities but the moot point was that whatever the findings given by the First Appellate Authority, those findings remained uncontested---By not challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, vested right had accrued in favour of the assessee---Order passed by the First Appellate Authority was vacated and assessment framed by the Assessing Officer were cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n2002 PTD 2379 rel.\n \n2008, PTD 823 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=23 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 57/LB to 58/LB of 2009, 1/LB to 2/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Pervaiz Jami. S.A. Masood Raza Qazilbash, D.R. and Ghulam Nabi Tahir, D.C.I.T.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 110 = 2010 SLD 110 = 2010 PTD 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.16---Ex parte assessment order for non-appearance of assessee---Validity---Assessing Officer had not made any effort to know as to whether assessee was sole proprietorship concern or was owned by many shareholders---Assessee had not been made party through any person to come forward and defend case---Such ex parte order was violative of the rules of natural justice---High Court set aside impugned order and remanded case to Assessing Officer with directions to assess assessee through some person and after recording versions of its various owners-shareholders and pass order strictly on merits and in accordance with law.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16 ", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.71 of 2005, heard on 4-04-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rauf Rohaila. Shahid Raza Malik", + "Party Name:": "Messrs G.B. PLAZA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 111 = 2010 SLD 111 = 2010 PTD 1871 = (2010) 102 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nStay of Recovery Proceedings.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal refused to grant a stay on recovery proceedings due to a Supreme Court order that ousted its jurisdiction over the remanded issues.\no\nJudicial propriety prohibited adjudication on ancillary matters.\n•\nConclusion: Application for stay was rejected.\n•\nReferences: 2008 PLC (C.S.) 551, PLD 2008 Lah. 57.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=358)5) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No. 342/LB/2010, decision dated: 17-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ayaz Shaukat for Applicant. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 112 = 2010 SLD 112 = 2010 PTD 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nDuty on Aerated Beverages.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAllegations of duty evasion were refuted by a reconciliation report confirming duty payment on declared retail prices as per Section 4(2).\n•\nConclusion: Department’s claim was dismissed; duty payment confirmed.\n•\nReferences: S.R.O. 333(I)/2002, Section 4(2), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4,4(2),3 Federal Excise Act, 2005=8,14(3) ", + "Case #": "Appeal C. No.6/FE/IB of 2009, decision dated: 28-07-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAFIZ AHSAAN AHMAD KHOKHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Iqbal, Company Secretary. Irfan Zubair, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 113 = 2010 SLD 113 = 2010 PTD 1203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]\n•\nExcise Duty on Surrender Value of Life Insurance Policies.\n•\nFindings:\no\nWithdrawal of policy surrender value was deemed a service subject to excise duty.\no\nThe obligation to refund withdrawn amounts with markup differentiated the transaction from ordinary banking services.\n•\nConclusion: Excise duty was upheld on the service provided.\n•\nReferences: Hirjina & Company (1993 SCMR 1342), ICC Textile Ltd. (2003 PTD 101).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "Special S.T.R.A. No. 364 of 2007, decision dated: 24-02-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Ali for Applicant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Divisional Head (Law)\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND EXCISE (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 114 = 2010 SLD 114 = (2010) 101 TAX 284 = 2010 PTD 1493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRevision of Wealth Tax Officer’s Orders.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner’s jurisdiction to revise orders was upheld but restricted when the original order was issued by another officer.\no\nUse of foreign remittance for loan repayment did not qualify as asset creation.\n•\nConclusion: Orders under Section 17-B were canceled due to jurisdictional issues.\n•\nReferences: Sandal Engineering (2001 PTD 1467), Black’s Law Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17B,16(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 692/LB and 693/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Asif, D.R.. M. Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 115 = 2010 SLD 115 = 2010 PTD 1973", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAdditional Wealth Tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal’s directive to calculate additional tax as per Section 31B(1)(b) was upheld.\n•\nConclusion: No further findings warranted; appeal dismissed.\n•\nReferences: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 221.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=31,31B(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Rect) Nos. 157/KB to 163/KB of 2008 in W.T.A. Nos. 6 to 12/KB of 2007, decision dated: 14-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMAIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Tahir (ITP). Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 116 = 2010 SLD 116 = 2010 PTD 2201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nOwnership and Valuation of Immovable Assets.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessments set aside due to disputed ownership of property canceled by authorities.\no\nTax burden on the assessee was deemed unjustified.\n•\nConclusion: Commissioner’s order vacated; reassessments directed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16(3)/23 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 45/LB and 46/LB of 2008, decision dated: 7-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Manzoor Ahmad Shad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 139 = 2012 SLD 139 = 2012 PTD 948", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAuthority of Additional Commissioner.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdditional Commissioner lacked the legal authority under Section 17-B.\no\nRevenue failed to substantiate the officer’s designation and authority.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals dismissed; First Appellate Authority’s decision affirmed.\n•\nReferences: Haji Naseem ur Rehman (2009 PTD 164).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.113/LB and 114/LB of 2009, decision dated: 8-03-2010, hearing DATE : 25-02-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Latif, D.R. for Applicant. Waseem Ch.", + "Party Name:": "DCWT, LEGAL02, LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs RIZWAN AMJAD, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 169 = 2013 SLD 169 = (2013) 108 TAX 101 = 2013 SCMR 1140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]\n•\nEligibility for Judicial Member Appointment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nJudicial members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal must meet the High Court Judge’s age requirement (45 years).\no\nAppointments made for individuals below 45 were invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Appointments canceled; fresh recruitment directed.\n•\nReferences: Rana Aamer Raza Ashfaq (2012 SCMR 6).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=130,130(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=193(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.841 of 2012, (Against the Judgment dated 2-7-2012, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in F.A.O. No.415 of 2009.), Civil Appeal No.841 and Civil Petition No.1724-L of 2012, decision dated: 30-04-2013, hearing DATE : 10-01-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., GULZAR AHMED AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 841 of 2012). Maqbool Elahi Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1724-L of 2012). Shafi Muhammad Chandio, D.A.G., M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record and Pir Muhammad Ishaq, Director (L) FPSCs Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 in person. Nemo No. 5", + "Party Name:": "Ch. ANWAAR UL HAQ ARIF, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and others\nCivil No.1724-L of 2012\nMUHAMMAD KAMRAN, ADVOCATE\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 111 = 1981 SLD 111 = (1981) 44 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nDeduction of Management Expenses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExcess management expenses were deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi).\no\nSuch expenses were not penalties and could be adjusted against profits.\n•\nConclusion: Deduction allowed; expenses upheld as legitimate business costs.\n•\nReferences: Life Insurance Corporation of India (51 ITR 773).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi),10(7) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-46 of 1971, Civil Appeal Nos. K-69-70-71 of 1972, hearing DATE : 2-9-1980 and 3-9-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. ANWARUL HAQ, C.J, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND FAKHURDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellant (in both the appeals). Nasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate; Supreme Court with V.A. Kidwai, Advocate-on-Record, for the Respondents (in both the appeals)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI\nvs\nALPHA INSURANCE CO., LTD., KARACHI & HOME INSURANCE CO., LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 112 = 1981 SLD 112 = (1981) 44 TAX 38 = 1979 SCC 467 = 1981 SCMR 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nLimitation in Appeals.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdditional petitions for leave to appeal cannot extend the period of limitation for the main appeal.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed as time-barred.\n•\nReferences: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Umar Saigol (PLD 1975 Lah. 1558).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.S.L.A Nos. 175 to 179 of 1977, heard on 6-11-1979 [On Appeal from the judgment and order dated 7-2-1979 of the Lahore High Court, in C.M. No. 4/Com-S-76], hearing DATE 26-11-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, JUSTICE AND SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "BOOZ ALLEN & HEMILTON INTERNATIONAL (PANAMA), INC., U.S.A\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 113 = 1981 SLD 113 = (1981) 44 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nDepreciation Allowance for Buildings.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCost of building determined under mercantile accounting principles.\no\nAdjustments made for discrepancies in compensation book values.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation allowed on adjusted cost.\n•\nReferences: Cape Brandy Syndicate (1921 KB 64).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(3A),(38),10(2)(iv),10(5),13 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-43 of 1971, heard on 3/4-2-1981, On appeal from the judgment dated 5-12-1970 of the Sind and Balochistan High Court, Karachi in Civil Reference No. 8 of 1966). dates of hearing : 3-2-1981 and 4-2-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., SHOJI-UR-REHMAN AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court with Yusuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record, for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M, Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record,", + "Party Name:": "BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 114 = 1981 SLD 114 = (1981) 44 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nBusiness Expenditure on Financial Management.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPayment to a financing company managing a mill was a deductible expense.\no\nFinancing company was not a manager under the Companies Act.\n•\nConclusion: Deduction upheld; expense deemed necessary for business.\n•\nReferences: Alagappa Textiles Ltd. (93 ITR 406).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2001 and 2002 of 1972, decision dated: 19-9-1979, [On appeals from the judgment and order dated 16-11-1971, of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. No. 19 of 1969]", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "V.S. Desai, Senior Advocate (S.P. Nayar and Miss Subhashini, Advocates, with him), for the Appellant. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (N. Sudhakaran and P K. Pillai, Advocates, with him), for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA\nvs\nALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 115 = 1981 SLD 115 = (1981) 44 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nDeductibility of Compensation Paid on Termination.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCompensation paid to directors and employees on termination to facilitate takeover of shares was considered deductible business expenditure.\no\nThe expression wholly and exclusively does not equate to necessarily ; voluntary expenses incurred to promote business and profits are allowable.\n•\nConclusion: Payment of Rs. 1,27,511 was deductible under Section 10(2)(xv).\n•\nReferences: Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 551, CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal and Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2501 to 2504 of 1972, decision dated: 3-5-1979. [Appeals from the judgments and orders dated 5-2-1970 and 25/ 26-2-1971, of the Bombay High Court in I. T. R. Nos. 58 of 1963 and 87 of 1963]", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N.L. UNTWALIA AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ,", + "Lawyer Name": "V.S. Desai, Senior Advocate (Dinesh Vyas, K. J. John and Shri Narain, Advocates with him),. Hardyal Hardy, Senior Advocate (Champat Rai, B.B. Tawekley and Miss. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him),.", + "Party Name:": "SASSOON J. DAVID AND CO. P. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 116 = 1981 SLD 116 = (1981) 44 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nDepreciation in Break-Up Value of Shares.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDepreciation not accounted for in the latest balance sheet could not be considered a reserve for deduction in determining break-up value.\n•\nConclusion: The net wealth and break-up value were recalculated as Rs. 25,38,969.\n•\nReferences: Commissioner of Income Tax v. The Lyallpur Cotton Mills PLD 1960 SC 48.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-8,8(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1648 of 1978, decision dated: 22-3-1981. dates of hearing 2 9-3-81 and 10-3-81.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai, Sr. Adv. (Shri Narani,.J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, S. Swarup & Talat Ansari, Adv. G.N. Dikshit, Senior Adv., (M. V. Goswami and O. P. Rana Adv. Girish Chandra, Adv.,Dewan, Sr. Adv. (Ravinder Narain. S. Swarup and A.N. Hakasar, Adv.) for the intervener (Modi Rubber Ltd).", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD USMAN AND 26 OTHERS\nvs\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 13 = 1979 SLD 13 = (1980) 41 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nQuestion of Law in Tribunal Findings.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal's findings based on detailed examination of material do not necessarily raise a question of law.\no\nReliability of accounts is a factual matter and cannot be overturned unless findings are capricious.\n•\nConclusion: Application for reference to High Court was rightly rejected.\n•\nReferences: Shahid Hameed v. Income Tax Officer (1976) 34 Taxation 31.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 123 and 124 of 1978, decision dated: 13-3-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C, J. MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND DORAB PATEL, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MISS ASSIA\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 14 = 1979 SLD 14 = 1979 PTD 465 = (1980) 41 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nAdventure in Nature of Trade.\n•\nFindings:\no\nMere sale and purchase of shares without evidence of intent to trade for profit does not constitute an adventure in trade.\n•\nConclusion: Surplus from sale of shares treated as capital gain, not taxable as revenue income.\n•\nReferences: Edwards v. Bairstow (36 TC 207), Lalit Pam Mangi Ram v. CIT (1950) 18 ITR 286.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4),10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 33 of 1970, decision dated: 19-6-1979, hearing DATE : 24-1-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MAHMUD AND MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the Applicant. Ali Athar for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIOMER, INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nA. RAZAK H. K. DADA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 15 = 1979 SLD 15 = 1979 PTD 461 = (1980) 41 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nAdvance Tax Liability and Penalty.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPenalty for non-payment of advance tax was not applicable when payment was made by a third party before completion of the sale deed.\no\nHigh Court has jurisdiction to grant relief in cases of partial or unjust decisions by fiscal authorities.\n•\nConclusion: No penalty imposed; relief granted.\n•\nReferences: Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (PLD 1971 SC 205).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 456 of 1969, decision dated: 24-4-1979. dates of hearing : 26-2-1979 ; 7 3-1979 and 24-3-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Anwar and A. H. Mirza for the petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ERUCH MANECKJI AND OTHERS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 16 = 1979 SLD 16 = 1979 PTD 431 = (1980) 41 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nTaxability of Government-Owned Corporations.\n•\nFindings:\no\nStatutory corporations are not exempt from taxation merely due to government ownership.\no\nThe corporation was not a government department or agent but operated independently.\n•\nConclusion: Corporation subject to income tax.\n•\nReferences: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. v. ITO (1964) 52 ITR 524.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(5A),2(9) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 36 of 1970, decision dated: 13-5-1979, hearing DATE : 24-1-1979, 31-1-79 and 24-2-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for the Applicant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 17 = 1979 SLD 17 = 1979 PTD 473 = (1980) 41 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]\n•\nRejection of Accounts for Best Assessment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAbsence of adequate records justified rejection of accounts and adoption of best judgment assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Assessment at 30% profit rate upheld as reasonable and non-capricious.\n•\nReferences: Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. (1938) 6 ITR 36.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 36, 37, 38 & 39 of 1971, decision dated: 24-3-1979, hearing DATE : 6-03-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE QURESHI AND I. MAHMUD, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan.", + "Party Name:": "IMPERIAL PAINT AND VARNISH WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 258 = 1993 SLD 258 = 1993 PTD 105 = (1993) 67 TAX 124 = 1993 PTCL 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nValuation of Shares in Nationalized Banks.\n•\nFindings:\no\nGovernment's promise to compensate for nationalized shares is an intangible right and not an asset under the Wealth Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: Shares excluded from assessable wealth.\n•\nReferences: Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. U.C. Mahatab (1973) 27 Taxation 174.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(e) Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974=6,7 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 51 of 1983, decision dated: 9-12-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nHABIB DOST MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 259 = 1993 SLD 259 = 1993 PTD 941 = (1993) 68 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Interpretation of Statutes and Wealth Tax Rules]\n•\nValuation Principles and Role of Proviso.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRule 8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules permits valuation based on property characteristics, with GARV applied only where specific conditions exist.\n•\nConclusion: Proper valuation method clarified, requiring Central Board approval for values exceeding ten times GARV.\n•\nReferences: Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Co. v. Bezwada Municipality AIR 1944 PC 71.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "WTA No. 52/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 21st September, 1992, hearing DATE : 21st July, 1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Haq Kang F.D. Qaiser, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 260 = 1993 SLD 260 = 1993 PTD 1212 = (1993) 68 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nSuccessor Authority’s Jurisdiction.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSuccessor officers may continue proceedings; penalty imposition does not require outstanding demand at the time of the penalty order.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty imposed was valid.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1964 SC 410.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=6,91 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.598/KB and 600/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 5-09-1992. dates of hearing: 17th and 22-08-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Zakaria, A.R.s. Muhammad Saeed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 261 = 1993 SLD 261 = 1993 PTD 1237 = (1994) 69 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nDeduction of Head Office Expenditure.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNon-residents can deduct head office expenditure within prescribed limits, as determined by Income Tax Rules.\no\nLosses from exploration activities are restricted to six years for carry-forward purposes.\n•\nConclusion: Expenditure deductions and loss carry-forwards clarified within statutory limits.\n•\nReferences: Rule 20, Income Tax Rules, 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,24 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 256, 257 and 258/IB of 1989-90, decision dated: 6-03-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad, LA. and Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R.. Naseem Zafar, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 262 = 1993 SLD 262 = 1993 PTD 1378 = (1993) 68 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAdvance Rent Classification as Asset or Debt.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdvance rent held by a landlord is considered an asset rather than a debt owed. It represents a tangible right to utilize the funds until adjusted or refunded under specific conditions.\n•\nConclusion: Advance rent is aggregated toward net wealth and not deductible as a liability.\n•\nReferences: ITA No.196(LB) of 1985-86 distinguished; Mst. Fauzia Mughees's 1988 PTD 629.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(m),8(3) ", + "Case #": "WTA No. 4/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 12-12-1992, hearing DATE : 28-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. Hameed Chaudhry, CA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 263 = 1993 SLD 263 = 1993 PTD 1421 = (1993) 68 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXIX of 1979)]\n•\nFraming Assessments Beyond Limitation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessment framed under Section 62 to circumvent the lapse of limitation under Section 59(4) was deemed improper and fraudulent. Blanket protection under Section 155 cannot cure jurisdictional defects.\n•\nConclusion: Assessment annulled due to jurisdictional lapse.\n•\nReferences: Section 59(4) and Section 155 of Income Tax Ordinance analyzed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,.59(4),62,155 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 4715/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 15-12-1992, hearing DATE : 13-12-1992.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. F.D. Qaiser, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 264 = 1993 SLD 264 = 1993 PTD 1622 = (1993) 68 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nCondonation of Delay in Appeals.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDelay in filing appeals must be justified by exact calculation of days and sufficient reasons. Bona fide mistakes or ill advice are insufficient without detailed explanation.\n•\nConclusion: Exercise of discretion without adequate reasoning was inappropriate; condonation denied.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1974 SC 22 distinguished; Muhammad Ramzan v. Masooda Hassan ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,130(3),134(4),136(15) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.731/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 2nd September 1993, hearing DATE : 13th June 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali Sheikh, D.R. for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 241 = 1994 SLD 241 = 1994 PTD 1019 = (1994) 69 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nValuation of Foreign Properties.\n•\nFindings:\no\nFor properties outside Pakistan, reliance on sale deeds or valuation reports from the respective country is necessary. Rule 8(3) valuation methods apply only to properties in Pakistan.\n•\nConclusion: WTO directed to re-evaluate based on available foreign valuation documents.\n•\nReferences: Rule 8(3), Wealth Tax Rules.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=7,8(3),3,6,2(e) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 7/HO to 9/HO of 1989-90, decision dated: 10-11-1993, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehmat Shakeel. Khalid Siddiqui, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 242 = 1994 SLD 242 = 1994 PTD 309 = (1994) 69 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Limitation Act (IX of 1908)]\n•\nExclusion of Time for Obtaining Copies.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTime requisite for obtaining copies is excluded from limitation, but timely filing remains crucial once copies are available.\n•\nConclusion: Proper calculation of limitation upheld.\n•\nReferences: Fateh Muhammad v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 SCMR 157.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4,5,5(1)(c) Limitation Act, 1908=12(2),12(3) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 81 of 1992, decision dated: 23-11-1993, hearing DATE : 18th April and 01-11-1993 On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 27-5-1992 in Writ Petition No.4 of 1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nBASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Bilal, Advocate\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, MIRPUR and 2 others\nVS\nCH. MUHAMMAD BASHIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 243 = 1994 SLD 243 = 1994 PTD 575 = (1994) 69 TAX 137 = 1994 PTCL 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)]\n•\nWithdrawal of Exemption.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption withdrawal cannot affect vested rights acquired before the notification. Sales tax not applicable, but customs duty increase was upheld due to Section 31-A of the Customs Act.\n•\nConclusion: Importer exempted from sales tax; liable for enhanced customs duty.\n•\nReferences: SRO No.542(1)/89 and SRO No.566(1)/89.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=31A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 425 of 1990, decision dated: 29-03-1990, hearing DATE : 27-03-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Amanullah Khan for Petitioner. Naimur Rehman, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AHMED INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 244 = 1994 SLD 244 = 1994 PTD 799 = (1994) 69 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAdvance Rent as Asset or Debt.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdvance rent becomes a tangible asset with only a remote chance of refund, differing from loans or advances in commercial parlance.\n•\nConclusion: Advance rent classified as an asset, not a debt.\n•\nReferences: C.W.T. v. Mst. Fauzia Mughees 1988 PTD 629.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(m)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.TAs. Nos. 20/LB to 22/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 12-12-1992, hearing DATE : 11-10-1992", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "F.D. Qaiser, D.R.. Tajammal Hussain, A.CA.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 245 = 1994 SLD 245 = 1994 PTD 839 = (1994) 69 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nRetrospective Amendment and Rectification.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRetrospective amendments cannot nullify final tribunal decisions unless specifically empowered. Rectification requires a patent mistake on record.\n•\nConclusion: Rectification rejected due to lack of authority under retrospective amendments.\n•\nReferences: Ayre v. Wyan-Machenzie (1896) 1 Ch.135.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(c)(ii) Finance Act, 1991=24(10),35,156] ", + "Case #": "MA. Nos.111/LB to 115/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 29-12-1993, hearing DATE : 8-09-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAWAJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Agha Sarwar Qazalbash, D.R.. Muhammad Amin Butt", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 246 = 1994 SLD 246 = 1994 PTD 1403 = (1994) 70 TAX 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of Property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nWTO can determine gross annual rental value and use it to estimate property value, but valuations exceeding 10 times GARV require approval.\n•\nConclusion: Valuation methods clarified for net wealth assessment.\n•\nReferences: Rule 8(3), Wealth Tax Rules.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "WTA No.42/IB of 1990-91, decision dated: 27-11-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, RASHID AHMED SHEIKH AND SYED KABIRUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz Ahmad Bilour, D.R.. Z.A. Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 131 = 1995 SLD 131 = 1995 PTD 114 = (1994) 205 ITR 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nInterim Relief in Tax Recovery.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInterim relief against tax recovery requires strong justification, including public interest and irreparable harm. A prima facie case alone is insufficient.\n•\nConclusion: Stay denied; assessing authorities’ decisions upheld.\n•\nReferences: Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 172.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)= ", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 16802 and W. M. P. No. 26155 of 1993, decision dated: 13-09-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JANARTHANAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Ramachandran for K. Mani, Mallika Srinivasan and N. Balasubramaniam for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "KHIVRAJ MOTORS LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 132 = 1995 SLD 132 = 1995 PTD 393 = (1995) 71 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nNotice Requirement for Escaped Wealth Tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nWealth Tax Officer (WTO) must serve a notice under Section 14(2) and Section 17(1)(b) before reassessment of escaped wealth tax.\no\nAssessment without notice and definite information is void.\n•\nConclusion: Assessment declared ab initio void for non-compliance with statutory notice requirements.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14(1)(2),17(1)(b),proviso ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No.279 of 1988, decision dated: 17-11-1994, hearing DATE : 6-10-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MRS, MAJIDA RAZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Khan for Applicant. Abdul Karim Mangi (absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nMUHAMMAD FAROOQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 133 = 1995 SLD 133 = 1995 PTD 676 = (1995) 72 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nBank Account Seizure During Pending Appeal.\n•\nFindings:\no\nHigh Court allowed interim measures while directing expedited appellate proceedings.\no\nAssessed amount transferred to tax authority, pending appellate decision.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals must be prioritized; bank undertakings safeguard taxpayer interests.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=23 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13493 of 1994, decision dated: 27-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butts", + "Party Name:": "BARKAT ALI CENTRE through Abdul Hamid Khan, Managing Partner, Lahore\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Lahore and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 134 = 1995 SLD 134 = 1995 PTD 869 = (1995) 72 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nInsurance Business Deduction Adjustments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDeduction for expected expenditures can be adjusted by Assessing Authority per Rule 5(a) of the Fourth Schedule.\no\nAmendments to Rule 5(a) effective from July 1, 1980, not applicable to earlier assessment years.\n•\nConclusion: Deductions must align with the procedural framework of the specific assessment period.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1981 SC 293; Allen v. Farguharson Brothers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26,26(a),FourthSched.,R.5(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 186 to 191, 222, 538, 539 and 540 of 1990, heard on 7-11-1994. dates of hearing: 2nd, 3rd and 7-11-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Fareed and Makhdoom Ali Khan. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "The PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nThe COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COS. III, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 135 = 1995 SLD 135 = 1995 PTD 942 = (1995) 71 TAX 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAdvance Rent as Asset or Liability.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdvance rent constitutes an asset, not a debt owed, as it is utilized freely by the recipient.\n•\nConclusion: Advance rent is aggregated toward net wealth.\n•\nReferences: Begum Nazir Abdul Hamid v. Pakistan PLD 1964 Lah. 7.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(m) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 311 to 313/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 12-03-1993, hearing DATE : 1st March, 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.. Hameed Chaudhry, FCA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 136 = 1995 SLD 136 = 1995 PTD 1426 = (1995) 72 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nAgricultural Land Classification.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAgricultural land classification depends on its use and surrounding context during the relevant period.\no\nNon-cultivation for short periods does not alter its agricultural character.\n•\nConclusion: Land was correctly valued as agricultural land.\n•\nReferences: Officer-in-Charge v. C.W.T. (1969) 72 ITR 552.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=R-8,8(3A) ", + "Case #": "W.TAs. Nos. 1770/KB to 1773/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 21st February, 1995, hearing DATE : 12-02-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TEHSEEN AHMAD BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R.. Jan-e-Alam, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 139 = 1996 SLD 139 = 1996 PTD 1 = (1995) 72 TAX 19 = 1996 PTCL 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nLoans Secured Against Non-Taxable Assets.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLoans secured by non-taxable assets are not deductible as debts owed under Section 2(m)(ii).\n•\nConclusion: WTO’s decision to exclude such loans upheld.\n•\nReferences: WTA Nos. 81 to 85/KB of 1979-80.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(m)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.TA. No. 133/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 25-05-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI ACTING CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Yousaf Butt, D.R.. Khalil A.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 140 = 1996 SLD 140 = 1996 PTD 50 = (1994) 210 ITR 886", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nProcedural Valuation Methods.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRule 1-BB prescribing residential property valuation is procedural and applies retroactively to pending cases.\n•\nConclusion: Uniform procedural rules ensure fair valuations.\n•\nReferences: CWT v. Kasturbhai Mayabhai (1987) 164 ITR 107.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1957=3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6367 and 6368 of 1994 with Civil Appeals Nos.6369 to 6417 of 1994, 6418 of 1987, 6419 to 6439, decision dated: 22-09-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.N. VENKATACHALLAH, C.J.I AND S.C AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Ramamurthi and B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocates (Manoj Arora, S. Rajappa, Ranbir Chandra, D.S. Mehara, Parameswaran, B.K. Prasad and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates, with them),\nRaja Ram Agrawal, G. Sarangan and Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Praveen Kumar, Virender Kaushal, Tripurari Ray, Vineet Kumar, Yashank Adhyaru, A.P. Medh, Miss Deepa Dixit and K.J. John, Advocates, with them)s", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nSHARVAN KUMAR SWARUP & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 141 = 1996 SLD 141 = 1996 PTD 114 = (1995) 72 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nImmovable Property as Asset.\n•\nFindings:\no\nProperty held by an Association of Persons for letting qualifies as an asset, even if not let out yet.\no\nMere occupancy without rent does not establish landlord-tenant relationships.\n•\nConclusion: Property included in net wealth if intended for letting.\n•\nReferences: Sita Ram v. Sarju Prasad, AIR 1922 Oudh 201.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(e)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.TAs Nos. 2044/KB to 2049/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 3rd July, 1995, hearing DATE : 24-05-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ather Saeeds. Muhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 142 = 1996 SLD 142 = 1996 PTD 610 = (1995) 74 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nSuspension of Penal Provisions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSection 12(18) remained inoperative during suspension; past transactions are unaffected retroactively.\no\nPenal statutes cannot be applied retrospectively without clear legislative intent.\n•\nConclusion: Transactions during suspension remain exempt from Section 12(18).\n•\nReferences: Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1760/LB of 1992-53, decision dated: 5-09-1995, hearing DATE : 4-09-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain. Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 143 = 1996 SLD 143 = 1996 PTD 808 = (1995) 74 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nRevision and Appeals.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRevision petitions are invalid if Revenue has already filed an appeal with the Tribunal.\no\nDelay in filing an appeal may be condoned if caused by lack of communication from Revenue.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal condoned delay due to Revenue’s failure to notify the taxpayer of the appeal.\n•\nReferences: M/s Venus Stationary Mart v. Member (Judicial), C.B.R. 1995 PTD 794.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,138 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 346/LB of 1995, decision dated: 12-03-1996, hearing DATE : 7-03-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAIRQ MEHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Nawaz and Farrukh Naeem, I.T.P. for Applicant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 144 = 1996 SLD 144 = 1996 PTD 887 = (1995) 74 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nInitial Depreciation for Office Equipment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInitial depreciation is allowable on all assets in their first year of use if they qualify under the law.\no\nMachinery and plant, including air conditioners used for business purposes, are eligible for initial depreciation.\n•\nConclusion: Initial depreciation applies to assets like office air conditioners subject to other legal conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(v)&ThirdSched.,Item5 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 751/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 28-08-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. Irfan Nadeem, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 145 = 1996 SLD 145 = 1996 PTD 890 = (1995) 74 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nAdvertising Expenses and Deductions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdvertisement and related expenses exceeding limits prescribed by the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976, are admissible for tax deductions.\no\nDisallowance of other business expenses on arbitrary grounds is unsustainable.\no\nSubsidies or gifts traceable to trading activity are taxable as income.\n•\nConclusion: Tax authorities cannot restrict allowable advertising expenses arbitrarily; subsidies connected to business are taxable.\n•\nReferences: 1995 PTD 577; PLD 1981 SC 293.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(xviii),2(11)(24),22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A s. Nos. 2195/KB and 4083/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 31st January, 1996, hearing DATE : 13-09-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Matin, C.A.. M. Ishaque, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 146 = 1996 SLD 146 = 1996 PTD 905 = (1995) 74 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nOwnership and Inclusion in Net Wealth.\n•\nFindings:\no\n Belonging in Section 2(m) refers to full ownership, not mere possession.\no\nOwnership requires registration or other formal proof of transfer.\n•\nConclusion: Only fully owned assets can be included in net wealth.\n•\nReferences: Black's Law Dictionary, 1995 PTD 234.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(m),(e) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A s. Nos 13, 14 and 15/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 7-05-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt. Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 147 = 1996 SLD 147 = 1996 PTD 1013 = (1995) 74 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nDeduction for Interest on Borrowed Capital.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInterest on capital borrowed for modernization or increasing efficiency is deductible.\no\nLease-purchase agreements involving genuine ownership transfer qualify for depreciation.\n•\nConclusion: Loan-financed assets used in business qualify for interest deduction and depreciation.\n•\nReferences: 1993 PTD 758, PLD 1961 SC 321.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(l)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5128/KB of 1991-92, 1793/KB and 2238/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 4th February 1996, hearing DATE : 5th December 1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A.. Mehfoozur Rehman Pasha, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 148 = 1996 SLD 148 = 1996 PTD 1069 = (1995) 74 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nAppeals and Revision Powers.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAppeals under Section 129 can only be filed by the assessee.\no\nRevision under Section 66-A is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC).\n•\nConclusion: Improperly issued notices under Section 66-A by Assessing Officers do not invalidate valid revision proceedings.\n•\nReferences: 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1288.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.941/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 18-04-1996, hearing DATE : 6-02-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH H. SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Qadir Memon, I.T.P.. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 149 = 1996 SLD 149 = 1996 PTD 1128 = (1995) 74 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nAdvance Tax on Rent from House Property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSection 50(7-B) is tied to income from house property defined under Section 19.\no\nTax must be deducted at source for rent payments, including associated services like fixtures.\n•\nConclusion: Tenants must deduct advance tax on rent exceeding legal thresholds.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,50(7B) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.279/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 4-06-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Agha Faquir Muhammad. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 150 = 1996 SLD 150 = 1996 PTD 1140 = (1995) 74 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nPersonal and Business Expenses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExpenses with personal elements are inadmissible, even under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\no\nProportional use of machinery, vehicles, or facilities for personal purposes can lead to deductions being disallowed.\n•\nConclusion: Only wholly business-related expenses are deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xviii),59(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1006/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 21-11-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED GULZAR HUSSAIN SHAH Q. MASOOMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Aziz Memon, D.R.. Suleman Pasha", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 151 = 1996 SLD 151 = 1996 PTD 1144 = (1995) 74 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nUnadjustable Advances and Deemed Income.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSections 12(13) and 12(17) extend taxability to unadjustable advances.\no\nAdvances received before July 1, 1979, are taxed for the remaining years of a 10-year period.\n•\nConclusion: Deemed income provisions are strictly interpreted to tax earlier unadjustable advances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(13),(17) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2934/KB to 2936/KB of 1987-88 and 2263/KB of 1985-86, decision dated: 13-05-1996, hearing DATE : 17-09-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ishaque Memon, D.R.. Siraj-ul-Haq Memon", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 152 = 1996 SLD 152 = 1996 PTD 1154 = (1995) 74 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nSales Estimation and Allowable Expenses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nEstimated sales by the Assessing Officer are treated as real sales.\no\nExpenses are calculated based on estimated sales.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments should align expenses with estimated sales.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 81/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 7-05-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Farogh Nasim. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 341 = 1997 SLD 341 = 1997 PTD 135 = (1995) 74 TAX 154 = 1997 PCTLR 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of Properties.\n•\nFindings:\no\nValuation must comply with Rule 8(3) and cannot rely solely on District Collector rates.\no\nCirculars altering rules improperly are not legally binding.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments must adhere to prescribed rules; arbitrary reliance on collector rates is invalid.\n•\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 1994, 1994 PTD 1288.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 622/LB of 1995, decision dated: 11-07-1996, hearing DATE : 10-04-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Bashir Ahmad. Mubeen Malik, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 342 = 1997 SLD 342 = 1997 PTD 1739 = (1996) 76 TAX 6 = 1997 PTCL 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nCapital vs. Revenue Receipts.\n•\nFindings:\no\nConsumer contributions toward infrastructure costs are capital receipts, not taxable as revenue income.\n•\nConclusion: Contributions for reducing capital expenditure are exempt from income tax.\n•\nReferences: C.I.T. v. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (1946) 14 ITR 622.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1110/LB, 1112/LB, 1113/LB, 2641/LB, 3641/LB of 1986-87, 243/LB of 1987-88 and 1320/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 17-01-1991, hearing DATE : 20-11-1990", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalifa Salah-ud-Din and Sohail Hasan, F.C.A.. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, L.A., Qadirul Jalil and Amjad Ali, D.Rs.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 343 = 1997 SLD 343 = 1997 PTD 1833 = (1996) 76 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nValuation of Self-Occupied Commercial Properties.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCircular instructions requiring valuation of self-occupied commercial properties at cost were found ultra vires Section 7 and Rule 8(3).\no\nC.B.R. circulars in conflict with statutory provisions lack legal validity.\n•\nConclusion: Valuation must comply with statutory provisions, not conflicting circulars.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=7 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W. T. A. No.328/HQB of 1989-90, decision dated: 28-05-1997, hearing DATE : 15-05-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZIR AHMAD SALEEM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A.K. Shamim. Ali Nasir Bokhari, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 344 = 1997 SLD 344 = 1997 PTD 1928 = (1996) 76 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates (FEBCs).\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption applies to assets brought into or created in Pakistan using foreign exchange via regular banking channels.\no\nFEBCs purchased abroad do not qualify for exemption as remittance through banking channels.\no\nExemptions are exceptions, to be strictly interpreted with the burden of proof on the claimant.\n•\nConclusion: Proceeds from FEBCs encashed in Pakistan do not qualify for exemption under the Wealth Tax Act.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1990 SC 68; Salim & Company v. C.B.R., 1997 PTD 1901.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5(1)(xv)(i),5(1)(xv)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 193/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 30-06-1997, hearing DATE : 5-01-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN, NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem. Anayat Ullah Kashani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 553 = 1998 SLD 553 = 1998 PTD 44 = (1996) 76 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nClaiming Exemption for Residential Properties.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption requires the explicit exercise of an option by the assessee at the assessment stage.\no\nFailure to claim exemption during assessment leads to its forfeiture.\no\nStatutory allowances are automatically applied, unlike exemptions.\n•\nConclusion: Exemptions are granted only upon a valid claim; absence of a claim cannot oblige the Assessing Officer to apply it.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, 1986 SCMR 1917.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5(1)(xvi) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8 ", + "Case #": "W. T. A. No. 204/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 22-08-1997, hearing DATE : 16-07-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Nouman, I.T.P.. Shahid Zaheer, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 554 = 1998 SLD 554 = 1998 PTD 1951 = (1998) 77 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of Shares and Rectification of Mistakes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRevision of share valuation cannot be sought through rectification applications if particulars were not provided during assessment.\no\nProper procedures exist for revising valuations under the law.\n•\nConclusion: Rectification cannot be used to bypass assessment procedures for revising valuations.\n•\nReferences: Khalid Adamjee v. CIT, 1983 PTD 246.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(2)(c)(I) Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=35 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 197/KB to 200/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 7-03-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi. Misri Ladhani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 555 = 1998 SLD 555 = 1998 PTD 1966 = 1999 PTCL 48 = (1998) 77 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of Rented Property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nMaintenance, lift, and amenities charges are considered part of the property’s rental value if directly tied to the property’s usage.\no\nExpenses unrelated to the property, such as cleaning or electricity for common areas, must be excluded.\no\nBurden of proving bifurcation lies on the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: Rental value must consider all property-related amenities, excluding unrelated expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 176/KB to 178/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 16-02-1998, hearing DATE : 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Majid, D.R.. Akbar G. Merchant, C.A. and Miss Yasmin, C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 556 = 1998 SLD 556 = 1998 PTD 2054 = (1998) 78 TAX 50 = 1999 PTCL 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExplanation to Section 2(e)(ii)—Purpose and Application.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe explanation clarifies but does not alter substantive provisions.\no\nProperties rented out or held for letting out are taxed accordingly, with the burden on the assessee to prove otherwise.\no\nProperly registered independent ownership of specific portions excludes co-owners from being treated as part of an AOP (Association of Persons).\n•\nConclusion: Explanation to Section 2(e)(ii) ensures clarity while preserving the original statutory intent.\n•\nReferences: B.P. Biscuit Factory v. WTO, 1981 PTD 217", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(e)(ii),Explanation,21(3),2(m) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.359/LB of 1985-86; 360/LB of 1985-86; 180/LB of 1988-89; 340/LB, 341/LB of 1985-86, 214/LB to 216/LB of 1987-88 and 1255/LB to 1257 of 1991-92, decision dated: 2-04-1998, hearing DATE : 15-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Bashir Ahmad and Jamil Hussain. Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. and Shafqat Mahmood Chohan L.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 557 = 1998 SLD 557 = 1998 PTD 2116 = (1998) 77 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nApplicability to Banking Companies.\n•\nFindings:\no\nBanking companies are exempt from the Wealth Tax Act.\no\nProvisions such as Section 14-D, requiring advance tax on motor vehicles, do not apply to banking companies as they are not liable for wealth tax.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption from tax includes exemption from advance tax obligations.\n•\nReference: Ellahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, 1997 PTD 1555.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14D,45 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 28002 of 1997, heard on 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Hamid and Ikramul Haq for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "UNION BANK LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 558 = 1998 SLD 558 = 1998 PTD 2900 = (1998) 78 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nAssessment of Waqf-ul-Aulad Properties.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRented properties vested in Waqf-ul-Aulad were collectively assessed as AOP (Association of Persons).\no\nBeneficiaries constitute AOP due to their collective beneficial interest.\no\nProperties rented out, even if ultimately devolving upon God, are taxable under the Wealth Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: Rented properties of Waqf-ul-Aulad are subject to wealth tax when assessed collectively as AOP.\n•\nReference: 1981 PTD 217.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=3,2(e)(ii),(m),21 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.27/LB, 28/LB 1/LB, 2/LB of 1983-84, 336/1,13 of 1987-88, and 560/LB to 564/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 20-04-1998, hearing DATE : 15th November 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia H. Rizvi (in W.T.A. Nos. 27/LB, 28/LB of 1983-84 and 336/LB of 1987-88)\nShafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A. and Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D. R. (in W. T. As. Nos. 27/LB, 28/LB of 1983-84 and 336/LB of 1987-88)\nShafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A. and Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D. R. (in W.T.A. No. 1/LB, 2/LB of 1983-84 and 560/LB to 564/LB of 1991-92)\nZia H. Rizvi (in W.T.A. No. 1/LB, 2/LB of 1983-84 and 560/LB to 564/LB of 1991-92)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 673 = 1999 SLD 673 = 1999 PTD 394 = (1998) 78 TAX 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules, 1963]\n•\nValuation of Land and Building.\n•\nFindings:\no\nValuation under Rule 8(3) should not separately assess land and building; it must consider the market value or gross annual rental value as a single entity.\no\nLower of market value or Collector's value should be adopted for open plots.\n•\nConclusion: Separate valuation for land and buildings is invalid; holistic valuation methods must be followed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.291(1-B) of 1996-97, decision dated: 25-09-1998, hearing DATE : 19-08-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Iqbal, D.R.. Nadeem Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 137 = 1995 SLD 137 = 1995 PTD 1239 = (1995) 71 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nIssuance of Notices under Sections 14(2) and 16(2).\n•\nFindings:\no\nSection 14(2) is for cases where no return is filed, while Section 16(2) addresses inadequacies in filed returns.\no\nIssuance of both notices simultaneously is procedurally invalid and violates natural justice.\n•\nConclusion: Simultaneous issuance of notices renders the assessment proceedings coram non judice.\n•\nReference: Sultan Ahmad v. Controller of Estate Duty, 1985 CLC 565.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,16(2),14(2) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 120 of 1993, decision dated: 22-02-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Applicant. Shahbaz Butt", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 674 = 1999 SLD 674 = 1999 PTD 1346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nDepreciation Allowance on Leased Assets.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDepreciation allowance should be adjusted against the total business income, but cannot exceed gross lease rental income.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld a method limiting depreciation allowance to lease rental income.\n•\nReference: PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 168.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1100/KB and 707/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 30-07-1998, hearing DATE : 22-04-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Jamshed, D. R. and Chaman Lal, DCIT. Fatehali W. Vallani, Abdul Mateen and Miss Dhaleh Akbar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 282 = 2000 SLD 282 = 2000 PTCL 161 = 2000 PTD 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nExemption for Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates (FEBCs).\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessee failed to prove receipt of foreign exchange through banking channels.\no\nExemption is contingent on compliance with sub-clause (ii) of Section 5(1)(xv).\n•\nConclusion: Exemption denied due to failure to meet procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5,5(1),cl.(xv)(i),(ii),SecondSched.,cl.7(i),(ii)&27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 34 of 1992, decision dated: 6-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi. Jawed Farooqui.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 283 = 2000 SLD 283 = 2000 PTCL 316 = 2000 SCMR 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nIssuance of Additional Assessment Notices.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNotice under Section 65 is valid if issued after independent application of mind.\no\nConstitutional challenges to such notices should first be addressed through statutory forums.\n•\nConclusion: Tax authorities' decisions should not be bypassed by invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nReference: Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1993 SCMR 29.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.92-K of 1999, decision dated: 11-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemos.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMIN TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 284 = 2000 SLD 284 = 2000 PTCL 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nCharitable Purpose and Long-Term Rented Property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nProperties rented on a long-term basis are not considered held for charitable purposes.\no\nWealth tax exemptions apply only if assets are directly used for public or charitable purposes.\n•\nConclusion: Long-term rented properties are taxable, even if owned by charitable entities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5,5(1)(i) ", + "Case #": "W.T.AS. Nos. 205/LB to 207/LB of 1982-83, 300/LB of 1986-87, 205/LB-II(DB) of 1987-88, 356/LB and 357/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 13-02-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. SHARIF MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qazi. Mr. Maj. (R) Naik Muhammad Khan, Advocates. Mr. S.K.M. Kiani, Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Mehboob-ul-Arifeen Mr. Sh. Zafar, Inspectors. FIA", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 196 = 2007 SLD 196 = 2007 PTD 1412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969) & Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nRefund of Capital Value Tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDepartment's refusal to refund CVT on exempt vehicles was declared maladministration.\n•\nConclusion: Refund was recommended as CVT was not chargeable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 Customs Act, 1969=33 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 226 of 2004, decision dated: 18-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz-ul-Hassan Abid, A.R. for the Complainant. S. Inamur Rehman, DCIT", + "Party Name:": "Rana ARIF HUSSAIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 96 = 1984 SLD 96 = 1984 PLD 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 & Civil Procedure Code (CPC)]\n•\nDeficiency in Court Fees and Appeal Process.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCourt must grant time to correct deficient court fees before rejecting plaints or appeals.\no\nProcedural provisions under CPC ensure justice by avoiding summary dismissal due to minor errors.\n•\nConclusion: Courts must follow a fair process allowing corrections to court fees before imposing penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=107,O.VII,r.I1(c),O.XLl,149,151 Court Fees Act, 1870=7(vi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 104 of 1978 and 136 of 1979, decision dated: 22-11-1983.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C, J., ASLAM R IAZ HUSSAIN, MUHAMMAD AFIAL ZULLAH AND M. S. H. QURAISHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Abdur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record\nImtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record No. 1\nBashir A. Ansari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar All, Advocate-on-Records\nX. E. Bhatti, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "SIDDIQUE KHAN and 2 othersvs\nvs\nABDUL SHAKUR KHAN AND another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 546 = 2002 SLD 546 = 2002 CLC 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Limitation Act (IX of 1908)]\n•\nCondonation of Delay Due to Filing in the Wrong Forum.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAppeal filed in the wrong court due to bona fide legal advice.\no\nDelay caused by court's late realization of jurisdictional error (9 months after filing).\no\nAppellants were not at fault; the delay was condoned.\n•\nConclusion: Bona fide mistakes with no malafide intent can justify condonation of delay.\n•\nReference: Sherin and others v. Fazal Muhammad and others, 1995 SCMR 584.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Limitation Act, 1908=14 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=96 Specific Relief Act, 1877=12 ", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 140 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd October, 2001, hearing DATE : 26-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIR ALAM KHAN AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Amjad Pervaizs. Tabi Ahmed Khans.", + "Party Name:": "BARKAT ALI and another\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 55 = 2009 SLD 55 = 2009 SCMR 1378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) & Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)]\n•\nExtension of Time for Court Fee Deficiency.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTime extensions should not be granted if negligence or contumacy is evident.\no\nTaxing statutes like the Court Fees Act must be interpreted favorably for the subject.\no\nSupreme Court allowed an extension in certain cases while emphasizing timely compliance.\n•\nConclusion: Extensions are discretionary but require justification, especially for fiscal compliance.\n•\nReference: Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Said Hussain Khan, PLD 2007 SC (AJ & K) 1.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=148 Land Acquisition Act, 1894=18 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.911 of 2005, decision dated: 3rd June, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL, IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Courts. Mumtaz Hussain Bagari, Advocate Supreme Courts Nos.1 to 4", + "Party Name:": "PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Additional Chief Secretary (Development) Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another\nvs\nABDULLAH JAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 263 = 2004 SLD 263 = 2004 PTCL 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (XXXI of 1979)]\n•\nTax on Capital Gains for Insurance Companies.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInsurance companies benefit from a concessional tax rate of 25% on capital gains.\no\nDepartment's objection to the rate was dismissed as the correct rate was applied.\n•\nConclusion: Lower tax rates apply to capital gains for insurance companies per Part IV, First Schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "ITA Nos. 1221/KB of 2003 and 198/KB of 2003 (Assessment year 2001-2002), decision dated: 24-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellants by: Mr. Sajjad Ahmed, D. R. and Mr. Asif Kasbati, FCA. Respondents by: Mr. Asif Kasbati, FCA and Mr. Sajjad Ahmed, D. R.c", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 139 = 2011 SLD 139 = 2011 PTD 1275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)]\n•\nValuation of Incomplete Construction Projects.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessing Officer incorrectly added 18% gross profit to declared costs.\no\nProper valuation involves actual costs until project completion.\no\nAdditions allowed only in the completion year.\n•\nConclusion: Valuation based on speculative profits is invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(5),3,16(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No.327 of 1999, decision dated: 12-04-2011, hearing DATE : 7-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqi for Applicant. Muhammad Javed Khurrum", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COS-IV, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SASI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 18 = 1979 SLD 18 = (1979) 40 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nCapital vs. Revenue Expenditure (Building Repairs).\n•\nFindings:\no\nRepairs via guniting (sophisticated plastering) were revenue expenditures.\no\nProlonging a building’s life doesn’t inherently make repairs capital expenses.\n•\nConclusion: Expenses preserving existing assets are revenue expenditures.\n•\nReference: Gulam Hussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT, 1974.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 40 of 1970, decision dated: 15-7-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C, J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. F. N. Kaka with Dinesh Vyas for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III\nvs\nOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 19 = 1979 SLD 19 = (1979) 40 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nCapital Expenditure for Manufacturing Assets.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPurchase of machinery and equipment for a tin-container business was capital expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: Costs for acquiring enduring assets are not deductible as business expenditures.\n•\nReference: India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, 1966.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 226 of 1973, decision dated: 27-4-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C.S.P. SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Gulati for the Assessee. Deokinandan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HARI SHANKER GAURI SHANKER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 20 = 1979 SLD 20 = (1979) 40 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nRevenue Expenditure on Road Repairs.\n•\nFindings:\no\nConversion of katcha roads to metalled roads was revenue expenditure as it ensured fresher sugarcane supply.\no\nExpenditure served business needs without creating lasting advantages.\n•\nConclusion: Business-driven repairs are allowable revenue expenditures.\n•\nReference: Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT, 1971.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37,37(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 23 of 1975, decision dated: 24-1-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. R. SHARMA AND S.S. SIDHU, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kartar Singh Suri with Lakhinder Singh and Rajesh Chaudhry for the Assessee. D.N. Awasthy with B. K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PANIPAT CO-OPERATVIE SUGAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 21 = 1979 SLD 21 = (1979) 40 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nTax Liability of Dissolved AOP Members.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLiability applies only to members at the time of AOP’s dissolution.\no\nProvisions of the Partnership Act are not applicable to cooperative societies.\n•\nConclusion: Tax recovery is limited to existing members during dissolution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1519 of 1978, decision dated: 23-8-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CH. SULTAN ALI\nvs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 22 = 1979 SLD 22 = (1979) 40 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nRejection of Accounts for Retail Business.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRejection of accounts requires substantial discrepancies.\no\nDeclared profits were reasonable; rejection was unwarranted.\n•\nConclusion: Mere absence of stock registers is insufficient to reject accounts.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 5 of 1970, decision dated: 27-9-1978. dates of hearing : 29-3-1978 and 5-4-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan, for the Applicant. Iqbal Naseem Pasha, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nJUPITER TRADING CORPORATION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 23 = 1979 SLD 23 = (1979) 40 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nDepreciation Allowance for Life Insurance Businesses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDepreciation deductions are mandatory after determining surplus.\no\nAdditional claims over statutory limits are permissible.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation claims beyond management expenses are valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=FirstSched,2,3,.5 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1970, decision dated: 13-9-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan, for the Applicant. Ali Athar, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nUNITED INSURANCE COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 24 = 1979 SLD 24 = (1979) 40 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Appellate Tribunal Jurisdiction]\n•\nAdditional Grounds in Appeal.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal correctly rejected additional grounds raised without prior record or material.\no\nOriginal returns treated income as revenue receipts.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals must be based on existing records and prior submissions.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 99 of 1966, decision dated: 15-7-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTANWALA C, J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "D. H. Dwarkadas, instructed by M/s. Bachubhai Munim & Co., for the assessee. R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit, instructed by V. B. Shastri, for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAM KUMAR JALAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 25 = 1979 SLD 25 = (1979) 40 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nReasonableness of Profit Rates in Rejected Accounts.\n•\nFindings:\no\nGrounds of appeal encompass the reasonableness of profit rates.\no\nTribunal should entertain such arguments.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals must consider the fairness of profit rates in assessments.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 108 to 110 of 1974, decision dated: 30-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND N. K. DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Pasayat for the assessee. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NILAMI GHOSH AND PARTNERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 26 = 1979 SLD 26 = (1979) 40 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957]\n•\nResidential Property Exemption.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption applies to one contiguous residential property with unity of structure.\no\nProperties in separate locations are not exempt as one house.\n•\nConclusion: Unity and location determine eligibility for wealth tax exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5,5(1)(iv) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 347 of 1972, decision dated: 11-4-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR AND R. M. SAHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Gulati for the Assessee. Deokinandan and Ashok Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SHIV NARAIN CHAUDHARI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 27 = 1979 SLD 27 = (1979) 40 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Gift Tax Act, 1958]\n•\nTribunal's Power to Reduce Declared Value.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal cannot determine values lower than those declared by the assessee unless contested.\no\nReference to High Court was deemed incompetent.\n•\nConclusion: High Court reviews are limited to questions raised before lower forums.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=26,26(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 69 of 1971, decision dated: 2-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Rangaswami and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner. T. S. Viswanatha Rao and A. G. Gajapathy for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIQNER OF GIFT TAX (CENTRAL), MADRAS\nvs\nLate Smt. MOONGHIBAI GOENKA (by L. R.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 28 = 1979 SLD 28 = (1979) 40 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nPenalty as Business Expenditure.\n•\nFindings:\no\nFines for violating laws cannot be treated as business expenditures.\no\nSuch penalties are personal liabilities and unrelated to business operations.\n•\nConclusion: Legal violations are not deductible business expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R No. 874 (T R. No 7)of 1974, decision dated: 23-10-1978, hearing DATE : 28-6-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, advocate, for the Petitioner. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nPUNJAB OIL EXPELLER CO., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 29 = 1979 SLD 29 = (1979) 40 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nReference to High Court without Prescribed Fee.\n•\nFindings:\no\nApplications not accompanied by the prescribed fee are deemed incompetent.\no\nDelay in filing applications must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise, dismissal is warranted.\n•\nConclusion: Procedural requirements, including fees, must be strictly followed.\n•\nReferences: Mahboob Bux Ehsan v. CIT, 1950; Muhammad Abdullah & Sons v. CIT, PLD 1955 Lah 417.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 32 (T.R No. 75) of 1972, decision dated: 23-10 1978, hearing DATE : 1-7-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KHALIL COTT ON FACTORY, MULTAN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER A CIRCLE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 30 = 1979 SLD 30 = (1979) 40 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nReassessment under Sections 147-148 and Necessity for Reasons.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNotices must be based on specific material evidencing income escaping assessment due to non-disclosure.\no\nThe department’s failure to disclose such material renders the notice invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Valid reassessment requires clear evidence and proper disclosure of reasons.\n•\nReferences: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, 1961; J. P. Jani v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143,143(3),147,148,149,151,297 ", + "Case #": "L. P. A. No. 41 of 1969 from C. W, No. 782 A. D, of 1965, decision dated: 28-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T.V.R. TATACHARI, C, J. AND PRITAM SINGH SAFEER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. R. Bajaj. R. S. Das Jain, P. N. Monga, D. K. Bajaj and J. L. Bhatia for the petitioners. A. N. Kirpal for the respondentT. A. Ramachandran for the appellants. A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate, with P.N. Monga for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE XIV, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS\nvs\nCHIRANJILAL RAMJIDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 31 = 1979 SLD 31 = (1979) 40 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nReassessment and Treatment of Losses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLosses initially reported cannot be ignored during reassessment.\no\nEntire assessment is reopened, including losses, under Section 147.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment must account for both income and losses in the relevant year.\n•\nReferences: Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT, 1970; Ashoka Viniyoga Ltd. v. CIT, 1968.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No 153 of 1976, decision dated: 17-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. K. Pal with R. N. Dutt for the assessee. S. C. Sen with Ajit Sen Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 32 = 1979 SLD 32 = (1979) 40 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nLump-Sum Interest and Agricultural Income.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLump-sum interest is taxable in the year of receipt, not spread across earlier years.\no\nIncome from agricultural property within municipal limits is exempt under Section 2(1).\n•\nConclusion: Taxability depends on receipt timing and agricultural exemptions apply even in municipal areas.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Raja S.N. Bhanja Deo, 1977.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Case No. 203 of 1974, decision dated: 10-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.N. MISRA AND P.K. MOHANTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. K. C. Lenka for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA\nvs\nRAJA S.N. BHANJI DEO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 33 = 1979 SLD 33 = (1979) 40 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nLimitation Period for Appeals.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLimitation begins from the date of notice of demand, not from receipt of the assessment order.\no\nSpecial circumstances allow for condonation of delay.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals must adhere to prescribed timelines but may seek condonation with justification.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,30(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No 122 of 1971, decision dated: 17-1-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S C, DEB AND R N PYNE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Ray with R, N. Dutta for the assessee. A. K. Sen Gupta with P. K. Majumdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CHARKI MICA MINING CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 34 = 1979 SLD 34 = (1979) 40 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Appellate Tribunal Powers]\n•\nAuthority to Challenge Vires of Rules or Notifications.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunals cannot rule on the validity of rules or notifications under the law constituting them.\n•\nConclusion: Jurisdiction of tribunals is confined to interpretation and application of rules, not their validity.\n•\nReferences: K.S. Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras, 1966.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=24 ", + "Case #": "W. T. Reference No. 663 of 1973, decision dated: 6-10- 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan and Ashok Gupta for the Commissioner. V. B. Upadhya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR\nvs\nDR. GAUR IIARI SINGHANIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 35 = 1979 SLD 35 = (1979) 40 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nUnity of Business Activities.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSeparate businesses (cotton and barter) with common control and administration are treated as a single business.\n•\nConclusion: Unity of management and operations satisfies the “same business” test.\n•\nReferences: Scales v. George Thompson & Co. Ltd., 1927-28; Wallem & Co. v. CIT, 1974.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No, 17 of 1969, decision dated: 22-3-1978, hearing DATE : 20-10-1977 and 27-10-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha, for the Applicant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PHEROZ ALI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEQT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 36 = 1979 SLD 36 = (1979) 40 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nRetrospective Application of Amended Laws.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAmendments without express retrospective provisions cannot apply retrospectively if causing injustice.\no\nRecovery orders without hearings violate natural justice.\n•\nConclusion: Retrospective laws require explicit provisions, and recovery requires fair hearings.\n•\nReferences: State v. Muhammad Jamil, PLD 1965 SC 681.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43,43B ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No 3186 of 1978, decision dated: 19-02-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ghani and Shahid Iqbal, for the Petitioners\nSh. Abdul Haq for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD KHALIL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER. COMPANY CIRCLE, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 37 = 1979 SLD 37 = (1979) 40 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act, 1922]\n•\nSet-Off of Carried Forward Losses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLosses from a partnership business can be set off against individual profits under amended provisions.\no\nInterpretation of amendments considers legislative intent and legal history.\n•\nConclusion: Loss set-offs apply broadly to ensure fairness in taxation.\n•\nReferences: Rais Pir Ahmad Khan v. CIT, 1975; Sitaram Motiram Jain v. CIT, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2)(f),(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 25 of 1970, decision dated: 12-3-1979, hearing DATE : 21-2-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI AND I. MAHMUD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. H. Rahimtoola, for the Applicant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SAINRAPT & ET. BRICE, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 38 = 1979 SLD 38 = (1979) 40 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Indian Income Tax Act, 1961]\n•\nDeductibility of Business Loss.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLoss of cash during business operations (e.g., theft) is a deductible business loss.\no\nThe loss must directly connect to and arise from business activities.\n•\nConclusion: Business-related risks resulting in losses are deductible.\n•\nReferences: Badridas Daga v. CIT, 1958; Motipur Sugar Factory Ltd. v. CIT, 1955.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=28,37 ", + "Case #": "Civil appeal No. 1611 of 1972, decision dated: 11-11-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. L. UNTWALIA AND D. A. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jitendra Sharma, advocate, for the appellant. K. C. Dua and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, tor the respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAMCHANDAR SHIVNARAYAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 39 = 1979 SLD 39 = (1979) 40 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Business Expenditure - Gratuity Liability]\n•\nTiming of Business Expenditure under Mercantile Accounting.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLiability for gratuity under a repealed ordinance is enduring and continues under a subsequent act.\no\nExpenditure must be claimed in the year the liability arises, not when provision is made.\n•\nConclusion: Gratuity liability for earlier years cannot be claimed as expenditure in a subsequent year.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. High Land Produce Co. Ltd., 1976; L.J. Patel & Co. v. CIT, 1974.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "General Clauses Act, 1897=6 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax referred Cases Nos. 49 and 50 of 1974, decision dated: 10-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. GOVINDAN NAIR, C, J. AND T. KOCHU THOMMEN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. A. Francis and P. K. Ravindranatha Menon for the Commissioner. K. P. Radhakrishna Menon and K. K. Ravindranath for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA\nvs\nKERALA NUT FOOD COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 40 = 1979 SLD 40 = (1979) 40 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Rejection of Accounts - Profit Estimation]\n•\nValidity of Profit Estimation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nEstimation based on comparable businesses in the same area is valid in the absence of better material.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s application of a 7.5% profit rate was justified.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 26 of 1975, decision dated: 7-12-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHINNAPPA REDDY AND S. P. GOYAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Bhagirath Dass of M/s. Bhagirath Dass & Co, for the Assessee. D. N. Awasthy for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LAL CHAND WALAITI RAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 41 = 1979 SLD 41 = (1979) 40 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Rejection of Accounts - Legal Question]\n•\nRejection of Books Without Detailed Examination.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal accepted expenses based on books as no detailed examination was conducted by the department.\n•\nConclusion: No legal question arises from the Tribunal’s factual findings.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,256(I),(2) ", + "Case #": "Spl, Jurisdiction Case Nos. 162, 163 and 164 of 1974, decision dated: 3-4-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MIRSA AND N. K. DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. A. Pasayat for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBUILDERS UNION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 42 = 1979 SLD 42 = (1979) 40 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Charitable Association - Taxability]\n•\nCharitable Purpose vs. Activity for Profit.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe association’s profit-driven activities disqualify it as a charitable institution.\n•\nConclusion: Income from such activities is taxable.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, 1965.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2,2(15) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 101 of 1971, decision dated: 23-12-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAMAPRASADA RAO AND RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan with K. C. Rajappa for the Assessee. A. N. Rangaswamy and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MADRAS HOTELS ASSOCIATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 43 = 1979 SLD 43 = (1979) 40 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Advance Tax - Waiver of Interest]\n•\nAuthority to Waive Interest and Revision Powers.\n•\nFindings:\no\nFailure to charge interest does not imply waiver unless explicitly justified.\no\nRevision powers of the Commissioner remain intact.\n•\nConclusion: Interest can be revised even after appellate proceedings.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co., 1958.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=215,215(4),217,263 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 43 of 1972, decision dated: 27-6-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. B. Mukherjee and P. Mullick for the assessee. Suhas Sen and Ajit Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SINGHO MICA MINING CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CALCUTTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 44 = 1979 SLD 44 = (1979) 40 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Time of Income Accrual]\n•\nRevenue Receipts from Contract Transfers.\n•\nFindings:\no\nIncome accrues when installments are received under cash-based accounting.\n•\nConclusion: Receipts under contract transfers are taxable as revenue.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 24 of 1974, decision dated: 29-6-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.C. PATHAK, C.J. AND D. PATHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. P. Bhattacharjee and S. N. Medhi for the Assessee. G. K. Talukdar and D. K. Talukdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "N.R. SIRKER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 45 = 1979 SLD 45 = (1979) 40 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Business Expenditure - Contribution to Managed Company]\n•\nDeductibility of Business Contributions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nContributions made for business interests, even if indirectly used, are deductible.\n•\nConclusion: Expenditure for earning commissions qualifies as business expenditure.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., 1960.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No, 80 of 1965, decision dated: 2-12-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): VIMADALAL AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi, instructed by V. B. Shastri, Attorney, for the Commissioner. R. J. Kolah with Dinesh Vyas for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I\nvs\nTATA SONS PRIVATE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 46 = 1979 SLD 46 = (1979) 40 TAX 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Stay of Recovery Proceedings - High Court Powers]\n•\nInherent Jurisdiction of High Courts.\n•\nFindings:\no\nHigh Courts have inherent jurisdiction to stay tax recovery during pending references.\n•\nConclusion: Stay orders are valid under inherent powers.\n•\nReferences: Polisetti Narayana Rao v. CIT, 1956.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66A(3) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151 Income Tax Act, 1961=256,257,260(1),(2),261,262(2),265,269 ", + "Case #": "C.M.P. No. 1922 of 1974 (I.T.R. Nos. 82 and 83 of 1973), decision dated: 15-7-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): T.V.R. TATACHARI, C.J. AND PRITAM SINGH SAFEER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ravinder Narain, S.T. Ansari and D.N. Misra for the petitioner. BN. Kirpal and Shankar Vaidyalingam for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "L. BANSI DHAR AND SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 47 = 1979 SLD 47 = (1979) 40 TAX 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Reassessment - Information from Audit Party]\n•\nValidity of Reassessment Based on Audit Report.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAudit observations about incorrect deductions constitute valid information. \n•\nConclusion: Reassessment proceedings were legally justified.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147,147(b) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 216 of 1972 (Reference No. 29 of 1972), decision dated: 2-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Srinivasan and K,C. Rajappa for the assessee. J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MUSASONS PRIVATE LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 48 = 1979 SLD 48 = (1979) 40 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Reassessment - Undisclosed Primary Facts]\n•\nValidity of Reassessment Notices.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNon-genuine disclosures justify reassessment for income escaping assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Notices for reassessment are valid if primary facts are proven false.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147 ", + "Case #": "Appeal from original decree No. 834 of 1974, decision dated: 25-5-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. M. DUTT AND SHARMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.L. Pal and S.N. Dutt for the appellants. Meghnath Banerjee and M. M.Mu1lick for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, I WARD, HUNDI CIRCLE AND OTHERS\nvs\nMAHADEO LAL TULSYAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 49 = 1979 SLD 49 = (1979) 40 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Penalty for Late Filing of Returns]\n•\nApplicability of Penalty.\n•\nFindings:\no\nPenalty is leviable even when additions to declared income exceed Rs. 40,000.\n•\nConclusion: Late returns attract penalties regardless of final income additions.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 64 of 1974, decision dated: 18-10-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, ACT, C, J. AND M.R. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Bhagirath Das; with B.K. Gupta for the assessee. D.N. Awasthy with B.K. Jhingan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PARTAB STEEL ROLLING MILLS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 50 = 1979 SLD 50 = (1979) 40 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Set Aside Assessments - Scope of Income Sources]\n•\nRestriction on Introducing New Income Sources.\n•\nFindings:\no\nEnhancement of assessment must be limited to old sources of income.\n•\nConclusion: New sources cannot be introduced in set-aside assessments.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 67 of 1974, decision dated: 20-10-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): O. CHINNAPPA REDDY. ACTG. C.J. AND I.T.R. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R.P. Sahney for the Assessee. D.N. Aswathy with B.K. Jhingan, for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KARTAR SINGH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 51 = 1979 SLD 51 = (1979) 40 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Valuation of Shares - Wealth Tax]\n•\nBreak-Up Valuation Method.\n•\nFindings:\no\nMarket value of shares is consistent across taxpayers; break-up method is valid.\n•\nConclusion: Wealth Tax valuation was correctly applied using the break-up method.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=7,7(1) ", + "Case #": "Matter No. 254 of 1970, decision dated: 7-12-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C, J. AND S. C. DEB, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Pal and B. K, Bagchi for the applicant. None appeared for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL\nvs\nSMT. CHANDRAKALA LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 170 = 2013 SLD 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Assessment Appeals - Reduction of Additions]\n•\nJustification for Reductions in Additions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nReductions in additions must be based on solid reasoning; arbitrary reductions are invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Original additions by Taxation Officer were restored.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),122(5),122(1),177,174(2) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.495/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2008) hearing DATE 06/06/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, DR. Respondent by Mrs. Raeesa Sarwat, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "The CIR, (RTO-II), Lahore. \nvs\nMr. Imtiaz Rafi Butt, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 171 = 2013 SLD 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Fake Invoices - Disallowance of Purchases]\n•\nDefinite Information and Fake Transactions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDisallowance based on fraudulent invoices and corroborative evidence is justified.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit against department’s evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),122(1),122(8),122(9)readwith122(5),21,174 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1235/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2008) NTN 1429032-4 hearing DATE 29/04/2013. DATE of order 16/07/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Ms. Afshan Ghafoor, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Fast Cables & Co., Lahore \nvs\nThe CIR (Appeals-III), Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 172 = 2013 SLD 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Refund and Compensation]\n•\nCompensation for Delayed Refunds.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCompensation is calculated from the date of the refund order, not the assessment order.\n•\nConclusion: Refund compensation follows statutory guidelines.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171(1),171(2)(a),171(2)(b),171(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "ITA No.1319/LB/2012, ITA No.1314/LB/2012, ITA No.1315/LB/2012, ITA No.1316/LB/2012, ITA No.1317/LB/2012, ITA No.1318/LB/2012, hearing DATE 07/05/2013. DATE of order 04/07/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. M. Tahir, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Hamza Ashraf, ACA.", + "Party Name:": "The CI.R., Zone-III, L.T.U., Lahore \nvs\nM/s. Tetra Pak Pakistan Ltd., Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 173 = 2013 SLD 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Withholding Tax - Compliance and Reassessment]\n•\nDefault in withholding tax compliance and lack of evidence.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe taxpayer contended improper tax demands due to misinterpretation of payments liable for tax deduction.\no\nTribunal remanded the case for re-evaluation by the Taxation Officer, requiring taxpayer cooperation with supporting documents.\n•\nConclusion: Re-assessment ordered for detailed examination.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,161(1A) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1769/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009) hearing DATE 02.07.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Zeeshan Chishti, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Profarm Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR (Appeals-II), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 174 = 2013 SLD 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Withholding Tax - Short Deduction and Recalculation]\n•\nMiscalculation in withholding tax deductions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTaxpayer admitted errors in calculations.\no\nTribunal remanded the case for re-calculation after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to explain discrepancies.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for fresh assessment on merit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=155,165,155,161,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 98/IB/2013 Assessment Year 2011, hearing DATE 07/03/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Saeed Hassan Khan, ITP. Respondent by Mr. Naveed Hassan, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Teamsun Technology Pakistan (Private) Limited \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-III), RTO, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 175 = 2013 SLD 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Penalty for Non-Filing of Withholding Tax Statement]\n•\nApplicability of penalties under Section 165.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal upheld penalties, citing mandatory filing of withholding tax statements, even in cases without deductions.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; penalties upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182,165 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1347/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2011) NTN:- 0786055 hearing DATE 06/10/2012. DATE of order 25/10/2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): APPELLANT BY MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY DR. MUHAMMAD IDREES, DR.", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by Dr. Muhammad Idrees, DR.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Shahab Dyeing and Printing (Pvt.) Ltd., ½ K.M. Sheikhupura Road, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR (Appeals-II), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 176 = 2013 SLD 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Audit - Verification of Wage Claims]\n•\nDeletion of disallowances based on complete records.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe claim of wages was verifiable, and records were examined by the appellate authority.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld deletion of disallowances and dismissed the departmental appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(4)(d),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1250/LB/2010 (Tax year 2008), hearing DATE 02.12.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. ABDUL RAUF ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Naeem Hassan, D.R Respondent by Kh. Riaz Hussain, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "The CIR, Legal Div. R.T.O., Lahore\nvs\nM/s. Super Tech Industries, Main Bund Road, Shadbagh, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 177 = 2013 SLD 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Audit and Cross Appeals - Supreme Court Precedents]\n•\nAdditions in audit cases settled by higher court decisions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nIssues already resolved by the Supreme Court.\no\nTribunal dismissed cross appeals, citing binding precedents.\n•\nConclusion: Decisions of the appellate authority were maintained.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177,122(1),122(5),127,20(1),21(1),21(c),21(g),21(h) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 55/LB/2010 (Tax year-2008), hearing DATE 26-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN.", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. M. Iqbal Hashmi, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Jamsheed Fakhari Tahir, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Transfopower Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., 2-K.M. Katar Bund Road, OfFMultan Road, Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore\nvs\nCIR (Legal), LTU, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 212 = 2005 SLD 212 = 2005 PTCL 1 = (2005) 91 TAX 1 = 2004 PTD 3032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Constitutionality of Tax Policies]\n•\nPrinciples of constitutional validity of tax legislation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTax laws causing hardship do not violate fundamental rights unless discriminatory or confiscatory.\no\nCourts adopt dynamic interpretation favoring constitutional validity.\n•\nConclusion: Advance tax on prepaid telephone cards upheld as valid and constitutional.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=236, Schedule1stPartIVDivisionV Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7F) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 2187 of 2003, decision dated: 21st July, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C, J. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND MR. JUSTICE FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR.", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. M. Akram Sheikh. Sr. Adv. S.C. and Mr. M.A. Zaidi. Adv.-on-Record. Resp. by: Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Raja Irshad Ahmed. DAG, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record and Mr. Wakeel Ahmed Khan, Member (D.T.) C.B.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Call Tell (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Representative and others\nvs\nFederation of Pakistan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 178 = 2013 SLD 178 = 2013 PTD 1459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Tax vs. Fee - Legal Definitions and Interpretations]\n•\nDistinction between tax and fee.\n•\nFindings:\no\nFee is a charge for services, whereas tax is a compulsory contribution to revenue.\no\nCourts lean towards upholding constitutionality unless a law is ex facie unconstitutional.\n•\nConclusion: Amendments to the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance were valid as they imposed a tax, not a fee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-857 of 2011, decision dated: 1st March, 2013, hearing DATE : 10-12-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAISAL ARAB, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Khalid Javed Khan, Rashid Anwar, M, Anas Makhdoom, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Naveed A, Andrabi, Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui, Ghulam Murtaza, Lubna Pervez, Abid Shahban, Junaid Farooqi, Muhammad Rafi Kamboh, Kazim Hasan, Abdul Rahim Lakhani, Amin-ud-Din Ansari, Ali Mumtaz Shaikh, Abdul Hameed Kazi, and Muhammad Adnan for Petitioners\nAmjad Javed Hashmi, Dr, Tariq Masood, Additional Commissioner (Legal), M. Asif Mangi, Standing Counsel, M. Sarwar Khan, Addl.A.G, Chaman Lal, S. Mohsin Imam, S. Riaz-ud-Din and Muhammad Saleem Mangrios", + "Party Name:": "TATA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through, Authorized Attorney/Representative, Karachi and 57 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division/FBR, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 179 = 2013 SLD 179 = 2013 PTD 1548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Workers Welfare Fund - Jurisdiction of Officer Inland Revenue]\n•\nInterpretation of Taxation Officer under repealed enactments.\n•\nFindings:\no\n Taxation Officer under repealed statutes is interpreted as Officer Inland Revenue under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nConclusion: Taxpayer remains liable under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=207,122,133 General Clauses Act, 1897=8 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(ha),4(4) ", + "Case #": "T.Rs. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2012, decision dated: 30-05-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner. Sh. Zafar-ul-Islam, Niaz Ahmad Khan and Tanveer Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs ALLAH WASAYA TEXTILE AND FINISHING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 180 = 2013 SLD 180 = (2013) 108 TAX 101 = 2013 PTD 1557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Amendment of Assessment - Multiple Notices and Suppressed Purchases]\n•\nLegality of multiple notices and suppressed purchases additions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nMultiple notices are illegal; suppressed purchases additions must align with specific provisions.\no\nAdditions for purchases under Section 111(1)(d) were deleted as they lacked jurisdiction and evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal deleted additions and invalidated multiple notices.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.134/KB of 2013, decision dated: 29-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FATHER-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Riaz-ud-Din. Basher Ahmed Kalwar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BROTHERS ENTERPRISES KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, RANGEB, \"\" Zone-II, RTO-II, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 181 = 2013 SLD 181 = 2013 PTD 1568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Advance Income Tax on Imports - Applicability of Reduced Rates]\n•\nApplicability of reduced rates for contracts made prior to policy changes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAdvance tax is not presumptive and must align with contract terms prevailing before policy changes.\no\nSRO 140(I)/2013 was deemed prospective, protecting earlier contracts.\n•\nConclusion: High Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, applying reduced rates for earlier contracts.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=148,SecondSched(9),(9A) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1259 of 2013, decision dated: 31st May, 2013. dates of hearing: 8th and 22-05-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 182 = 2013 SLD 182 = (2013) 108 TAX 207 = 2013 PTD 1578 = 2013 PTCL 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Assessment Amendment and Limitation Periods]\n•\nConnotation of later of in Section 122(4)(b).\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe department can invoke either of the two timelines under Section 122(4), where later of provides an option to select the timeline that expires later.\no\nThe amendment in 2012 was within the five-year period under Section 122(4)(a) and thus valid.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the amendment as lawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(4)(a),122(4)(b) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No.45 of 2010, decision dated: 30-05-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Asghar Saroha and Asif Rasool, Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan for Petitioner. Messrs Sh. Zafar-ul-Islam, Niaz Ahmad Khan and Tanveer Ahmad.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nvs\nCh. MUHAMMAD AKRAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 213 = 2005 SLD 213 = 2005 PTCL 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act - World Customs Organization Rulings]\n•\nClassification of white spirit and the role of World Customs Organization.\n•\nFindings:\no\nWhite spirit with specified characteristics was classifiable under PCT Heading 2710.0039.\no\nThe ruling of the World Customs Organization was binding unless explicitly contested by the Customs Administration of Pakistan.\n•\nConclusion: Classification under 2710.0039 upheld based on international standards.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "Appeals No. 24 to 40 of 2003 and 108 to 112 of 2003, decision dated: 12.8.2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAYED MOHSIN ASAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. MOHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL/CHAIRMAN AND MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Kamran Khan, Assistant Collector and Mr. Muhammad Rasheed, Superintendent.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Pakistan Oil Fields Ltd., Rawalpindi\nvs\nThe Additional Collector, Central Excise, Rawalpindi and other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 197 = 2007 SLD 197 = 2007 PTCL 707 = 2007 PTD 2549 = (2008) 97 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Double Taxation Agreement - Royalty vs. Business Profits]\n•\nDetermination of royalty versus business income under the Pakistan-Netherlands treaty.\n•\nFindings:\no\nIncome from leasing software was for business use, not royalties, as it did not involve copyright exploitation.\no\nTribunal's ruling was overturned, and income was categorized as business profits.\n•\nConclusion: Favorable judgment for the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,33,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 71 of 1997 and 99 of 2006, I.T.R.As. Nos. 514 to 516 of 2006 and I.T.As. Nos. 274 to 281 of 1998, decision dated: 12-10-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Faroagh Naseem and Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicants. Jawed Farooqui.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERQUEST INFORMATION SERVICES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 214 = 2005 SLD 214 = 2005 PTCL 407 = (2005) 91 TAX 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax - Past and Closed Transactions]\n•\nReopening finalized assessments based on subsequent rulings.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSupreme Court precedent established that past and closed transactions could not be reopened due to subsequent interpretations.\no\nRectification order annulled as illegal.\n•\nConclusion: Assessment remained finalized; rectification deemed void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,35 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 754/LB, 1123/LB and 969/LB of 2002, decision dated: 17-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MR. MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI AND MR. MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellants by: Mr. Nasim Akbar, F.C.A., Mr. Haroon Ahmad, A.C.A. and Mr. Waqar Mehmood Khilji, D.R. Respondents by: Mr. Waqar Mehmood Khilji, D.R., Mr. Nasim Akbar, F.C.A. and Mr. Haroon Ahmad, A.C.A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 449 = 2004 SLD 449 = 2004 PTD 2771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(19),2(22),2(28),2(30),3,6(3),34,36(1) ", + "Case #": "C. P. No. D-2110 of 1996, 23/04/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND GHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Ghandhara Nissan Diesel Ltd. \nVS \nSales Tax Department and Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 198 = 2007 SLD 198 = 2007 PTCL 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Hybrid Accounting Methods]\n•\nLegitimacy of using hybrid accounting systems.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTaxpayer can maintain hybrid methods, mixing cash and mercantile systems, for different activities.\no\nThe methodology is recognized internationally and cannot be rejected without statutory grounds.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal supported the taxpayer's hybrid method.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. 306, 307, 308 of 99 & 785/2000, heard on 16-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan, Adv. (in ITA 306/99) and Mr. Nasrullah Awan, Adv. (in ITA. 785/2000)\nDr. Farough Naseem, Adv. M. Fareed, Adv. (in ITAs. 306, 308 of 99 & 785/2000), Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Adv. (in ITA 306/99) and Mr. Nasrullah Awan, Adv. (in ITA. 785/2000)", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., Karachi\nvs\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Companies I, Karachi and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 293 = 2006 SLD 293 = 2006 PTCL 112 = 2006 PTD 1473 = 2006 SCMR 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax - Valuation Methodology for Property]\n•\nProper valuation methodology for property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal's approach of considering locality and property size was challenged by Revenue, citing Wealth Tax Rules.\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to address the methodology conflict.\n•\nConclusion: Awaiting resolution of appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "CP Nos.1158 to 1162 and 1178 to 1182 of 2004, 22-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFFIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M, JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney-General, Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, PESHAWAR\nvs\nHaji MASOODUR-REHMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 209 = 2008 SLD 209 = 2008 PTD 1401 = 2009 PTCL 109 = (2008) 98 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Sale and Leaseback Transactions]\n•\nApplicability of withholding tax in sale and leaseback arrangements.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSuch arrangements do not constitute a sale or supply under Sections 50(4) and 80-C.\no\nMachinery in sale-leaseback arrangements remains immovable property, exempt from withholding tax.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, citing remedial legislation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),80C ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos.20 of 2001, 384, 394, 397, 222, 112, 283 of 2004, 213, 214, 489, 267, 724, 725, 586 to 588, 385, 386, 389, 643, 644, 699, 700 of 2000, decision dated: 10-04-2008, hearing DATE : 14-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Zahid. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Shahbaz Butt, Ijaz Ahmad Awan and M.M. Akrams", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nMessrs ELLCOT SPINNING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 183 = 2013 SLD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Validity of Service of Notice]\n•\nValidity of registered post service.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRegistered post service was deemed valid.\no\nCIR(A)'s ruling against notice service lacked solid evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Departmental appeal succeeded; addition upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,121,114,111(1),111(b)and116(1),218 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 742/LB/2010 Dale of hearing 20/12/2012. DATE of order 30/01/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Legal Division, RTO, Lahore. \nvs\nMuhammad Asghar, Sialkot S/o Ghulam Muhammad, Basir Pur, Tehsil Depalpur." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 184 = 2013 SLD 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Wealth Increase and Assessment Amendment]\n•\nAssessment amendment based on wealth increase.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTaxpayer justified asset increase with wealth statements and evidence.\no\nAdditions under Section 122(5) were invalid for lack of jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: CIR(A)'s decision upheld; departmental appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(9),111(1)(b),122(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.303/IB/2012 (Tax Year, 2009) hearing DATE 04/12/2012. DATE of order 24/01/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Ahsan Ullah Khan, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Iqbal Anwar, I.T.P", + "Party Name:": "CIR, (Legal), RTO, Rawalpindi \nvs\nGeneral ® Abdul Waheed, House No. 14, Golf Road, Rawalpindi NTN0018508" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 185 = 2013 SLD 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Filing Extension and Return Validity]\n•\nImpact of technical issues on return filing.\n•\nFindings:\no\nFiling extension was granted due to FBR portal issues.\no\nDepartmental appeals dismissed as return was validly filed.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld CIR(A)'s decision.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=20,20(IB) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.308/IB of 2011 (Tax Year 2007) U/s. 205(IB), I.T.A. No.309/IB of 2011 (Tax Year 2008) U/s. 205(IB), hearing DATE 15.02.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. FAHEEM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by None Respondent by Mr. Tahir Razzaque Khan, CA", + "Party Name:": "The CIR, LTU, Islamabad \nvs\nM/s. Wah Nobel Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 186 = 2013 SLD 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Audit Selection and Assessment Validity]\n•\nValidity of assessment under incorrect sections.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAssessment framed under Section 121(1)(d) was invalid.\no\nAudit selection required amendment under Section 122.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal annulled amendment under Section 121(1)(d).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121(1)(d),122,120(1),177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1078/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2007), hearing DATE 02/11/2012. DATE of order 24/01/2013. ITA No.12/IB/2009, dated 25/04/2009 relied", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Dr. Muhammad Idrees, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Khokhar, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "CIR, Zone-I, RTO, Sialkot \nvs\nM/s. Chaudhary Commission Shop, Village Baqar, Tehsil & District Narowal NTNAudit-02-2322296" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 187 = 2013 SLD 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Late Deposit of Withholding Tax]\n•\nNon-deposit of deducted tax.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal remanded the case for re-examination due to potential misunderstanding in CIR(A)'s findings.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,161,205(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 678/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2006) NTN 1295871, hearing DATE 07.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Faisal Kamoh, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Muhammad Tahir, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Pak Hero Indus. (Pvt.) Ltd. \nvs\nThe CIR, LTU, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 188 = 2013 SLD 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Undeclared Bank Accounts and Credits]\n•\nOnus of proof for undeclared bank accounts.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTaxpayer failed to explain entries in undeclared accounts.\no\nTribunal remanded the case for re-adjudication after full examination of evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Remand for detailed inquiry.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120,122(9),122(5),122(1),111(1)(b),18(1)(b),176 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 17/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2007), I.T.A. No. 18/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2008), I.T.A. No. 19/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009), I.T.A. No. 20/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2010) NTN 0840350, hearing DATE 03.06.2013. DATE of order 10.07.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Shahbaz Butt, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Sheikh Muhammad Usman, Lahore. \nvs\nCIR, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 189 = 2013 SLD 189 = (2013) 108 TAX 92 = 2013 PTD 2243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax - Free Samples as Prizes or Business Promotion]\n•\nApplicability of Section 156 on free samples.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRandom distribution of free samples does not constitute a prize. \no\nTaxation under Sections 161 and 205 was invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal deleted tax demand and upheld taxpayer's contention.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=156,161,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 890/KB of 2011 (Tax Year 2009), decision dated: 28-03-2013, hearing DATE : 18-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FAHEEM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Salman Pasha and Nadeem Ahmed Dawoodi Advocates, for the Appellant. Muhammad Ali Jafri for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 190 = 2013 SLD 190 = (2013) 108 TAX 125 = 2013 PTD 2151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Delegation of Powers and Validity of Notice]\n•\nDelegation of powers under Section 122(5A) to Additional Commissioner.\n•\nFindings:\no\nCommissioner can delegate powers to Additional Commissioner for amending deemed assessment orders.\no\nAdditional Commissioner’s issuance of the notice was lawful.\no\nTaxpayer's intra-court appeal dismissed as an alternative remedy was available under the Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Dismissal of appeal; Additional Commissioner’s actions upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,120,122(9),122(5A),210 ", + "Case #": "ICA. No. 183-W, 184-W, 211-W to 217-W, 221-W to 223-W, 226-W to 229-W, 239, 240, 271-W and 330-W, decision dated: 25-4-2013. dates of hearing: 23-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, CJ & NOOR-UL-HAQ N QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasim Sikandar, Raja Nowsherwan Akhtar, Muhammad Zahid Mahboob Khan, Nasar Ahmad, Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera, Hafiz M. Idrees, M. Naseem Khans. Hafiz Munawar Iqbal, Abdul Khaliq Thind, Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, Muhammad Bilal, Babar Bilal and Shazia Bilal,s", + "Party Name:": "PAK TELECOM MOBILE LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 191 = 2013 SLD 191 = (2013) 108 TAX 137 = 2013 PTD 2095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Export-Related Expenses and Local Sales]\n•\nApplicability of export-related expenses on local sales income.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExport-related expenses cannot be deducted from taxable income derived from local sales.\no\nRule 13(6)(e) applies to local sales, and expenses attributable to such sales are deductible.\n•\nConclusion: Export expenses excluded for local sales; principles clarified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=4,4(4)(b),67,154,169 ", + "Case #": "ITRA No. 133 of 2011, decision dated: 31-5-2013, hearing DATE : 18-4-2013 and 14-5-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIB ATHER & GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Javed Hashmi, Advocate, for Applicant. Mushtaq Hussain Nazi, Advocate,.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nvs\n Messrs QUALITY TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 192 = 2013 SLD 192 = (2013) 108 TAX 164 = 2013 PTD 2159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Federal Tax Ombudsman - Suo Motu Action and Maladministration]\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in public interest cases.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSuo motu jurisdiction valid without a formal complaint when public interest is involved.\no\nMaladministration includes systemic errors and does not require proof of criminal intent.\no\nCirculars issued by FBR without legal basis were invalid.\n•\nConclusion: FBR’s actions deemed maladministration; suo motu jurisdiction upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,9(1) ", + "Case #": "Review Application No.12/2012, decision dated: 10-7-2013 in Complaint No. 286/LHR/IT(240)/577/2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, for the Dealing Officer, Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate, for the Authorized Representative.\nAsrar Rauf, Senior Member, FBR, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Chief ITP, FBR, Aftab Ahmed, then Chief ITP, FBR, Taj Hamid, Secretary IR (Budget), FBR, Dr. Aftab Imam, Secretary, FBR, Khalid Aziz Banth, then Member DT for the Departmental Representatives\n Dr. Ikram ul Haq, Advocate Surpeme Court, Rana Munir Hussain, General Secretary-APTBA, Habib Fakhruudin, Ex-Member FBR Syed Pervaiz Amjad, Ex-Member FBR, for the Amici Curie\nWAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT", + "Party Name:": "SECRETARIAT, REGIONAL OFFICE, LAHORE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nWAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 294 = 2006 SLD 294 = 2006 PTCL 384 = 2006 PTD 555 = 2006 SCMR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Challenge to SRO Validity]\n•\nValidity of exemptions and SROs under constitutional scrutiny.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSROs previously examined and upheld by the Supreme Court cannot be re-challenged.\no\nHigh Court dismissed the appeal as it lacked fresh grounds.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; SROs upheld as valid.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5,O.584(I)/95 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.271-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Irtaza H. Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemos Nos.1, 3 and 4 Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record No. 2", + "Party Name:": "DADABHOY ENERGY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 140 = 2011 SLD 140 = (2011) 103 TAX 225 = 2011 PTCL 479 = 2011 PTD 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Exemptions and Conversions]\n•\nApplicability of exemptions to subsequent asset conversions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExemption applies to assets created from foreign remittances, including subsequent conversions.\no\nOnus of proof lies on the claimant to establish entitlement to exemptions.\n•\nConclusion: Exemptions allowed; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16(3),27(1),Sched.II,Clauses7(i),(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.440, 215, 216, 392, 437 to 439, 441 to 450, 484, 560, 575 to 578, 691 to 696, 756, 801 to 806, 808, 789 of 1999, 47 to 49 of 2000, 66 of 2011, 88, 106 of 2002 and 87 of 2008, decision dated: 26-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIB AKHTAR, MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Farooqui. Ms. Lubna Pervez, Abdul Rahim Lakhani and Iqbal Salman Pashas", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nvs\nHUMAYUN ELLAHI SHAIKH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 193 = 2013 SLD 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Subsidies and Maintenance Income]\n•\nDisallowance of subsidy and maintenance-related claims.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDisallowance of transport subsidy and maintenance income was premature without proper verification.\no\nTribunal remanded the case for re-examination of the books and records.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for detailed review.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=124,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1243/LB/2008 (Assessment year 1992-93), hearing DATE 03.02.2011. DATE of order 01.06.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Syed Naveed Abbas, F.C.A. Respondent by Mr. Muhammad Tahir, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. D.G. Khan Cement Co. Ltd., Lahore. \nvs\nCIR, LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 194 = 2013 SLD 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Compliance with Supreme Court Decision]\n•\nSupreme Court’s directives on prior Tribunal orders.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSupreme Court issues unrelated to the present case; no modifications required in Tribunal order.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s original decision reiterated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5256/LB/1999 (Assessment Year 1995-96). DATE of order 18/04/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Qaisar Mehmood, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Ayesha Woolen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore \nvs\nDCIT/WT CirclE08, Companies Zone-I, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 195 = 2013 SLD 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Foreign Indenting Commissions and Tax Rates]\n•\nTax rate applicability and treatment of foreign indenting commissions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTax rate on foreign indenting commission set at 5% as per statutory exceptions.\no\nTribunal directed rectification of errors in previous assessments.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld taxpayer’s claims for relief.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,154,113(3)(a),122(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 636/IB/2012 Tax Year 2009, I.T.A. No. 637/IB/2012 Tax Year 2010, hearing DATE 28/05/2013. DATE of order 04/06/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND FAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tahir Razzaque Khan, FCA. Respondent by Mr. Imran Shah, DR", + "Party Name:": "Sigma Motors Limited, Islamabad. \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 196 = 2013 SLD 196 = (2013) 108 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Gas Development Surcharge and Tax Credit]\n•\nDeduction of GDS and eligibility for tax credits.\n•\nFindings:\no\nGDS deductible as a statutory obligation under OGRA Ordinance.\no\nTax credit under Section 65B denied as the taxpayer did not qualify as an industrial undertaking.\n•\nConclusion: Partial relief granted for GDS; tax credit denied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=54,60,60B,20,20(1),122(5A),49(4),120 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80DD,23 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2143/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2006), I.T.A. No. 2144/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2010), I.T.A No. 2145/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2011). DATE of order 19/07/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. ANWAR-UL-HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Asim Zulfiqar, FCA alongwith Syed Shabbar Zaidi, FCA, Mr. Shahzad Hussain, FCA and Ms. Uzma Adil Khan, CFO. Respondent by Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Advocate High Court alongwith departmental officials Khawaja Adnan Zahir, CIR, Mr. Muhammad Tahir, ACIR, Mr. Ahmad Shuja Khan, ACI and Mr. Munir Ahmad Chaudhry, DCIR.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., 21-Kashmir/Egerton Road, Lahore. \nvs\nThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Zone-III, LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 197 = 2013 SLD 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act - Audit Selection Validity]\n•\nLegality of audit selection under Sales Tax Act.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAudit selection without jurisdiction declared void.\no\nTribunal vacated lower authority’s order on jurisdictional grounds.\n•\nConclusion: Taxpayer’s appeal accepted; proceedings deemed invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,25(2),177(1) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1231/LB/2012, hearing DATE 15/07/2013. DATE of order 12/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Khurram, Advocate and Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan, ITP, Respondent by Syed Mehmood-ul-Hassan Jaffri, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Bibojee Services Pvt. Ltd., Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 140 = 2012 SLD 140 = (2012) 106 TAX 25 = 2012 PTD 992", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - High Court Appeal Procedure]\n•\nNon-compliance with procedural requirements for appeal.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAppeal dismissed for failure to file a proper application and condonation of delay.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed in limine due to procedural lapses.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27,27(1)(4) ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No.122 of 2000, decision dated: 12-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, C.J. AND NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Haifz Munawar Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nRAMIZULHAQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 141 = 2012 SLD 141 = (2012) 106 TAX 375 = 2013 PTD 954 = 2013 PTCL 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Coercive Tax Recovery Measures]\n•\nLegality of recovery actions under Section 140 without notice.\n•\nFindings:\no\nRecovery from taxpayer’s bank without notice is coercive and violates procedural fairness.\no\nDepartment restrained from further recovery actions without prior notice.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal protected taxpayer’s rights; recovery stayed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=137,138,139,140 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1026/LB of 2012 (Tax year 2008), decision dated: 19-7-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Hafeez, ITP for the Appellant. Jamshed Fakhri, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 52 = 1979 SLD 52 = (1979) 40 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Act - Deduction for Business Expenditure]\n•\nConditions for claiming business expenses as deductions.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExpenditure must meet commercial expediency and bona fide criteria.\no\nTribunal upheld findings that the claimed expense was collusive and not genuine.\n•\nConclusion: Deduction disallowed; taxpayer’s appeal rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "T. R. No. 123 (P. T. R. No. 208) of 1973, decision dated: 23-10 1978, hearing DATE : 25-06-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq Advocate for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "EAST WING INDUSTRIES, SIALKOT\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2017 1561 = 2017 SLD 1561 = 2017 PTD 2269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Federal Excise Act - Telecommunication Services Levy]\n•\nValidity of excise duty on telecom services post-18th Amendment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nExcise duty levied under Federal Excise Act is distinct from sales tax.\no\nCollection mechanism under sales tax does not alter its nature as excise duty.\n•\nConclusion: Constitutional petition dismissed; excise levy upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=3,7, Schedule Federal Excise Rules, 2005=43 Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1)(d) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=142,199,268(6),270AA,270AA(7),FourthSchedule ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1618 of 2015, decided on: 07-07-2017, heard on: 20-04-2017.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sabtain Fazli, Malik Saidar Khan, Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhara, Ayaz Shoukat, lmtiaz Rasheed Sidiqui and Syed Husnain Ibrahim Kazmi, for \"\"Petitioners.\nHafiz Munawar Iqbal, Babar Bilal, Muhammad Irshad Chaudhry, Malik Waris Khokhar, Raja Khalid Mehmood, Deputy Attorney-General and Rashid Hafeez, Additional Advocate General Punjabs.", + "Party Name:": "M/S. TELENOR PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2017 1562 = 2017 SLD 1562 = 2017 PTD 2280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sindh Sales Tax on Services - Default Surcharge and Penalty]\n•\nLiability for surcharge and penalty in tax short payment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nMere short payment without mens rea does not warrant penalty or surcharge.\no\nOrders imposing penalties were set aside.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty and surcharge annulled; taxpayer’s appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011=43,Second Schedule Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. AT-72 of 2016, decision DATE : 23rd January, 2017", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RETD.) NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal.\nSanjay Kumar, AC.C. SRB", + "Party Name:": "RESOURCE MARKING CONSULTANTS \nVS\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (UNIT-16), SRB, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2017 1563 = 2017 SLD 1563 = 2017 PTD 2291 = (2018) 117 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Amendment of Assessment for Bad Debts]\n•\nAmendment of assessment for bad debts under Section 122(5A).\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal remanded the issue for de novo proceedings with clear directions to ensure evidence-based reassessment.\no\nReasonableness of expenditures must be judged from a businessman's perspective, not an outsider’s.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded; taxpayer granted an opportunity to present evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=29,114,120,122(5A),122(9) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(i)(x) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 306/KB and 307/KB of 2012, decided & heard on: 06-02-2014.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSIKANDER ASLAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zulfiqar Ahmed Memon, D.R..\nSyed Shabbar H. Zaidi, FCA.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-III, LTU, KARACHI\nVS\nMAL PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 141 = 2011 SLD 141 = (2011) 104 TAX 31 = 2011 PTD 1275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Valuation of Incomplete Construction Projects]\n•\nValuation method for incomplete construction projects.\n•\nFindings:\no\nMarket value of incomplete projects must be based on actual expenditure incurred.\no\nAssessing Officer’s application of an arbitrary gross profit rate was invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Impugned addition deleted; valuation must align with project completion criteria.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(5),3,16(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No.327 of 1999, decision dated: 12-04-2011, hearing DATE : 7-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Farooqi for Applicant. Muhammad Javed Khurrum", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COS-IV, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SASI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 142 = 2011 SLD 142 = (2011) 104 TAX 45 = 2011 PTD 1052", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Ownership and Exemption of Agricultural Land]\n•\nOwnership and exemption based on agreement to sell agricultural land.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDocumentary evidence validated the taxpayer’s claim of ownership.\no\nTribunal incorrectly rejected ownership claim despite clear possession and consideration proof.\n•\nConclusion: Assessee’s claim upheld; treated as valid asset under law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(5),3,4,27 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal Nos.19 to 24 of 1999 and 233 to 236 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd December, 2010, hearing DATE : 12-10-2010.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IJAZ-UL-AHSAN AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi. Khadim Hussain Zahid", + "Party Name:": "KHALID MUHAMMAD KHAN\nvs\nINCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 143 = 2011 SLD 143 = (2011) 104 TAX 273 = 2011 SCMR 1672 = 2011 PTD 2251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Reopening of Assessment under Repealed Act]\n•\nValidity of reopening finalized assessments under repealed Wealth Tax Act.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to examine reopening after the Act’s repeal.\no\nPending issues under repealed law require clarity on reopening provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Leave granted for detailed judicial scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=3 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.449-L of 2008, decision dated: 17-06-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): . MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court of Petitioner. Respondents not represented", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANIF\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 144 = 2011 SLD 144 = (2011) 103 TAX 261 = 2011 PTD 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Limitation on Rectification of Assessments]\n•\nLimitation for rectification of Wealth Tax assessments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nIndefinite rectification powers contradict legislative intent.\no\nTribunal’s decision allowing rectification beyond limitation overturned.\n•\nConclusion: Question resolved in favor of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(m)(ii),25(1)(2),35 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference Applications Nos. 27 to 30 of 1998, decision dated: 24-12-2010, hearing DATE : 9-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED AND MUNIB AKHTER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Shaikh for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "Mst. YASMEEN BANO and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 57 = 2009 SLD 57 = 2009 PTD 526 = (2009) 99 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Addition of Share Deposits as Loans]\n•\nInterpretation of share deposit money and deemed income.\n•\nFindings:\no\nShare deposits are trading transactions, not loans.\no\nTribunal upheld that deemed income provisions do not apply.\n•\nConclusion: Additions disallowed; interpretation favored taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,.12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.116/KB of 2006, decision dated: 28-04-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Faisal Nini, FCA. Manzoor Ahmed Memon, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 199 = 2007 SLD 199 = 2007 PTD 2380 = (2008) 97 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Cash Loan and Director’s Transaction]\n•\nClassification of cash loan as taxable income.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLack of evidence rendered taxpayer’s defense invalid.\no\nTribunal upheld the addition as unexplained income.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed due to insufficient proof.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),62,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.663 of 1999, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq. Shahid Jamils", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ACCORD TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 200 = 2007 SLD 200 = 2007 PTD 2389 = (2008) 97 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Limitation for Filing Appeals]\n•\nValidity of service of assessment orders.\n•\nFindings:\no\nService on an authorized representative does not trigger limitation.\no\nTribunal directed reassessment of limitation period.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal allowed; timeline recalculated.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85,129,132,134,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.664 of 1999, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwarul Haq. Shahid Jamil", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GUJRANWALA COLLEGE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 201 = 2007 SLD 201 = 2007 PTD 2655 = (2008) 97 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Reassessment and Constitutional Jurisdiction]\n•\nMaintainability of constitutional petitions against reassessment orders.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAvailability of an alternate remedy makes constitutional petitions inadmissible.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; reassessment upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.20755 of 1999, decision dated: 13-08-2007. DATE of bearing: 7-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 202 = 2007 SLD 202 = 2007 PTD 2521 = (2008) 97 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Final Tax Liability for Stevedoring Business]\n•\nApplicability of final tax liability for stevedoring services.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal ruled that tax deducted on stevedoring receipts discharges final tax liability.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s contrary decision overturned in favor of taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=115,115(4),122(5A),153(1)(c),153(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 22 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd October, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PREMIER MERCANTILE SERVICES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 203 = 2007 SLD 203 = 2007 PTD 2507 = (2008) 97 TAX 95 = 2008 PLJ 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Discrimination in Self-Assessment Scheme]\n•\nAlleged discrimination in eligibility for self-assessment.\n•\nFindings:\no\nScheme excludes those declaring losses; non-discriminatory as per legislative intent.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; eligibility conditions upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5959,62,80,80D,Cl.(32D)inPart-IV of Second Schedule ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 19120 563 and 566 of 2002 and 24354 of 2000, decision dated: 9-10-2007, hearing DATE : 16-04-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALHaj GHULAM MUHAMMAD & SONS\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 210 = 2008 SLD 210 = 2008 PTD 1420 = (2008) 97 TAX 393 = 2009 PTCL 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Retrospective Application of Section 122(5A)]\n•\nValidity of retrospective amendments to finalized assessments.\n•\nFindings:\no\nAmendments under Section 122(5A) cannot apply retrospectively without explicit provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal deemed notice invalid; assessment order restored.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(66),122,122(1),122(2),122(3)(a),122(3)(b),122(4),122(5),122(5A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,62,65 ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos 629, 816, 734, 684, 773, 289, 290, 334 to 339, 348, 459, 469 to 471, 511 to 513, 498, 499, 464, 466 to 468, 118 of 2006, 14 to 16, 1 to 5, 9 to 11 of 2008, decision dated: 10-04-2008. dates of hearing: 28th and 29-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Shahid Jamil Khan, Sajjad Ali Jafri, Khadim Hussain Zahid, Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal and Faiz-ur-Rehmans\nSiraj-ud-Din Khalid, Shahbaz Butt, Mian Ashiq Hussain, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Javed Iqbal Qazi, Naveed Andrabi, Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, Monim Sultan, Ch. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan, Ijaz Ahmad Awan, Sajid Ijaz Hotiana and Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq,s", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONEC (LEGAL), LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs IDREES CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 204 = 2007 SLD 204 = (2007) 11 TAXFORUM 40 = 2007 PTD 2446 = (2008) 97 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Valuation of Incomplete Showroom]\n•\nAddition based on Inspector’s report for incomplete construction.\n•\nFindings:\no\nInspector’s report lacked corroborative evidence; taxpayer’s valuation accepted.\n•\nConclusion: Additions deleted; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 213/LB of 2003, decision dated: 11-05-2007, hearing DATE : 2-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Kasim Hussain, D.R.. Mumtaz Hussain, Khokhar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 211 = 2008 SLD 211 = 2008 PTD 1312 = (2008) 97 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Judicial Conduct and Affidavits]\n•\nPowers of Tribunal to demand affidavits and address judicial lapses.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal criticized casual judicial conduct and ensured relief through adherence to natural justice.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s orders restored taxpayer’s rights.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=224,176 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.308/LB to 310/LB of 2007 and M.As. Nos.308/LB to 310/LB of 2007, decision dated: 28-07-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt. M. Akram Tahir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 212 = 2008 SLD 212 = 2008 PTD 1354 = (2008) 97 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Erroneous Orders and Revenue Loss]\n•\nAmendment of assessment for unsupported expenditures.\n•\nFindings:\no\nErroneous assessment leading to revenue loss justified invoking Section 122(5A).\n•\nConclusion: Expenditures disallowed; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4541/LB of 2005, decision dated: 13-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Khan. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 205 = 2007 SLD 205 = 2007 PTD 2566 = (2007) 96 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Ex Parte Orders and Specific Notices]\n•\nValidity of assessments without specific notices under Section 62.\n•\nFindings:\no\nLack of specific notice violates principles of natural justice.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments vacated; reassessment directed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. Nos. 115/LB and 116/LB of 2004, I.T.As. Nos. 4526/LB to 4528/LB of 2004, 3672/LB, 3673/LB of 2005 and 5183/LB of 2004, decision dated: .10-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Wasim Ismail and Ch. Muhammad Ismails. Anwar Ali Shah D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 206 = 2007 SLD 206 = 2007 PTD 2514 = (2007) 96 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Additions Without Confrontation]\n•\nAdditions based on unverifiability without taxpayer confrontation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal invalidated additions for procedural lapses and lack of evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Additions deleted; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4658/LB of 1999 and 2420/LB of 2000, decision dated: 21st February, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ismail and Wasim Ismail. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 207 = 2007 SLD 207 = 2007 PTD 2319 = (2007) 96 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Legal Authority of Additional Commissioner]\n•\nDelegation of authority and procedural violations under Section 111.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTaxpayer’s right to know legal basis of proceedings was violated.\n•\nConclusion: Actions vacated; orders declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(13),2(65),111,111(1),122(5A),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 91(IB) of 2007, decision dated: 25-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Mir Alam Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 208 = 2007 SLD 208 = 2007 PTD 2385 = (2007) 96 TAX 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Exemption for Power Generation Plants]\n•\nClassification of interest and scrap income as business income.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal upheld that interest and scrap income do not qualify for exemption under Schedule Clause (176).\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; exemption denied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,Cl.(176) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1382/IB to 1384/IB, 1379/IB to 1381/IB of 2005, decision dated: 10-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND CH. NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M. Faisal Banday, A.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.1382/IB to 1384/IB of 2005). Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.1382/IB to 1384/IB of 2005). Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. (in I.T.As. Nos.1379/IB to 1381/IB of 2005). M.M. Faisal Banday, A.C.A. (in I.T.As. Nos.1379/IB to 1381/IB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 209 = 2007 SLD 209 = 2007 PTD 2358 = (2007) 96 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Rectification of Mistakes]\n•\nValidity of second rectification applications.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal ruled against repetitive rectification for previously decided issues.\n•\nConclusion: Application dismissed; original orders maintained.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect) No. 83/KB M.A. (A.G.) No. 98/KB of 2006 and I.T.A. No. 1283/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 29-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Jalal-ud-Din, F.C.A. for Applicant. Rajab-ud-Din, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 210 = 2007 SLD 210 = 2007 PTD 2237 = (2007) 96 TAX 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Income Tax Ordinance - Provisions for Banks]\n•\nVarious deductions, income treatment, and compliance for banking operations.\n•\nFindings:\no\nBad debts: Tribunal upheld the bank’s claim, directing acceptance of bad debt provisions.\no\nMark-up in suspense: Addition based solely on accounting entries was invalid; deleted by Tribunal.\no\nConcessionary staff loans: Deductions allowed as these complied with established accounting principles.\no\nExpenses allocation: Tribunal confirmed prorating expenses between exempt and taxable income.\no\nDeferred amortization: Claim rejected due to absence of provision in Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nShort recovery claims: Tribunal upheld write-offs for unrecovered amounts.\n•\nConclusion: Most additions deleted; deductions upheld where supported by law and accounting standards.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(xxi),24(g) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 252/PB to 255/PB of 2004, 124/PB, 197/PB, 198/PB, 180/PB of 2003, 800/PB, 800-A/PB of 1999-2000, 294/PB of 2004 and 230/PB of 2003, decision dated: 21st December, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND LIAQAT ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghafoor, F.C.A./A.R.. Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 295 = 2006 SLD 295 = 2006 PTD 2424 = (2007) 95 TAX 95 = 2007 PTR 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Assets Held by Association of Persons (AOP)]\n•\nTaxability of assets held by AOPs.\n•\nFindings:\no\nImmovable property as a capital contribution is part of individual members’ net wealth unless distinctly categorized for business purposes.\no\nAOPs holding property for construction and sale are treated as separate taxable entities.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal's distinction between AOP assets and individual members upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(5)(ii),2(16)(iii),16(3),17B,27(6) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 8 to 12 of 2003, decision dated: 20-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Aziz. Shahid Jamil Khans", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM BHATTI\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 216 = 2005 SLD 216 = 2005 PTD 2458 = (2005) 91 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules - Property Valuation]\n•\nDetermination of property value for wealth tax purposes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal emphasized adherence to Rule 8(3), rejecting arbitrary valuation methods.\no\nAdministrative instructions conflicting with the Rules were deemed invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Revenue's appeal dismissed; valuation per statutory guidelines upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-8,.8(3) Stamp Act, of 1899=27A ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 38 of 1997, heard on 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umer. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nMrs. TEHMEENA AKEEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 217 = 2005 SLD 217 = 2005 PTD 2424 = (2005) 91 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Penalty Imposition]\n•\nFairness in penalty imposition exceeding tax demand.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal limited penalties to the tax demand amount, citing fairness.\no\nHigh Court found no legal error in Tribunal’s discretionary approach.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; penalty reduction upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=18,17,27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.287 of 2000, decision dated: 16-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Nasir Ghani", + "Party Name:": "Sh. KHALID IQBAL\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 218 = 2005 SLD 218 = 2005 PTD 2583 = (2005) 91 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Judicial Coordination in Tribunals]\n•\nConflicting orders from different Tribunal benches.\n•\nFindings:\no\nSecond Tribunal Bench erred by deciding a matter already addressed by another bench.\no\nCase remanded for resolution by a larger bench.\n•\nConclusion: Larger bench to address conflicts and ensure consistent judicial outcomes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16(3),17B ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No.122 of 2002, Wealth Tax Appeals Nos.112 to 126 of 2002 and 508 to 516 of 2003, decision dated: 9-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yousaf Umar. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT\nvs\nHAMAYUN IQBAL C/o Prestige Surgical Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 296 = 2006 SLD 296 = 2006 PTD 343 = (2006) 93 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Classification of Assets]\n•\nWhether immovable property constitutes a taxable asset.\n•\nFindings:\no\nProperty must be used for construction, sale, or letting to qualify as a taxable asset.\no\nMere holding does not attract wealth tax without evidence of intent or activity.\n•\nConclusion: Property excluded from wealth tax in the absence of qualifying activity.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(5)(i),3 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No. 59 of 2004, decision dated: 8-12-2005, hearing DATE : 29-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahbaz Butt\nRespondent(s) by: Sajjad Ahmed Jaffari", + "Party Name:": "M/S AJWA CENTRE, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 297 = 2006 SLD 297 = 2006 PTD 271 = (2006) 93 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Limitation in Assessments]\n•\nApplicability of limitation to service of notices.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal validated limitation objections, canceling assessments beyond prescribed time.\no\nHigher forums upheld Tribunal’s findings as legally sound.\n•\nConclusion: Limitation upheld; assessments annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1981=10,14 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 820-K of 2003, decision dated: 8-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: A.R. Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-IV, KARACHI\nvs\nHAKIM ALI ZARDARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 298 = 2006 SLD 298 = 2006 PTD 132 = (2006) 94 TAX 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Rules - Break-Up Value of Shares]\n•\nComputation of non-listed companies’ share value.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal clarified inclusion of reserves and exclusion of liabilities per Rule 8(2)(c)(ii).\n•\nConclusion: Valuation principles aligned with statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-8,8(2)(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.100 of 2001, decision dated: 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Yusuf Umar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nAYUB RAZA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 299 = 2006 SLD 299 = 2006 PTD 324 = (2006) 93 TAX 429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Rectification of Mistakes]\n•\nScope of rectification for mistakes apparent on record.\n•\nFindings:\no\nDeliberate findings are not “mistakes” under rectification provisions.\no\nTribunal correctly rejected rectification requests that required reevaluation of facts.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s dismissal of rectification upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27,35 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeals. Nos. 382, 383, 556, 557 of 2000, decision dated: 29-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE \nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Arshad Siraj \nRespondent(s) by: Jawaid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "MRS. NIGHAT TARIQ\nVS\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 300 = 2006 SLD 300 = 2006 PTD 1852 = (2006) 93 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Taxability of Leased Flour Mills]\n•\nWhether leasing converts an industrial asset into a taxable property asset.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTemporary leasing does not change the nature of a flour mill as an industrial asset.\no\nWealth tax not applicable where purpose remains industrial.\n•\nConclusion: Tax liability annulled; Tribunal favored the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(1)(5)(ii)[2(e)(ii)],3 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 129/LB to 131/LB of 2004, decision dated: 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MEHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Riaz Bashir Sh., I.T.P./A.R.. Abdul Salam, D.R.. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 301 = 2006 SLD 301 = 2006 PTD 2004 = (2006) 93 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Revisional Powers of Additional Commissioner]\n•\nValidity of revisional directions by superior officers.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal invalidated revisions influenced by external directions, emphasizing independent decision-making.\n•\nConclusion: Original assessments restored; additions annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17,17B,16,17B,23,31B ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.775/LB to 778/KB of 2004, decision dated: 16-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Abbas. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 211 = 2007 SLD 211 = 2007 PTD 256 = (2006) 93 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Jurisdiction and Asset Classification]\n•\nChargeability of land held by legal heirs as AOP assets.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNo evidence supported classification of land as held for business purposes.\no\nJurisdictional errors further invalidated assessments.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments annulled; tax claims dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(1)(5)(ii),16(2),17 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 202/KB to 204/KB of 2000-01, decision dated: 14-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN\nJAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Sirajul Haque Memon\nMuhammad Farid assisted by S.M. Attaullah, Special Officer of Income-tax for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 296 = 2003 SLD 296 = 2003 PTD 984 = (2003) 88 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Valuation Disputes]\n•\nHigh Court’s jurisdiction over factual valuation disputes.\n•\nFindings:\no\nValuation disputes are factual and do not constitute substantial questions of law.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; High Court declined jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3),(81A) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.423(IB) of 1996-97 and I.T.As. Nos.190 to 194 of 1999, decision dated: 7-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Majeed Malik. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT\nvs\nMessrs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 297 = 2003 SLD 297 = 2003 PTD 1276 = (2003) 88 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Scope of Rectification Powers]\n•\nLimits of rectification jurisdiction under Section 35.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal erred by rectifying an order based on an Income Tax Authority’s request.\no\nRectification power restricted to suo motu or taxpayer-initiated actions.\n•\nConclusion: Rectification order annulled; original findings restored.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=35 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax. Appeals Nos.80 to 85 of 2001, decision dated: 18th February 2003, hearing DATE : 28-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHABBIR AHMED AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehanul Hasan Naqvi with Miss Lubna Pervazs. M. Arif Moton and Khursheed A. Hashmi, D.A.G.s (on Courts Notice)", + "Party Name:": "Miss SUMBLEEN ANWAR and others\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 298 = 2003 SLD 298 = 2003 PTD 1377 = (2003) 88 TAX 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Net Wealth Computation]\n•\nAdjustment of liabilities against taxable property.\n•\nFindings:\no\nTribunal upheld exclusion of repaid loans and unrelated liabilities from deductions.\no\nFindings aligned with statutory definitions of net wealth.\n•\nConclusion: Adjustments disallowed; original assessment affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(16)(ii),2(16) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeals Nos. 505 to 510 of 2000, decision dated: 28-02-2003, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHABBIR AHMED AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Javaid Khurrums. Aqeel Ahmed Abasis", + "Party Name:": "SHAHI CARPET (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Director/Chief Executive, Karachi\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX/IncomE tax, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 299 = 2003 SLD 299 = 2003 PTD 2734 = (2003) 88 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Definition and Scope of Association of Persons ]\n•\nAssessment criteria for associations of persons (AOPs).\n•\nFindings:\no\nDefinition of AOPs: Requires common purpose and intent to generate income jointly.\no\nIndependent assessments: Co-owners’ portions of a single property were assessed separately as AOPs, considering individual lease agreements and tax payments.\no\nJudicial Clarifications: Unity of title alone is insufficient; intent and common purpose to generate income are essential.\n•\nConclusion: Orders were remanded for independent assessments of each AOP.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(5)(ii) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3), ", + "Case #": "W. T. As. Nos. 1439/LB to 1446/LB of 2001, decision dated: 25-09-2001, hearing DATE : 5th September 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Andrabi. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 300 = 2003 SLD 300 = 2003 PTD 2064 = (2003) 88 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Service of Notice on Legal Heirs]\n•\nProcedural compliance in serving notices on legal heirs of a deceased assessee.\n•\nFindings:\no\nNotices must be served on all legal heirs; failure to do so requires procedural correction.\no\nRepresentation by one heir did not waive the need to include others.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to set aside assessments for fresh notices.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=74(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.246(IB) to 255(IB) of 2001-2002, decision dated: 27-02-2003, hearing DATE : 25-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR-UL-HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Qalbe Abbas Bukhari. Abdul Jaleel D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 301 = 2003 SLD 301 = 2003 PTD 2049 = (2003) 88 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "[Wealth Tax Act - Filing of Returns under Specific Provisions]\n•\nValidity of wealth tax returns filed under incorrect forms.\n•\nFindings:\no\nFiling on Form A instead of Form AA was a procedural error, invalidating the claim under Section 14B.\no\nCase remanded for reassessment under correct procedures.\n•\nConclusion: Original order vacated; reassessment directed per statutory rules.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=14,14B,14(1)(c),16(5) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.833/IB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 22-01-2003, hearing DATE 17-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Haroon-ur-Rehman. Dr. Khawaja M. Waqar Khan, ITP", + "Party Name:": "Before Karamat Hussain Niazi, Judicial Member and Syed Aqeel Zafar ul Hasan, Accountant Member\nHarooNur-Rehman for . Dr. Khawaja M. Waqar Khan, ITP for" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 17 = 1976 SLD 17 = (1977) 35 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1922 - Payment and Business Connection\nDetails:\n1.\nPayment and Agency (Section 4(1)(a)): The assessee, a resident of Mingora (non-taxable territory), contracted with Wah Ordnance Factory (taxable territory) for timber supply. Payments were requested through cheques sent to the National Bank in Mingora. Cheques were posted in Wah (taxable territory). The issue arose whether posting cheques in Wah constituted payment in taxable territory, and whether the post office acted as the assessee's agent.\no\nHeld: Posting cheques in Wah did not amount to payment there. The post office was not deemed the agent of the assessee.\no\nCitations:\n\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (1954) 24 I.T.R. 529\n\nHarman v. Rickets (1886) 3 T.L.R. 182\n\nThairlwall v. Great Northern Railway Co. (1910) 2 K.B. 509\n2.\nBusiness Connection (Sections 4(1)(c), 42(1)): The same assessee supplied timber under a contract executed in Wah (taxable territory), with delivery over a year in a non-taxable territory. The question was whether profits accrued in Wah through business connection.\no\nHeld: No business connection existed as per Section 42. Signing a contract in taxable territories alone does not establish business connection.\no\nCitations:\n\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Currimbhoy Ebrahim & Sons Ltd. (1935) 1 I.T.R. 395", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 12-P of 1970,decided on 15-10-1976. dates of hearing : 6th and 7-04-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND DORAB PATEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Lone, Advocate. Supreme Court, instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-On-Record, for the Appellant. M. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate, Supreme Court, M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court, with him instructed by Noor Ahmad Khan, Advocate-On-Record, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, MARDAN\nvs\nSANAULLAH KHAN & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 18 = 1976 SLD 18 = (1977) 35 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1922 - Business Expenditure Preceding Operational Start\nDetails:\nAn insurance company incorporated in May 1958 received its certificate of registration under insurance law in January 1960. The Department declined deductions for establishment and staff expenses incurred before certification, arguing these were not related to legitimate business operations.\n•\nHeld: Expenses relatable to the business, even before formal certification, are admissible as deductions. The company was legally a juristic person post-registration and competent to conduct business.\n•\nCitations: Not directly cited in the case summary.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 16 of 1969, heard on 8-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Munawar Akhtar, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE, ZONE LAHORE\nvs\nUNIVERSAL LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 19 = 1976 SLD 19 = (1977) 35 TAX 15 = 1976 PTD 361 = 1977 PLD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1922 - Deductibility of Business Expenditure in Investigations\nDetails:\nAn investigation commission was reviewing suspected income escapement, risking heavy taxes and penalties. The assessee incurred legal charges opposing the investigation, arguing it was unlawful. The Department challenged the deductibility of such expenses.\n•\nHeld: Legal expenses incurred to safeguard business interests and reduce potential tax liability qualify as deductible business expenditures under Section 10(2)(xv). The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing commercial expediency.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBirla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 64 I.T.R. 568\no\nSree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 63 I.T.R. 207\no\nSmiths Potato Estate Ltd. v. Bolland (1948) 30 I.C. 267", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference (Tax Reference) No.222 of 1971, decision dated: 1-6-1976, hearing DATE 10-05-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN QADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SCHAZOO LABORATORIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 20 = 1976 SLD 20 = (1977) 35 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1922 - Penalty Imposition and Reasonable Time\nDetails:\nThe case questioned the appropriateness of levying penalties after an unreasonable delay by tax authorities.\n•\nHeld: Penalties must be imposed within a reasonable timeframe to ensure fairness and justice. Prolonged delays render the penalties improper.\n•\nCitations: Not directly cited in the case summary.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos.1351 to 1353, 1897 and 1241 of 1968, decision dated: 17-8- 1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. HEDGE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. Sen and A.C. Mitra, Senior Advocates (N. R, Khaitan. O. P. Khaitan. B.P. Maheshwari and Miss Krishna Sen, Advocates, with them) (in C.As. No. 1351-1353 and 1897 of 1961). Miss Krishna Sen N.R. Khaitan, O. P. Khaiten and B. P, Maheshwari, Advocates (in C.A. No. 1241 of 1968)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL\nvs\nBIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 21 = 1976 SLD 21 = (1977) 35 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Penalty after Inordinate Delay\nDetails: Under Section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the authority to impose a penalty for tax-related offenses must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. A penalty imposed after an excessive and unjustified delay raises questions about its propriety.\nHeld: The court concluded that levying penalties after an inordinate delay is improper. Penalties must be imposed within a reasonable time to maintain fairness and legality in the enforcement process.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), Section 28.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "R.C. No. 8 of 1970, decision dated: 5.11.1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHINAPPA REDDY AND A.D. V. REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Dasaratharama Reddy for the assessee. P. Rama Rao for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K.P. NARAYANAPPA SETTY & Co\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 22 = 1976 SLD 22 = (1977) 35 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court on Questions of Fact\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee requested an extension to file a return and, receiving no reply, reasonably believed the extension was granted.\n•\nThe Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation for the delay, concluding that there was reasonable cause.\n•\nThe issue arose whether this finding of fact could be referred to the High Court as a legal question.\n•\nIt is established that whether there is reasonable cause for filing a delayed return is a question of fact. Such findings are open to challenge only if:\no\nUnsupported by any evidence or material.\no\nPerversely or irrationally concluded.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe Tribunal’s finding that the assessee had reasonable cause was a pure question of fact.\n2.\nNo direction could be issued to the Tribunal to refer this matter to the High Court.\n3.\nFindings of fact cannot be challenged unless they are perverse or lack evidential support.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Rajasthan Mines Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 45; [1971] 1 SCR 517 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Vidya Sagar [1975] 100 ITR 281 (Punj)\n•\nManindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [1964] AIR 1964 SC 1336\n•\nOriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 408; (1969) 2 SCR 46 (SC)\n•\nOther referenced cases.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,256(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case Nos. 15 and I6 of 1972, decision dated: 24-4-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. MAHAJAN C.J. AND PRITTAM SINGH PATTAR 7", + "Lawyer Name": "D.N. Awasthy with S.S. Mahajan for the Addl. Commissioner. Nemo for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nROSHAN LAL KUTHIALA (Deceased)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 23 = 1976 SLD 23 = (1977) 35 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure for Employee Gratuity Transfer\nDetails:\n•\nDuring the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee-company formed a new subsidiary to take over its retreading division.\n•\nEmployees in the division were transferred to the new company with no break in service, on the same terms and conditions.\n•\nThe assessee transferred ₹56,275 from its gratuity reserve to the new company, calculating it as payable gratuity for these employees.\n•\nThe assessee claimed this transfer as a deductible business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer denied the claim, arguing no payment was made directly to the employees, and the transfer did not qualify as an expenditure.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe assessee had no present or definite obligation to pay gratuity for the transferred employees.\n2.\nThe payment to the new company was not made on behalf of the employees.\n3.\nAs there was no break in service, the new company assumed all obligations without necessitating the transfer.\n4.\nThe transfer occurred as part of a business reorganization, not in the regular course of business operations.\n5.\nConsequently, the claim under Section 37 was inadmissible.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation (1967) 65 ITR 643; (1967) 3 SCR 727 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=66,88(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 110 of 1968 (Reference No. 41 of 1968) decided on 25-6-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. V. Subramaniam for M/s. Subbaraya Iyer and Padmanabhan for the assessee V. Bulasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "STANES MOFORS (SOUTH INDIA) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 24 = 1976 SLD 24 = (1977) 35 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal to Supreme Court Dismissed Due to Non-Cooperation\nDetails:\n•\nThe appellant failed to cooperate during the prosecution of an appeal listed for hearing.\n•\nThis case arose from an appeal against an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated April 26, 1966, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 514 of 1966.\nHeld: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of cooperation.\nCitations: Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 66A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1970, decision dated: 23-1-1976.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C, J. SALAUDDIN AHMED, MUHAMMAD, AFZAL CHEEMA, MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND DORAB PARR I, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellant. Muhammad Afzal Lone, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "WALAYAT AGENCIES, LYALLPUR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 25 = 1976 SLD 25 = (1977) 35 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Non-Residential Buildings for Industrial Labor\nDetails:\n•\nA claim was made under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, for depreciation on buildings erected between April 1, 1946, and June 30, 1975.\n•\nThe building in question was not intended for the residence of industrial labor, raising the issue of eligibility under sub-clauses (aa) and (b) of Section 10(2)(vi).\nHeld: Depreciation claims under sub-clauses (aa) and (b) are restricted to buildings meant for industrial labor. Buildings constructed for other purposes do not qualify.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(2)(vi).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi),(a),(aa),(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 10 of 1970, decision dated: 31-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Appellant. Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 26 = 1976 SLD 26 = (1977) 35 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Limitation under Business Profits Tax Act\nDetails:\n•\nA notice issued on October 14, 1965, and an assessment completed on December 18, 1965, were challenged as being beyond the limitation period.\n•\nThe issue involved applying Section 34(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (amended by the Finance Act, 1965), to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe assessment was within the limitation period.\n2.\nProvisions incorporated from the earlier Act became part of the later Act but do not include substantive changes unless expressly stated.\nCitations:\n•\nDada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (PLD 1974 SC 310)\n•\nOther referenced cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=12,19 Income Tax Act, 1922=34(2B) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference (Tax Reference) No, 11 of 1969, decision dated: 14-6-1976. dates of hearing : 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd and 28-04-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Applicant. Raja Muhammad Akram, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nKOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 27 = 1976 SLD 27 = (1977) 35 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Duty on Gifted Properties\nDetails:\n•\nThe deceased gifted properties to his wife, who collected rents and deposited them in a joint account shared with the deceased.\n•\nThe Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the value of gifted properties in the estate, citing Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled in favor of the donee, holding that the deceased had no benefit from the income of the gifted properties.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe donee retained possession and enjoyment of the gifted properties.\n2.\nDepositing the rents in a joint account did not constitute a benefit to the deceased.\n3.\nThe deceased acted as a fiduciary or banker for the donee’s funds.\n4.\nThe value of the gifted properties could not be included in the estate.\nCitations:\n•\nBibi Ahmadi Begum v. Commissioner of ED [1972] 83 ITR 303 (All)\n•\nOther significant cases.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1953=10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 117 of 1969(Reference No. 30 of 1969), decision dated: 14-3-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASWAMI AND V. SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman, Special Counsel, for the Controller. N. Srinivasan for R. Venkataraman for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY\nvs\nMrs. KAMALA PANDALAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 28 = 1976 SLD 28 = (1977) 35 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment - Reason to Believe\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a shareholder and director in various companies, disclosed a capital receipt of Rs. 20,65,705 from selling shares in Associated Hotels during AY 1945-46. Notices for reassessment under Section 34(1A) were issued for AYs 1940-41 to 1946-47. Despite objections, reassessments were made for AYs 1942-43 to 1945-46. The High Court and Supreme Court reviewed the basis for the notices.\nHeld:\nThe reasons provided by the Income Tax Officer were self-contradictory and lacked material evidence to justify the belief under Section 34(1A). The notices were quashed.\nCitations:\n•\nShea Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Central Range), Calcutta (1968) 67 ITR 254.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1A) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1477 (NT) of 1967, decision dated: 12-8-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. HEDGE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. C. Chagla. Senior Advocate (M. L. Agarwal, N. K. Agarwal and M. N. Pombra, Advocates. with him). S.T.D. Desai, Senior Advocate (A.N. Kirpal, R.N Sachthey and B.D Sharma, Advocates with him)s", + "Party Name:": "SEONATH SINGH\nvs\nAPPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), CALCUTTA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 29 = 1976 SLD 29 = (1977) 35 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment - Adjustment of Stock Valuation\nDetails:\nFor AY 1960-61, discrepancies in stock valuation prompted the Income Tax Officer to reassess AY 1959-60. The assessee adjusted the closing stock valuation but later sought a corresponding adjustment to the opening stock. The Tribunal rejected this plea, citing limitations and the assessee's own conduct.\nHeld:\nThe assessee could not claim adjustments at the appellate stage after failing to raise them earlier. The taxing authorities were justified in their assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. [1930] AIR 1930 PC 56.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1955, decision dated: 5-8-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C, J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. H. Patil with S. P. Mehta and S. J. Mehta for the assessee. R, M. Hajarnavis with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KANTILAL CHANDULAL DHARIA\nvs\nCUMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY I" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 30 = 1976 SLD 30 = (1977) 35 TAX 69 = (1977) 35 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax - Valuation of Revalued Assets\nDetails:\nThe assessee company revalued assets in 1948-49 to issue bonus shares, inflating their value by Rs. 145 lakhs. Despite government refusal to approve the issuance, the revalued figure remained on balance sheets. The Wealth Tax Officer valued assets as per the inflated figures.\nHeld:\nThe Wealth Tax Officer rightly relied on the company's balance sheet valuation. The burden of proving legitimate reasons for inflated valuation rested with the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nKesoram Industries and Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1966) 59 ITR 767.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=7,7(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1834 and 1169 of 1968, decision dated: 10-8-1971. dates of hearing :1st, and 7-06-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. S. HEDGE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (S. K. Aiyar, R. N. Sachthey and B. D, Sharma, Advocates with him) for the Commissioner. A. C. Mitra, Senior Advocate (N.R. Khaitan, P. Khaitan, Miss Krishna Sen and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates with him) for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO\nvs\nCOMMISSi0NER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 31 = 1976 SLD 31 = (1977) 35 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification - Capital vs. Revenue\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a textile manufacturer, imported machinery for personal use but later sold it without using it. The Income Tax Department classified the sale proceeds as revenue. The assessee argued the machinery was fixed capital.\nHeld:\nThe machinery was fixed capital, not acquired as trading stock. The sale did not generate revenue income, and Section 12B (Capital Gains) was not applicable during the sale period.\nCitations:\n•\nSecretary of State in Council of India v. Sir Andrew Scoble [1903] AC 299.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3),2,3,4,12B ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference ND. 37 of 1967, decision dated: 27-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Butt", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE\nvs\nCOLONY TEXTILE MILL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 32 = 1976 SLD 32 = (1977) 35 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Place of Receipt\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a textile mill in Hyderabad State, sold goods to the Government of India. Payments were made via cheques posted from British India. The question was whether the income was received in British India.\nHeld:\nThe posting of cheques in British India implied receipt in British India due to the request by the assessee. The sale proceeds were taxable in British India under Section 4(1)(a).\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1954] 25 ITR 529 (SC).\n•\nShri Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 114 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 980 to 982 of 1971, decision dated: 17-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H.R. KHANNA AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. Vasudev Pillai and P.K.Pi1lai, Advocates, for the appellant. R. M. Mehta, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "AZAMJAHI MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 33 = 1976 SLD 33 = (1977) 35 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Receipt and Depreciation - Non-Resident Assessee\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a textile mill in Indore State, received payments for sales in British India. Payments were made via cheques, drafts, and hundies. The question was whether profits were taxable in British India and how depreciation should be calculated post-1944.\nHeld:\nProfits were received in taxable territories due to the implied request for payments by post. Depreciation calculation post-1944 should consider actual allowances under the Indian Income Tax Act.\nCitations:\n•\nIndore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 738 (SC).\n•\nOgale Glass Works Ltd. [1954] 25 ITR 529 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 2 of 1966, decision dated: 14-7-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA C, J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. P. Metha with V. H. Patil for the assessee. R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAJKUMAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 34 = 1976 SLD 34 = (1977) 35 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFirm Registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\n•\nDetails: The appellant firm included N, V, and S as adult partners with respective profit shares of 31%, 23%, and 23%. A minor, J, was admitted to the benefits of partnership with a 25% profit share. The partnership deed did not specify the proportion in which the adult partners would share losses, although it stipulated compliance with the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The firm sought registration under Section 26A of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nHeld: The firm was not entitled to registration under Section 26A as the Income Tax Officer could not ascertain the shares of partners in the losses. Section 13(b) of the Partnership Act, 1932, which assumes equal sharing of losses in the absence of a specific agreement, did not apply due to unequal profit shares. Additionally, the rule of sharing losses in the same proportion as profits could not be applied because the minor's share of losses was not defined or ascertainable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCase affirmed: CIT v. Mandyala Govindu & Co., [1971] 82 ITR 926.\no\nCases referred:\n\nAlbion Life Assurance Society, In re, (1880) 16 Ch D 83 (CA).\n\nCIT v. Ithappiri & George, (1973) 88 ITR 332 (Ker).\n\nHiralal Jagannath Prasad v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 293 (All).\n\nOthers as mentioned in the case summary.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(5),26A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.63 of 1971, decision dated: 6.10.1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V.R. KRISHNA IYER. A.C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (K. Rajendra Choudhry, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him). For the respondent", + "Party Name:": "MANDYALA GOVINDU & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 35 = 1976 SLD 35 = (1977) 35 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReassessment under Section 147(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDetails: The respondent was assessed for AY 1958-59, with an interest deduction of Rs. 10,494 allowed for loans from creditors. Later, a notice was issued under Section 148 for reassessment, citing (i) a creditor's confession of being a name-lender, and (ii) other creditors being identified as name-lenders. The respondent challenged the reassessment, arguing that all necessary documents were disclosed during the original assessment.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that:\no\nThe second reason lacked a live link to the belief of escaped income since it did not pertain to loans taken by the respondent.\no\nThe first reason, based on the creditor's confession, lacked evidence tying it to the respondent's loan, rendering the connection too tenuous.\no\nThe conditions for reassessment under Section 147(a)—the existence of reason to believe and omission or failure by the assessee to disclose material facts—were not satisfied.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCase followed:\n\nChhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha, [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC).\n\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC).\n\nS. Narayanappa v. CIT, (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC).\no\nCase affirmed:\n\nLakhmani Mewal Das v. ITO, (1975) 99 ITR 296 (Cal HC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a),(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 1972. decided on 30-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H. R. KHANAND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. C. Sharma Senior Advocate (S.P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. Dr. D. Pal and B. Sen, Senior Advocates (Mrs. Lelia Seth, P. K. Pal, S. R. Agarwala and Parveen Kumar, Advocates, with them), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, I WARD, DISTRICT IV CALCUTTA AND OTHERS\nvs\nLAKHMANI MEWAL DAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 36 = 1976 SLD 36 = (1977) 35 TAX 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 8874\nReassessment under Section 147(a), Income Tax Act, 1961.\nDetails:\n•\nOriginal assessment allowed interest deduction. Reassessment initiated after four years based on vague information about creditors being name-lenders.\n•\nHigh Court ruled preconditions for reassessment were not met.\n•\nSupreme Court affirmed, holding that there must be a rational connection or live link between material and belief for income escapement due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly.\nHeld: Reassessment proceedings were unsustainable.\nCitations:\n•\nChhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC).\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC).\n•\nS. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a),(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 360 of 1971, decision dated: 21-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C Manchanda, senior Advocate (K. J. John, Advocate, of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for the appellant. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Girish Chandra and M. N. Shroff Advocates, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHIDAMBARAM MULRAJ & CO. (P) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 37 = 1976 SLD 37 = (1977) 35 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of profits in mutual insurance companies.\nDetails:\n•\nMutual insurance company profits from dealings among members were held not taxable.\n•\nSurplus was deemed not profit but a reserve for eventualities or redistribution among members during winding up.\nHeld: Surplus arising from dealings within members is not taxable.\nCitations:\n•\nThomas v. Richard Evan & Co. Ltd., 11 Tax Cas. 790.\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. The Lyallpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., PLD 1959 Lah. 627.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6C) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 237 of 1971, decision dated: 13-4-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Khan. Sh. Abdul Haq", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN MOFOR OWNERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 38 = 1976 SLD 38 = (1977) 35 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective application of Explanation 2 to Section 24(2).\nDetails:\n•\nExplanation added to clarify ambiguity in Section 24(2) applied retrospectively to remove doubts.\n•\nCourts held explanatory amendments apply retroactively unless specified otherwise.\nHeld: Explanation 2 applied retrospectively.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Yousuf & Co. (1967) 15 Taxation 4.\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Tayab Moosa & Co. (1967) 15 Taxation 62.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2),30A ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference (Tax Reference) No.175 of 1971, decision dated: 13.5 .1976. dates of hearing : 12th and 13-05-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Butter, for the Appellant\nSh. Abdul Haq, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DREAMLAND CINEMA, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 39 = 1976 SLD 39 = (1977) 35 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation entitlement for evacuee property transferee.\nDetails:\n•\nTransferee of an evacuee cotton factory with Provisional Transfer Order was granted depreciation allowance under the Income Tax Act.\nHeld: Depreciation allowable under Settlement Scheme No. 1.\nCitations:\n•\nRahim Baksh v. Ch. Ahmad Baksh (P.L.D. 1964 S.C. 189).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 117 of 1971, decision dated: 9-2-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Had. Advocate, for the Petitioner. Khan Ghani Dad Khan, Advocate for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nBATALA COTTON GINNING PRESSING AND GENERAL MILLS, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 40 = 1977 SLD 40 = (1977) 35 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective withdrawal of tax exemption for tax holiday companies.\nDetails:\n•\nTax exemption under Section 15BB withdrawn retrospectively via legislative ordinance.\n•\nCourts upheld the validity of retrospective tax legislation.\nHeld: Retrospective withdrawal of tax exemption valid.\nCitations:\n•\nITO, Karachi v. Cement Agencies Ltd. (P.L.D. 1969 S.C. 322).\n•\nHaider Automobile Ltd. v. Pakistan (P.L.D. 1969 S.C. 623).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,15BB(4AA),(4C) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=89,94,(1),290(2) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 619 to 626 of 1973, decision dated: 27-2-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND, JAMALUDDIN H. AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Pesh Imam, for the Petitioners S. A. Nusrat, for the Respondents. Attorney-General appeared on Courts notice", + "Party Name:": "MST. SAEEDA BEGUM AND OTHERS\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER (Through Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 41 = 1976 SLD 41 = (1977) 35 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Joint Venture\nDetails:\n•\nThe respondent-company appointed agents under an agreement where they invested and shared profits/losses equally with the company.\n•\nPayments to agents were claimed as deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\n•\nThe Tribunal rejected the deduction, treating the agreement as a joint venture. The High Court allowed it.\nHeld:\n•\nThe agreement was deemed a joint venture for dividing profits, not deductible as business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv).\n•\nThe Court emphasized the essence of the agreement over its form, treating it as a partnership.\nCitations:\n•\nReversed: Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 142.\n•\nCases Referred: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC), British Sugar Manufacturers Ltd. v. Harris (1939) 7 ITR 101 (CA).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 622 and 623 of 1971, decision dated: 21-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.S. SARKARIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Ahuja and S.P. Nayar, Advocates for the Appellant. A.N. Goyal, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB, HARYANA\nvs\nPANIPAT WOOLLEN AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 42 = 1976 SLD 42 = (1977) 35 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Capital Gains on Personal Effects\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee sold silver bars, sovereigns, and coins used in religious rituals, claiming them as personal effects exempt from capital gains tax under Section 2(4A).\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled they were not personal effects due to lack of intimate and common personal use.\nHeld:\n•\nArticles used occasionally in rituals (e.g., silver bars, coins) are not personal effects. \n•\nGains from their sale are taxable under Section 12B.\nCitations:\n•\nApproved: G.S. Poddar v. CWT [1965] 57 ITR 207 (Bom).\n•\nAffirmed: H.H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 1007.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4A),12B ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 779 of 1971, decision dated: 17-2-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A, C. GUPTA AND, JASWANT SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Singhji v. (1970) 77 ITR 1007. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Rameshwar Nath, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. B.B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for the respondents.", + "Party Name:": "H.H. MAHARAJA RANA HEMANT SINGHJI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 43 = 1976 SLD 43 = (1977) 35 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay by Income Tax Authorities\nDetails:\n•\nIncome Tax Officer delayed determining the ownership of a bank deposit for over five years, contrary to instructions by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\nHeld:\n•\nThe delay was deemed indiscipline, undermining the rule of law and the purpose of quasi-judicial tribunals.\nCitations: None specifically cited.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1971, decision dated: 25-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, .JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. P. Nayar and B. B. Ahuja, Advocates, for the appellants. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, A-WARD CALCUTTA, AND ANOTHER\nvs\nRAM NARAYAN BHOJNAGARWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 44 = 1976 SLD 44 = (1977) 35 TAX 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Apportionment of Profits from Sales in British India\nDetails:\n•\nA non-resident company sold textiles to merchants in British India. The Tribunal apportioned profits to determine the portion accrued in British India.\n•\nDifferent percentages were assigned based on sales categories (15% for categories canvassed through representatives/agents and 7.5% for direct sales in Indore).\nHeld:\n•\nThe apportionment of profits is a question of fact.\n•\nAs long as the Tribunal's decision is based on relevant materials, it should stand.\nCitations:\n•\nReversed: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 450.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,466 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1062 to 1066 of 1970, decision dated: 19-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H. R. KHANNA AUD P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A. K. Varma Advocate for M/s. J. B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates, with him), for the appellant. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "HUKAM CHAND MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 45 = 1976 SLD 45 = (1977) 35 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReference to High Court – Question of Fact and Speaking Order.\n•\nDetails: A company abandoned part of its claim regarding profits but later faced a penalty for alleged income concealment. The Tribunal accepted the company’s explanation and set aside the penalty. The High Court dismissed the Department's application without a speaking order.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe High Court should not have dismissed the application without a speaking order but remanding was unnecessary as the case had been argued on merits.\no\nDetermining concealment of income is a factual matter, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal’s order.\n•\nCitations:\no\nP.M.A.P. Ayyamperumal Nadar v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 161 (Mad)\no\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 26 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1),66[2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 792 of 1971, decision dated: 19-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. C. GUPTA AND, JASWANT SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. T, Desai, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. B. Sen Senior Advocate, (Bishamber Lal, Advocate, with him), for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL TAX CALCUTTA\nvs\nASHOKA MARKEHNG LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 46 = 1976 SLD 46 = (1977) 35 TAX 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRevision under Kerala Agricultural Income-Tax Act – Jurisdiction and Escaped Income.\n•\nDetails: Excessive allowance granted for rubber plantation upkeep was reviewed by the Commissioner. The High Court held it as escaped income, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe case involved under-assessment, not escaped income.\no\nThe Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act.\n•\nCitations:\no\nDeputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 793 and 794 of 1971 decided on 7-5-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. C. GUPTA AND, JASWANT SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. V\"\". Patel, Senior Advocate ((A. S. Nambiyar, Advocate, with him), for the respondent K.M. K. Nair, Advocate, for the appellant in C.A. No. 794 of of 1971", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX\nvs\nLUCKY KOCHUVAREBD PIHSGHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 47 = 1976 SLD 47 = (1977) 35 TAX 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPenalty Proceedings – Validity of Notice by Successor Officer.\n•\nDetails: Penalty proceedings were initiated during assessment by one officer and continued by another, who referred the case to a higher authority. The assessee challenged the validity of notices.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSatisfaction for penalty proceedings needs to occur during the assessment, not before notice issuance.\no\nThe notices and proceedings were valid despite minor language inaccuracies.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC)\no\nD.M. Manasvi v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(1),274 ", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 837(W) of 1971, decision dated: 19-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Debiprosad Pal and Anil Kanti Kop Chowdhury for the petitioner. A. K, Sengupta and R. N. Mitra for the respondents", + "Party Name:": "APPEJAY STEEL WORKS PRIVATE LTD\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT QOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), RANGE I, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 48 = 1976 SLD 48 = (1977) 35 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nWealth Tax – Hindu Undivided Family vs. Individual Ownership.\n•\nDetails: A Hindu male’s property devolved on his heirs under Dayabhaga law, forming a coparcenary. Tax authorities assessed the wealth jointly as HUF.\n•\nHeld:\no\nLiability under Section 3 arises from ownership. Coparceners own defined shares individually; hence, the property does not belong to the HUF.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBiswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary v. ITO (1963) 47 ITR 927 (Cal)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=2,2(m),3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 1969 decided on 8-4-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.N. ROY, C.J., M. H. BEG\"\" R.S. SARKARIA, PN. SHINGHAI AND, JASWANT SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (B. B. Ahuja, R, N. Sachthey and S.P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (A. K. Nag an Advocates, with him), for the respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL\nvs\nBISHWANATH CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 49 = 1976 SLD 49 = (1977) 35 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReassessment under Section 34(1)(b) – Discovery of New Information.\n•\nDetails: Interest deduction allowed in the original assessment was reassessed based on subsequent findings that the borrowed money was misused.\n•\nHeld:\no\nReassessment was valid as it was based on fresh facts, not mere opinion change.\no\nInformation under Section 34(1)(b) includes discovery of new facts or oversight correction.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC)\no\nCIT v. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1969) 74 ITR 107", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 522 of 1971. decided on 10-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. K. MATHEW AND MUTAZA HAZEL ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S- R- Banerjee. N. N. Goswamy and Arviud Minocha, Advocates, for the appellant. B. B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "KALYANJI MAVJI & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL ll" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 50 = 1976 SLD 50 = (1977) 35 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nHigh Court Reference – Inherent Power to Recall Orders.\n•\nDetails: Due to clerical error, a firm failed to file paper books, leading the High Court to decline answering the reference. The firm sought rehearing but was denied on grounds of functus officio.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe High Court is not functus officio and can recall its order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.\no\nThere was sufficient cause for non-appearance in this case.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)\no\nRoop Narain Ramchandra Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 181 (overruled)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1972 decided on 16-12-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H. R. KHANA AND V. R, KRISHNA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate (S. C. Agrawala, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. S. C. Manchandu, Senior Advocate (R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "JAIPUR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 51 = 1976 SLD 51 = (1977) 35 TAX 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReopening of assessment due to mistake in depreciation calculation\n•\nDetails: The issue involved an assessment made under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, where the Income-Tax Officer (ITO) mistakenly calculated depreciation without considering initial depreciation, leading to excess depreciation being allowed. The assessee did not disclose this omission. The ITO sought to reassess the case after four years based on this mistake.\n•\nHeld: No reassessment can be made after four years if the mistake was on the part of the ITO, not the assessee. The assessee cannot be held responsible for the ITO's failure to apply the correct provisions related to depreciation.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCalcutta Discount Co v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)\no\nCIT v. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC)\no\nITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi),(c),(via),34(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1792 of 1971, decision dated: 16-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. H. Dhebar, S. K, Dholakia and R, C. Bhatia, Advocates for the appellant. R. M. Mehta, Senior Advocate (Girish Chandra, Advocate, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "PARASHURAM PAFTERY WORKS CO. LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE I, WARDA RAJKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 52 = 1976 SLD 52 = (1977) 35 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAgricultural income and partner salary in tea-growing firm\n•\nDetails: This case concerned a firm growing and selling tea, where the income was partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural. The question was whether the salary paid to a partner was exempt to the extent of the agricultural income.\n•\nHeld: Salary paid to a partner is treated as part of the firm's income. Since part of the firm's income was agricultural, 60% of the salary was exempt from tax under Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1922.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAddanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (1966) AIR 1966 SC 1300\no\nAnglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commr. of Agri. IT (1968) 6 ITR 667 (SC)\no\nR. M. Chidambaram Pillai v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 944 (BF)\no\nMATHEW ABRAHAM v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 467", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6B),4(3)(viii),10(4)(b).16(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 17 to 21 of 1972, decision dated: 17-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H. R. KHANNA AND U. R. KRISHNA IYEAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. B. Ahuja and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for the appellant. S. Swaminathan, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Saroja Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, with him), for the respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nR. M. CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI. ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 53 = 1976 SLD 53 = (1977) 35 TAX 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDeductibility of contributions to third-party liability fund by state transport corporation\n•\nDetails: The Bombay State Road Transport Corporation made contributions to a fund set up for third-party liabilities arising from accidents. The issue was whether these contributions were deductible when calculating taxable income.\n•\nHeld: The contributions to the third-party liability fund, made under a statutory rule, were deductible as they were made from the corporation's revenue.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAMALGAMATED ELECTRICITY Co. LTD. v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 334 (Bom)\no\nCIT v. JAIPURAIA CHINA CLAY Mines (P.) LTD. (1966) 59 ITR 555 (SG)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1966 decided on 7-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. S. E. Dastur for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY III\nvs\nBOMBAY STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATiON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 54 = 1976 SLD 54 = (1977) 35 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPenalty for concealment of income and burden of proof\n•\nDetails: The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, surrendered cash credits after being induced by the ITO, with the assurance that no penalty would be imposed. The issue was whether the penalty could be levied for concealment of income when the surrender was made under duress.\n•\nHeld: The surrender was induced by the ITO's offer to avoid penalty, so the penalty could not be levied. The charge of concealment was not proved.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)\no\nJain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC)\no\nDURGA TIMBER WORKS v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 63 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No, 477 of 1969, decision dated: 15-9-1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. L. GULATI AND T. S. MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P\nvs\nMANSA RAM & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 55 = 1976 SLD 55 = (1977) 35 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDeduction of loss incurred from production of a talkie picture across two years\n•\nDetails: A firm produced a talkie picture over two accounting years. The ITO disallowed part of the loss allocated to the earlier year, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed it, arguing that the total loss from the single venture should be considered in the year the picture was completed.\n•\nHeld: The entire loss from producing a single picture should be accounted for when the picture is completed and released, not divided across the two years.\n•\nCitations:\no\nK. H. MODY, In re (1940) 8 ITR 179 (Bom)\no\nP. M. Mohammad Meerakhan v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1966, decision dated: 13-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. H. M. Jagtani for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKAYARTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 56 = 1976 SLD 56 = (1977) 35 TAX 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAdditional Remuneration as Salary or Business Income\n•\nDetails: A partnership firm, S.B. Joshi & Co., transitioned into a private limited company, S.B. Joshi & Company Ltd., in 1953. The four assessees were directors of the company. The company executed contracts by partnering with sub-partnerships and later itself, with the assessees receiving remuneration. The company passed resolutions for a fixed salary and additional remuneration based on work completed. The Income-tax Officer assessed the additional remuneration as salary under section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Appellate Tribunal ruled it as business income, but the revenue sought a reference.\n•\nHeld: The additional remuneration, paid in addition to a fixed salary, was regarded as salary income and not business income, as there was no connection to business profits or losses. The Tribunal's decision was reversed.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Armstrong Smith (L.) [1946] 14 ITR 6 (Bom); CIT v. Durga Khote (Mrs.) [1952] 21 ITR 22 (Bom); CIT v. Lady- Navajbai R. J. Tata [1947] 15 ITR 8 (Bom); Jeewanlal v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 217 (All).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,10 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 3 of 1967, decision dated: 12-8-1967", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C.J. TULZAPUKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit introduced by V. B. Shastri, attorney, for the Commissioner. V. H. Patil with V. R. Jagtap for the assessees", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY II\nvs\nV. R. CHAPIIEKAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 198 = 2013 SLD 198 = 2013 PTD 1600", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPowers of Additional Commissioner Under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\n•\nDetails: The Income Tax Ordinance of 2001 allowed the Additional Commissioner to perform certain functions of the Commissioner, including powers to amend assessments. A taxpayer, claiming an exemption under the Venture Capital Company and Venture Capital Fund Rules, filed for tax exemption under the relevant provisions. The tax authorities contested the claim, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed the taxpayer's exemption.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal held that the exemption was rightly claimed by the taxpayer under Clause (101) of Part-I of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it met the criteria for a venture capital company.\n•\nCitations: Mozaffar Ahmad v. Anwar Ali PLD 1965 Dacca 296; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nazir Ahmed and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. 2004 PTD 921.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),210 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 661/KB and 786/KB of 2010, decision dated: 28-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Ali Khan and Faisal Ahads. None", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TRG PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 199 = 2013 SLD 199 = (2013) 108 TAX 294 = 2013 PTD 1659 = 2013 PTCL 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLimitation in Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\n•\nDetails: The case involved a dispute over the amendment of an income tax assessment after the statutory period had expired. The Commissioner sought to amend the assessment, but the taxpayer argued that the period for amendment had elapsed.\n•\nHeld: Even though there was no specific period of limitation, the Commissioner must justify belated action. The tax authorities failed to provide proper justification, so the actions taken were not sustainable.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hossen Kasam Dada PLD 1961 SC 375; Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Collector (Appeals) Customs Sales Tax and Federal Excise and another 2010 PTD 251.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,162 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-371 of 2013, decision dated: 31st May, 2013. dates of hearing: 21st, 26th, 27th and 28-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ejaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Petitioner (in C.P.D.-371 of 2013)\nNaveed Andrabi and Anwar Kashif Mumtaz along with Messrs Usman Alam and Ammar Ather Saeed for Petitioners (in C.P.D.-373 of 2013)\nIqbal Salman Pasha for Petitioners (in C.P. D-551 of 2013)\nKafeel A. Abbasi and Mohsin Imam along with Dr. Tariq Ghani, Additional for the Inland Revenue Department", + "Party Name:": "HABIB BANK LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 200 = 2013 SLD 200 = (2013) 108 TAX 185 = 2013 PTD 1684", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLimitation for Amending Assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\n•\nDetails: The taxpayer challenged the amended assessment order based on the amended provisions of section 122(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The amendment of the assessment order exceeded the five-year limitation period.\n•\nHeld: The First Appellate Authority correctly annulled the amended assessment order, as the tax authorities failed to amend it within the five-year period as stipulated by the amended law.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2009 PTD 1392; Honda Shahra-e-Faisal (AOP) v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(2),120B,177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.854/IB of 2012, decision dated: 5-03-2013, hearing DATE : 26-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Hassan, D.R.. Umer Rasheed", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMessrs INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 201 = 2013 SLD 201 = 2013 PTD 1720 = (2015) 111 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nWealth Tax Deduction for Debts Incurred on Taxable Assets\n•\nDetails: The petitioner contested the Tribunal's order where wealth tax was levied on debts secured against taxable assets, arguing that debts should be deducted when the assets were disposed of for business exigencies.\n•\nHeld: The wealth tax was correctly assessed as payable under section 2(1)(16) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. Since the assets were no longer in existence, the debts could not be deducted, and the Tribunal’s decision was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamran Model Factory 2002 PTD 14; Messrs Nagina Silk Mills v. I.T.O. 1963 PTD 633.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(1)(16) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.19928 of 2001, decision dated: 27-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ARA BANDIAL, C.J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Rasheed for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LAND MARK\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 202 = 2013 SLD 202 = 2013 PTD 1732", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutionality of Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011\nConclusions:\n1.\nMoney Bill Invalidity: The Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011, introduced as a Money Bill, failed to meet the constitutional requirements of Art. 73(2) and was declared invalid as a Money Bill.\n2.\nViolation of Constitutional Provisions: The Act's provisions, particularly the Second Schedule, were declared ultra vires of Articles 78, 81, 153, and 158 of the Constitution due to irrationality, discrimination, and a lack of procedural adherence.\n3.\nExcessive Delegation of Legislative Powers: Disparity in cess rates across industries and regions lacked justification and amounted to unconstitutional delegation of powers.\n4.\nImproper Levy of Cess: Levying cess on speculative projects (e.g., Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project) was deemed irrational, exploitative, and contrary to constitutional mandates, as the projects were not operational.\n5.\nRefund to Consumers: The Government was directed to return the cess in a lump sum or adjust it in future utility bills for the affected consumers.\nCitations:\n•\nGas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011, Ss. 3, 4, 6(2), Second Schedule.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 73(2), 78, 81, 153, 158, and 199.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011=3,4,6(2),SecondSched.,Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=78,81,153,158,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2514-P of 2012, decision dated: 13-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND QAISER RASHID KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ishtiaq Ahmad for Petitioner. Javed Ali Asghar, Saeed Khan, Akhunzada, Arbab Muhammad Tariq and Fazal-e-Karim and Barrister Haroon Dugals", + "Party Name:": "ASHRAF INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources Control Secretariat and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 203 = 2013 SLD 203 = 2013 PTCL 713 = 2013 PTD 1764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Assessment and Taxpayer Relief\nConclusions:\n1.\nAssessment Time Limits:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of an assessment finalized within the stipulated period of S.124(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxpayer's claim that the Deputy Commissioner delayed the process was rejected.\n2.\nDirect Relief Misinterpretation:\no\nTaxpayer's reliance on S.124(4) for appeal effects within two months was dismissed as it pertained only to cases where direct relief was provided. The reassessment nature of the case excluded its application.\n3.\nProration of Expenses:\no\nExpenses related to voluntary contributions were upheld as valid based on the organization’s affidavits and operational nature, dismissing excessive allocation by the department.\n4.\nDefault Surcharge:\no\nNon-profit organizations were exempted from default surcharge, given their charitable nature and lack of monetary gain motives.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 124(2), 124(4), and 205.\n•\nMessrs Dandot Cement Company Ltd., Lahore v. Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad 2008 PTD 609.\n•\nOther case references: 2008 PTD 60; 2012 PTD 1092; 2005 PTD 2161 (Trib.); 2004 PTD 1179; 2002 PTD 629.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=124,124(2),205 ", + "Case #": "l.T.As. Nos. 426/LB to 429/LB of 2013, decision dated: 29-05-2013, hearing DATE : 24-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FIZA MUZAFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi. Dr. lstiaq Ahmad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RICE EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN (REAP), LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 16 = 1975 SLD 16 = (1976) 34 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax – Legal Interpretation of Section 46(5A) of Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe provisions of Section 46(5A) are analogous to garnishee notices under Order XXI, Rule 46 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, requiring a presently payable or future existing debt.\n2.\nOpening a Letter of Credit (L/C) does not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and the beneficiary, nor does it constitute a debt due under the Income Tax Act.\n3.\nImpugned notices issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 46(5A) were deemed illegal and without lawful authority as no actual debt existed.\n4.\nRelief under Article 199 of the Constitution is permissible even when alternate remedies exist, if the action is patently without jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 46(5A).\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXI, Rule 46.\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Article 199.\n•\nCases:\no\nAustralasia Bank Ltd. v. M. Abdullah (PLD 1966 Lah. 67).\no\nNagina Silk Mill, Lyallpur v. Income Tax Officer (PLD 1963 SC 322).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(5A) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 506 of 1975, decision dated: 7.2.1976, hearing DATE : 20-21-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND ABDUL HAYEE QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "E.A. Nomani, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.A. Nusrat, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, KARACHI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 17 = 1975 SLD 17 = (1976) 34 TAX 10 = 1984 PTCL 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Limitation under Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe time spent on prosecuting an application for restoration of an appeal is to be excluded in computing the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.\n2.\nThe provision is mandatory and does not depend on whether the time was spent at the beginning or end of the limitation period.\n3.\nSection 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under the Income Tax Act, allowing exclusion of such periods in computing limitation.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 33-A.\n•\nLimitation Act, 1908, Sections 6 and 14.\n•\nCase: Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 Lah. 603).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30(2),33 Limitation Act, 1908=5,6,14 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 8 of 1968, decision dated: 24-02-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Sharif Hussain, Advocate, for the applicant\nSh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "AFTAB MEDICAL STORES, DERA GHAZI KHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 18 = 1975 SLD 18 = (1976) 34 TAX 14 = 1975 SCC 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Amendments to Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe establishment of a partnership firm and the instrument of partnership must be contemporaneous to qualify for registration under Section 26-A of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nAmendments made in 1965 to the term constituted by were declared declaratory in nature with no retrospective effect.\n3.\nLeave to appeal was granted due to the general importance of interpreting the amended provision and its alignment with the Supreme Court's decision in Noor Hussain’s case.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 26(1)(1) and 66A(2).\n•\nCase: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noor Hussain (PLD 1964 SC 657).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26(1),26A Finance Act, 1965=66A(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal No. 346 to 382 of 1974, decision dated: 1-4-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI. MUHAMMAD GUL AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nLYALLPUR COLD STORAGE, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 19 = 1975 SLD 19 = (1976) 34 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts under Section 23(4) of Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nAccounts can be rejected if statutory notices are not complied with, but rejection must be based on verified evidence and not subjective assumptions.\n2.\nCertificates of payment provided by an assessee cannot be arbitrarily rejected without proper verification.\n3.\nFindings based on local inquiries or inspectors' reports require notice to the assessee before finalizing assessments to uphold natural justice.\n4.\nHigh Courts have the jurisdiction under Article 199 to intervene if orders are issued without lawful authority or due process.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 23(4).\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199.\n•\nCases:\no\nAta Hussain Khan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (PLD 1969 SC 517).\no\nRiyaz & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1968) 18 Taxation 111.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(4) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 215 of 1976, decision dated: 24-6-1976. dates of hearing ; 11-3-1976, 5-4-1976 and 6-4-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GAL MOHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, assisted by Zia H. Rizvi, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SHAHID HAMEED, GULBERG, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, FILM CIRCLE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 20 = 1975 SLD 20 = (1976) 34 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Executive Actions, Jurisdiction, and Validity of Notifications\nConclusions:\n1.\nExecutive Actions Under Section 17(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935:\no\nThe requirement for executive actions to be conducted in the name of the Governor-General is directory, not mandatory.\no\nNon-observance of these provisions does not invalidate actions performed by competent authorities.\n2.\nReconstitution of Central Board of Revenue (CBR):\no\nReconstitution of CBR in Pakistan after partition in 1947 was not necessary.\no\nNotification No. 3 dated 29-8-1947, appointing members of the CBR, implicitly constituted the Board, making it valid and effective.\n3.\nAuthentication of Notifications:\no\nNotifications issued and authenticated by the Secretary of the CBR were deemed regular and proper.\n4.\nJurisdiction on Transfer of Cases:\no\nOrders transferring cases to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) under Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act were valid, even without prior show cause notices or separate notifications.\n5.\nRetrospective Validation of Rules:\no\nRules introduced by the Central Board of Revenue Rules, 1967, retrospectively validated prior orders issued under the CBR Act, 1924.\nCitations:\n•\nGovernment of India Act, 1935, Section 17(1).\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 5(2), (6).\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue Act, 1924, Sections 3(2), (3).\n•\nCases:\no\nNazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253).\no\nRaja Habib Ahmad Khan v. Income Tax Officer (1972 SCMR 556).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Government of India Act, 1935=17,17(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1380 of 1971, decided of 6-4-1976. dates of hearing: 15-1-1976, 16-1-1976, 19-20-1-1976, 23-2-1976 and 1- 3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND K.M.A. SAMADANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Sh. Ghias Mohammad, Mumtaz Hussain, Mohammad Amin Butt and Javed Hashmi, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, M. Ilyas Khan, Advocates and Raja Mohammad Anwar, Deputy Attorney-General, with K.M. Virk, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "CROWN BUS SERVICE LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 21 = 1975 SLD 21 = (1976) 34 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Provincial Government Business Activities\nConclusions:\n1.\nProvincial Government's Business Income:\no\nIncome derived from business activities conducted on behalf of a provincial government outside its jurisdiction is taxable under Article 137(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962.\no\nGoods exported by selling agents on behalf of the provincial government were deemed taxable under Central Law.\n2.\nJurisdiction for Disputes:\no\nExclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes between the Central Government and Provincial Governments on tax liability lies with the Supreme Court.\no\nAssessments made by Income Tax Officers on such disputes were declared ab initio void and without jurisdiction.\n3.\nLate Objections in High Court:\no\nObjections raised for the first time during High Court proceedings under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act are permissible if they go to the root of the case.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1962, Article 137(2).\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 66.\n•\nCases:\no\nPunjab Province v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1956 FC 72).\no\nGoswami Shri 108 Shri Girdhariji Maharaj v. Shri Govind Dhanlalji (1893) 21 IA 13.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=134(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 94 of 1973, decision dated: 8-12-1975. dates of hearing: 3rd, 14th and 19-07-15", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MOHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Appellant. R.S. Sidhwa, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nGOVERNMENT JALLO ROSIN AND TURPENTINE FACTORY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 22 = 1975 SLD 22 = (1976) 34 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of Return and Assessment Validity\nConclusions:\n1.\nAn assessee filing a return under Section 22(3) after receiving a notice under Section 22(4) is considered to have filed it voluntarily.\n2.\nFinalizing an assessment based on such a return is valid without recourse to proceedings under Section 34.\n3.\nThe Income Tax Officer's failure to serve a notice under Section 22(2) does not invalidate the voluntary return filed by the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 22(2), 22(3), 22(4), and 34.\n•\nCases:\no\nRanchhoddas Karsondas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1954) 26 I.T.R. 105.\no\nC.V. Govindarajulu Iyer v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1948) I.T.R. 391.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 12 of 1968, decision dated: 5-9-1975, hearing DATE : 3rd June 1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MOHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for petitioner Niaz Mohammad Siddiqui,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nIMAM BUX ALLAH DEWAYA, LEIAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 23 = 1975 SLD 23 = (1976) 34 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Distribution of Assets by a Liquidating Company\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe distribution of assets during the liquidation of a company does not constitute a sale, exchange, relinquishment, or transfer under Section 12B(1).\n2.\nSuch a transaction does not attract capital gains tax as it does not meet the statutory criteria for transfer.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 12B(1).\n•\nCases:\no\nMadurai Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1969] 74 I.T.R. 62.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12B(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1394 of 1970, decision dated: 9-3-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. HEGDE, P., JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate Mr. P.L. Juneja and Mr. R.N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him)-For appellant, Mr. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate Mr. (T. A. Ramachandran, Advocate, with him)-For respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nMADURAI MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 24 = 1975 SLD 24 = (1976) 34 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Termination of Managing Agency\nConclusions:\n1.\nCompensation for the termination of a managing agency accrues at the time of termination, even if payment is received later.\n2.\nThe year of accrual, not the year of receipt, determines the assessable year.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(5A).\n•\nCases:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Gajapathi Naidu (1964) 53 I.T.R. 114.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(5A) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1535 of 1968 decided on 11-8-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.H. Dhebar J. Ramamurthi and R, N. Sachthey, Advocates. M.C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Anjali K. Verma, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY\nvs\nCHUNILAL V. MEHTA & SONS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 25 = 1975 SLD 25 = (1976) 34 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Assessment\nConclusions:\n1.\nA mistake apparent from the record must be clear and indisputable, not subject to debatable legal interpretations.\n2.\nDecisions on complex legal issues are not considered mistakes apparent on the record under Section 35.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 35 and 17(1).\n•\nCases:\no\nVolkart Brothers v. Income Tax Officer, Bombay (1967) 65 I.T.R. 179.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35,35,-2(9),17(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1170 of 1968, decision dated: 5-8-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sukumar Mitra, Senior Advocate (J. Ramamurti R. N. ,Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, Advocates with him). M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (B.D. Palkhivala, Miss Bhuvnesh Kumari, Advocate; and.I.B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain. Advocates of J, B. Dadachanji & Co. with him)s", + "Party Name:": "T.S. RALARAM, Income Tax UFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE IV, BOMBAY\nvs\nVOLKART BROTHERS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 26 = 1975 SLD 26 = (1976) 34 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculative Losses\nConclusions:\n1.\nTransactions settled by delivery of Pucca Delivery Orders, rather than actual physical delivery, qualify as speculative transactions.\n2.\nLosses arising from such transactions are considered speculative losses.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 24(1), Explanation 2.\n•\nCases:\no\nMurlidhar Jhunjhunwalla v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969) 72 I.T.R. 727.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 88 of 1967, decision dated: 6-6-1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SANKAR PRASAD MITRA AND CHATTERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N; Roy for the Assessee. D. Sen for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NANALAL M. VARMA & CO. (Pvt.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 27 = 1975 SLD 27 = (1976) 34 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt Claims\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe burden of proving that a debt is irrecoverable lies with the assessee.\n2.\nA debt becoming time-barred does not automatically render it irrecoverable; this depends on case-specific facts.\n3.\nProvisional entries in a Bad Debt Account do not invalidate the claim for deduction.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 10(2)(xi) and 66.\n•\nCase: Octavious Steel & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1960) 2 TAX 85(SC).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases No. 36 to 40 of 1969, decision dated: 19-12-1975. dates of hearing : 21st, 25th and 26-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND M.A. RASHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nusrat, for the Applicant. Ali Athar, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 28 = 1975 SLD 28 = (1976) 34 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax from Cooperative Societies\nConclusions:\n1.\nA cooperative society registered under the Sind Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, is a separate legal entity and cannot be treated as an association of persons. \n2.\nThe recovery of income tax dues from a cooperative society’s members is not permissible under Section 46(5A) after the society is wound up.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 44 and 46(5A).\n•\nSind Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, Section 23.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44,46(5A) ", + "Case #": "Petition No. 565 of 1968, decision dated: 22-10-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NOORUL ARFIN AND I, MAHMUD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar for the Petitioner. S.A. Nusrat for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S.M. ZAKIR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST), KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 29 = 1975 SLD 29 = (1976) 34 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Prosecution for False Returns\nConclusions:\n1.\nImposition of a penalty under Section 28(4) of the 1922 Act does not bar prosecution under Section 52 of the same Act or under the 1961 Act.\n2.\nA false return filed under the 1922 Act constitutes an offense under the old law, not the new law, unless explicitly stated.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 28(4) and 52.\n•\nCases:\no\nBaliah (T.S.) v. T.S. Rangachari (1969) 72 I.T.R. 787.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28,28(4),52 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal Nos. 28 to 39 of 1971, decision dated: 13-3-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. ALAIGIRISWAMI AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. M. Tewari, Senior Advocate (S. M. Jain, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. T. A. Ramchandaranran, R. N, Sachthey and S. P. Nayer, Advocate for the respondent.", + "Party Name:": "TIWARI KANIIAIYALAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 30 = 1975 SLD 30 = (1976) 34 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n1.\nFailure to disclose material facts by the assessee cannot be claimed if the Income Tax Officer had already discovered the primary facts but failed to draw the necessary inference due to oversight.\n2.\nThe initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not justified in cases of oversight or error by the officer during the original assessment.\n3.\nReassessment cannot be used as a remedy for errors resulting from the officer's negligence in the original proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 147(a).\n•\nCases:\no\nCalcutta Discount Co. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191.\no\nCIT v. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 562.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147147(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1925 of 1970, decision dated: 1-5-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.S. SARKARIA AND A, C. GUPTA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (S. C. Agarwal and V. J. Francis, Advocates, with), for the appellant. S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "GEMINI LEATHER STORES\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, B-WARD, AGRA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 31 = 1975 SLD 31 = (1976) 34 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credits and Legal Question Arising\nConclusions:\n1.\nIn cases involving cash credits and unexplained transactions, the rejection of evidence and attribution of unexplained amounts to intangible additions from earlier years raises a question of law.\n2.\nWhether the Appellate Tribunal's order is legally valid is a substantial legal question that can be referred to the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 256.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1941 and 1942 of 1969, decision dated: 9-3-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.S. HEGDE AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Ramamurthi. R. N. Sachthey, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (T. A. Ramachandran, Advocates, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P\nvs\nALTHI BANGARAYYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 32 = 1975 SLD 32 = (1976) 34 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Cash Credits\nConclusions:\n1.\nSubsequent inquiries revealing the lender's lack of financial means justify reopening assessments under Section 34(1)(a).\n2.\nFindings by the Tribunal regarding the lender’s means or possible motives cannot be overturned without substantive evidence.\n3.\nAssessments can be reopened if subsequent materials contradict earlier claims accepted during the original assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 34(1)(a).\n•\nCases:\no\nAnne Nagendram v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 46.\no\nCIT v. Chidambaram Chettiar (1971) 80 ITR 467.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases No. 125 of 1968 and 294 of 1970 (Reference Nos. 54 of 1968 and 82 of 1970), decision dated: 26.6.1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the Commissioner. N. Srinivasan and R. Venkatram for the assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, MADRAS\nvs\nMAHALAKSHMI TEXTILES MILLs LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 33 = 1975 SLD 33 = (1976) 34 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Filing of Returns\nConclusions:\n1.\nPenalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) are quasi-criminal, requiring the establishment of mens rea as an essential ingredient.\n2.\nThe burden of proof lies on the department to demonstrate that the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of the law or with conscious disregard for obligations.\n3.\nThe imposition of penalties is discretionary and must be exercised judicially, considering relevant circumstances.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(a).\n•\nCases:\no\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696.\no\nHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 29 of 1974, decision dated: 18-12-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): OBUL REDDI C.J. AND PUNNAYYA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Rao for the appellant. Y.V. Anjaneyulu and P.V. Raghavendra Rao for the respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNARAYANDAS RAMK ISHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 34 = 1975 SLD 34 = (1976) 34 TAX 199 = 1977 PTD 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prosecution and Jurisdiction in Tax Matters\nConclusions:\n1.\nQuestions of jurisdiction in cases of reassigned assessments or transfers between officers cannot be raised for the first time at the High Court.\n2.\nPenalty proceedings under Section 28(1) do not amount to prosecution or punishment and can run concurrently with criminal proceedings.\n3.\nOrders for prosecution signed by authorized officials of the Central Board of Revenue are considered legally authenticated.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 28(1), 51(2), and 52(4).\n•\nCases:\no\nState v. Muhammad Akbar (PLD 1962 Lah. 1).\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas (1958) 34 ITR 98.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51(2),52(4),54A(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1973, decision dated: 26-1-1976. dates of hearing : 20.22.23", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFTAB HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Zafar, Javed Hashmi and Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL RASHID [C/O Union Traders Gale Cloth, Lyallpur]\nvs\nSPECIAL JUDGE (CENTRAL), LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1335 = 2016 SLD 1335 = 2016 LHC 3352 = (2017) 115 TAX 128 = 2017 PTD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability and Tax Credit\nConclusions:\n1.\nCapacity Purchase Price (CPP) does not constitute a non-taxable supply as it is merely consideration for maintaining the power plant.\n2.\nSection 8(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, applies only when taxable and exempt supplies are made simultaneously; this is not the case here as CPP is not a supply.\n3.\nRule 13(3) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2007, merely excludes CPP from the value of taxable supplies (electricity) and does not render it a non-taxable supply.\n4.\nThe petitioner is entitled to reclaim input tax under Sections 7 and 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 7, 8(1), 8(2).\n•\nSales Tax Rules, 2006, Rules 13(3), 24, 25(1).\n•\nCase: W.P. No. 12851/2012, M/s Baba Farid Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Rules, 2006=24,25,25(1),25(3) Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007=13(3) Customs Act, 1969=25 Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(33),2(41),2(39),2(46),7,8(1),8(2),8(3),47(5) ", + "Case #": "Case No: S.T.R. No.115/2015, dates of hearing 31.10.2016", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner by Mr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt alongwith Asim Zulfiqar, Chartered Accountant, A.F. Ferguson & Co, Lahore.\nRespondents by: Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Advocate alongwith Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Commissioner(Legal), Inland Revenue for the respondents.", + "Party Name:": "M/s Pak Gen Power Ltd. \nVs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 35 = 1975 SLD 35 = (1976) 34 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction on Appellate Tribunal Orders\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe High Court cannot set aside the dismissal of a review application by the Appellate Tribunal to consider grounds not raised earlier.\n2.\nIssues relating to the omission to record findings on specific grounds by the Tribunal are better addressed through rectification or review mechanisms under taxation statutes.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of India, Article 226.\n•\nCase: Shivram Poddar v. ITO (1964) 51 ITR 823 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1539 of 1971, decision dated: 17-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): H.R. KHANNA, R.S. SARKARIA AND, JASWANT SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B.B. Ahuja and R.N. Sachthey, Advocates, for the appellants. A.T.M. Sampath and Ram Lal for the respondents", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, LUCKNOW\nvs\nS.B.SINGHAR SINGH & SONS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 36 = 1975 SLD 36 = (1976) 34 TAX 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Burden of Proof on Undisclosed Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe burden of proof for explaining cash credits lies on the assessee.\n2.\nRejection of the assessee’s explanation does not automatically imply that the amount is taxable unless it is proven with proper evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Sections 4, 13.\n•\nCases:\no\nCIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC).\no\nCIT v. Devi Prasad Khandelwal and Co. (1971) 81 ITR 460 (Bom).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 39 of 1965, decision dated: 31-7-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. M Hajarnavis with R. J. Joshi for the Commissioner. S. P. Mehta with V. H. Patil and N. P. Ghanekar for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL). BOMBAY\nvs\nMADHAVNAGAR COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 37 = 1975 SLD 37 = (1976) 34 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure Deductibility\nConclusions:\n1.\nExpenses incurred in defending disciplinary proceedings against auditors are not allowable as business expenditure since they are not wholly and exclusively laid out for business purposes.\n2.\nPayments authorized by Articles of Association do not automatically qualify as business expenditure.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(2)(xv).\n•\nCases:\no\nCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC).\no\nStrong & Co. of Romsey Limited v. Woodifield (1906) 5 TC 215 (HL).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 236 of 1968 (Reference No. 79 of 1968), decision dated: 28-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayamman for the Commissioner. S. V. Subramaniam for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nDECCAN SUGAR & ABKHARI CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 204 = 2013 SLD 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax and Default Liability\nConclusions:\n1.\nTaxpayer liability under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requires the identification of specific taxpayers and transactions liable for withholding tax.\n2.\nThe Tribunal declared the Taxation Officer’s action of holding the appellant as a defaulting taxpayer invalid as it lacked proper justification and evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 153, 161, 165.\n•\nCase: 2012 PTD 122 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,155,149,161,165 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.906/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2010), hearing DATE 25-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND MRS. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Kamran Khalil, Advocate Respondent by Syed Mahmood Jaffary, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Marwat Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., 7 Davis Road, Lahore. \nvs\nCIR., Zone-I, LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 205 = 2013 SLD 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Demand on Imports under Zero-Rating Regime\nConclusions:\n1.\nTax demand created at 4% by the department was invalid as the correct rate of 1% applied under the Zero-Rating Regime.\n2.\nThe taxation officer acted beyond jurisdiction, and the Tribunal annulled the demand based on proper goods declarations.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 162(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=162 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1484/LB/2012 (Tax year 2010) hearing DATE 07/03/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Naveed Farid, ITP. Respondent by Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. International Petrochemical (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore NTN 1410323 \nvs\nThe CIR, Zone-I, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 206 = 2013 SLD 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Procedural Compliance\nConclusions:\n1.\nAn assessment order passed without issuing a proper notice is invalid and unsustainable.\n2.\nThe Tribunal annulled the assessment order purely on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the case.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 114, 116, 122(9).\n•\nCase: 1981 PTD 210.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,116,122(9),122(5),111(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 508/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2007), hearing DATE 10/04/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Sohail Mutee Babri, ITP. Respondent by Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Asad Aziz, 24/2 Race Course Road, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR (Legal Division), RTO, Unit 03, Audit DivisioNI, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 207 = 2013 SLD 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Payment of Tax Demand and Penalty\nConclusions:\n1.\nTax Demand: The taxpayer's appeal was dismissed as the counsel failed to substantiate reasons for late deposit of the demanded tax. The CIR(A)'s order was upheld, citing no merit in the taxpayer's appeal.\n2.\nPenalty: The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal for penalty imposition under Sections 221 and 182, maintaining that findings of the CIR(A) were well-founded and not dislodged by the departmental representative.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 205(1), 122(5A), 207(f), 201(1), 221, 182.\n•\nCase: (1976) 33 Tax 288 (H.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=205,205(1),122(5A),207(f),201(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 168/LB/2011 (Tax year 2003), hearing DATE 11/01/2013, DATE of order 18/02/2013. I.T.A. No. 1675/LB/2011 (Tax year 2003)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Imran, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Nasir Ali Gillani, Advocate. Appellant by Mr. Nasir Ali Gilani, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Imran, D.R", + "Party Name:": "CIR, Zone-III, LTU, Lahore. & M/s. Shah Taj Sugar Mills, Ltd., Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Shah Taj Sugar Mills, Ltd., Lahore. & CIR, Zone-III, LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 208 = 2013 SLD 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Discrepancy in Tax on Turnover for Local and Export Sales\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Tribunal annulled the separate turnover tax charged on local and export sales, holding it contrary to established legal precedents.\n2.\nDifferentiation raised by CIR(A) was deemed irrelevant as the issue had been resolved in the taxpayer's favor in similar cases.\n3.\nMinimum tax under Section 113 was deemed improperly levied, and the appeal was accepted.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 113, 124, 129, 120(1), 122(5A), 169.\n•\nCases: 2009 PTD 1707, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 168.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,113,124,129,120(1),122(5A),169 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 212/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2005) NTN No. 1203586, hearing DATE 27/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. M. Iqbal Kh., Advocate. Respondent by Syed Mehmood-ul-Hassan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Hashir Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore. \nvs\nCIR, LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 209 = 2013 SLD 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax and Double Taxation Agreements\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe CIR(A)'s deletion of additions related to Destination Commission and Fixed Assets was remanded for adjudication with a detailed speaking order.\n2.\nAppeal grounds relating to remanded issues became infructuous due to subsequent departmental action.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 124, 161, 205(3), 129(1)(a), 128(5).\n•\nCases: 1993 SCMR 1523, 1992 PTD 932, PLD 1988 SC 398.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=124,161,205(3),129(1)(a),128(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 803/LB/2011 (Assessment Year 2005) NTN 0814545, hearing DATE 26.06.2013. DATE of order 22.08.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Asif Rasheed. D.R. Respondent by Mr. Attiq-ur-Rehman, ITP", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-I, LTU, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Expeditor International Pakistan Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 210 = 2013 SLD 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Assessment Orders\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal identified errors in assessment and rectification orders and vacated them for re-adjudication.\n2.\nDirected the taxpayer to provide full details and supporting documents for a reassessment by the taxation officer.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 120, 177, 221, 122(1)(5).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177,221,122(1)(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1443/LB/2012, DATE of order 30/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Nadeem Ahmad, ITP. Respondent by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Shah Kamal Chishti Cold Storage, Ferozpur Road, Village Maan, Kasur. \nvs\nCommissioner of Inland Revenue, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 211 = 2013 SLD 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appealability of Provisional Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Tribunal confirmed taxpayers' substantive rights to appeal against orders under Section 122(c), citing procedural flaws like non-issuance of Show-cause Notices.\n2.\nThe CIR(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on technical grounds was set aside, and the case was remanded for reevaluation on merits.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n\nSections 127, 122, 122(c), 114(4).\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973.\n\nArticles 189, 190.\n•\nCases: AIR 1960 (S.C.) 122, AIR 1962 (S.C.) 1553.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,122,122(c),114(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 37/KB/2011 (Tax Year 2009) Under Section 121(1)/122(c), hearing DATE 03.03.2001. DATE of order 26.03.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Haji Yusuf Rehmatullah, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Sayaddain Raza Zaidi, DR", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. Abida Asif Hashmi w/o Mumtaz Ali Hashmi, Karachi \nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue (AppeaLII), Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 212 = 2013 SLD 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax Applicability to Non-Profit Entities\nConclusions:\n1.\nMinimum tax under Section 113 was deemed inapplicable as the taxpayer was a non-profit entity engaged in education and exempt under Clause (92) of Part-I of the Second Schedule.\n2.\nThe Tribunal upheld the CIR(A)'s order, rejecting the department’s appeal.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 120(1), 177, 122(9), 113, 2(36).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),177,122(9),113,2(36) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 344/LB/2011 (Tax Year 2004), DATE of order 22.09.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND MR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Atif Bashir, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Qamar Rasheed, CA", + "Party Name:": "The Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Lahore Medical & Dental College Guarantee Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 213 = 2013 SLD 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Filing of Returns\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal found that the Taxation Officer imposed a penalty without considering reasonable explanations provided by the taxpayer.\n2.\nThe CIR(A)’s reduction of penalty was upheld, and the department’s appeal was dismissed.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 182(1), 114(4), 4(1).\n•\nCases: Finance Act, 2002 amendments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,182(1),114(4),4(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 675/KB/2010 (Tax Year 2008) Under Section 182(1) NTN: 0786600, hearing DATE 20.12.2011, DATE of order 23.12.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Tariq Mustafa, D.R. Respondent by Miss Lubna Pervez, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal Division) RTO, Hyderabad. \nvs\nM/s. United Refrigeration Industries, SITE, Hyderabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 214 = 2013 SLD 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Recovery Suspension\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Tribunal granted temporary suspension of recovery proceedings, directing CIR(A) to decide the appeal within 45 days.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSection 131.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1184/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2008) M.A. (Stay) No. 757/LB/2013, DATE of order 05.07.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Abdul Waheed, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Sadia Sadaf, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Khalid Noor, Misrishah, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR (Legal Division), RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 215 = 2013 SLD 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Tribunal allowed condonation of delay, acknowledging the taxpayer’s belief in pursuing remedies within the framework of law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 210, 127.\n•\nCases: Abdul Wahab v. CIR, 2006 PTD 476.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,210,66A,134 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Cond.) No. 06/KB/2011 (Assessment Year 1996-97), M.A. (Cond.) No. 07/KB/2011 (Assessment Year 1997-98) In I.T.A. Nos. 26 & 27/KB/2011, hearing DATE 05.01.2012, DATE of order 16.01.2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. M. Jawaid Khurram, Advocate. Respondent by Malik Waqas Nawaz, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd., Karachi. \nvs\nThe Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, Audit DivisioNII, LTU, Karachi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 216 = 2013 SLD 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Rectification Applications\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Tribunal dismissed the department’s application for recall or rectification, stating no error apparent on record.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 111(1)(b), 221.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 336/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009), hearing DATE 12/07/2013, DATE of order 15/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Tahir Mehmood Butt, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., ZonEVIII, RTO-II, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Sufi Soap & Chemicals Inds. (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 217 = 2013 SLD 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection Without Pre-Notice\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal rejected objections on audit selection procedures, focusing instead on substantive issues.\n2.\nAddition under Section 111(1) was annulled due to the assessing officer’s failure to substantiate claims.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 120, 177, 122(1), 122(5), 124, 111(1), 21(c).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177,122(1),122(5),124,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1081/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2006) NTN No.0786772-7, DATE of order 02/04/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Arshad, I.T.P. Respondent by Mr. Asif Rasheed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Prime Dairies Ltd., 38-Empress Road, Lahore. \nvs\nC.I.R. (Legal), L.T.U., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 218 = 2013 SLD 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Recall of Tribunal Orders\nConclusions:\n1.\nDepartment’s rectification application was dismissed as no apparent mistake was identified in the Tribunal's previous order.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 122(5A), 67, 221.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),67,221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 450/LB/2011 (Tax year 2004) in (I.T.A. No. 652/LB/2010), DATE of order 25.06.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Syed Mehmood Jaffary, D.R. Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "The CIR, LTU, Lahore \nvs\nM/s. J.D.W. Sugar Mills Limited, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 53 = 1979 SLD 53 = (1979) 40 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Hypothetical Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal held that income does not accrue under the mercantile system unless explicitly agreed upon by the Government.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 4, 10.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. Nos. 420(PB), 428 (PB),431 (PB) and 480 (PB) of 1977-78 (assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75), decision dated: 17-12-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sahibzada Muhammad Ari D. R., for the Appellant. Amir Alam Khan, C. A., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 54 = 1979 SLD 54 = (1979) 40 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Doubtful Debts\nConclusions:\n1.\nDebts not recoverable despite legal proceedings were allowed as deductions.\n2.\nPrematurely written-off debts were deemed inadmissible.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 10(2)(xi), 10(4)(d).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. Nos. 157 (KB) to 160 (KB) of 1978-79 Assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77, decision dated: 15-11-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Noorani, Advocate for the Appelllant and Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 55 = 1979 SLD 55 = (1979) 40 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income Across Jurisdictions\nConclusions:\n1.\nIncome arising in East Pakistan before its recognition as Bangladesh was deemed assessable under Pakistani tax laws for the relevant period.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 4, 10.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 758-KB) of 1975-76 (Assessment year 1972-73), decision dated: 10-1-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ghayyur, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 56 = 1979 SLD 56 = (1979) 40 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Income of Investment Company\nConclusions:\n1.\nDividend income earned by an investment company is assessable as business income under Section 10 and not as capital gains under Section 12B.\n2.\nAs per Section 2(4A), stock-in-trade is excluded from the definition of capital asset. Therefore, income derived from dividends does not constitute capital gains.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 2(4A), 10, 12B.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 802(KB) to 806(KB) of 1978-79 (Assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78), decision dated: 5-3-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Feroz Shah. D.R., for the Appellant. K. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 57 = 1979 SLD 57 = (1979) 40 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Appeals Decided by Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC)\nConclusions:\n1.\nAAC issued a notice to dismiss previously decided appeals as time-barred. However, such rectification was deemed beyond the jurisdiction of the AAC under Section 35, as no mistakes existed in the original decisions.\n2.\nDismissal of appeals for non-payment of fees without proper justification exceeded the AAC's authority.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 30, 31, 35.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,30,31,35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos 12211KB) to 1223(KB) of 1978-79 (Assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77), decision dated: 15-4-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A.A.M. Mohsin, Advocate for the Appellant. S.A. Khan, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 58 = 1979 SLD 58 = (1979) 40 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Double Taxation Avoidance\nConclusions:\n1.\nPayments made by the assessee-company to a non-resident company for technical services were not chargeable under Section 4(1)(c) since no services were rendered in Pakistan.\n2.\nLevy of additional tax under Section 18(7) was unjustified, as payments were covered under the Double Taxation Agreement between Pakistan and the USA.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 4(1)(c), 18(3)(B), 18(3)(7).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1)(c),18(3)(B)18(3)(7),43 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 654(KB) of 1976-77 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 14-1-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT, MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mohammad Ahmad, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 59 = 1979 SLD 59 = (1979) 40 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Admitted Liability and Appeal Filing\nConclusions:\n1.\nAppeals should be entertained if the tax paid before filing the appeal exceeds the admitted liability, even if not explicitly labeled as such.\n2.\nIf payment is made after filing the appeal, the appeal will be deemed filed on the payment date, and its timeliness must be verified.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 30(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,30(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 92 of 1978-79 (Assessment year 1974-75), decision dated: 29-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "K.G. Mahboob, I.T.P., for the Appellant. Aftab Ahmad, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 60 = 1979 SLD 60 = (1979) 40 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax for Non-Resident Shipping Companies\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe master of a non-resident shipping company's vessel was held liable for additional tax under Section 45A for delayed payment of tax demand.\n2.\nThe master acted as the representative taxpayer since the principal was not assessed through agents in Pakistan.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 44B, 45A.\n•\nCase: Taimur Shah v. Commissioner of Income Tax, PLD 1976 Kar 1030.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44,44B,45A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 494(KB) of 1977-78 (Assessment year 1976-77), decision dated: 29-7-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mino N. Bamjee & Co., C, As., for the Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 61 = 1979 SLD 61 = (1979) 40 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge on Company Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nSurcharge is leviable on a company's total income, including income reduced by income tax, super tax, and payable dividends, as per Finance Ordinance, 1977.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Finance Ordinance, 1977 (as amended by Finance Ordinance, 1978).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 723(KB) of 1978-79 (Assessment year 1977-78), decision dated: 27-2-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Feroze Shah, D.R., for the Appellant. A. R. Diwan, CA., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 5 = 1978 SLD 5 = (1979) 39 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Power of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner\nConclusions:\n1.\nAssessment orders merged with appellate orders are not subject to review by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 34A.\n2.\nRevisional powers are limited to unappealed and final orders of the Income Tax Officer.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 34A.\n•\nCases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala, 23 ITR 412.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 4095, 4096 and 4097 of 1977-78 (Assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77), decision dated: 16-7-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT, S. G. YAZDANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Raza Naqvi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Aftab Ahmad, D.R., for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 6 = 1978 SLD 6 = (1979) 39 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Government-Supported Private Limited Companies\nConclusions:\n1.\nA private limited company operating independently with government support is a taxable entity and not exempt from income tax.\n2.\nSuch companies are considered commercial organizations with profit-earning objectives.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 2(5A), 2(9), 4(3).\n•\nCases: West Pakistan Road Transport Board v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 29 Taxation 53.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(5A),2(9),4(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 597(KB) of 1977-78 (Assessment year 1974-75), decision dated: 20-8-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT, M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ameer-ud-Din Ansari for the Appellant. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 7 = 1978 SLD 7 = (1979) 39 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation and Capital Gains\nConclusions:\n1.\nCompensation received for loss of insured assets (e.g., a ship) does not equate to the sale, transfer, or exchange of capital assets and is not liable for capital gains tax.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 12B.\n•\nCases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation, 68 ITR 240.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 88 (KB) of 1977-78, decision dated: 25-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. I. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Tanauli, I.T.P. for the Appellant. S.M. Sibtain, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 8 = 1978 SLD 8 = (1979) 39 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss from Investment Activities\nConclusions:\n1.\nLosses incurred by an investment holding company from changes in investments are revenue losses deductible against other income under Section 24(1).\n2.\nGains or losses from regular dealings in stock or shares are considered business income.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 2(4A), 10, 24(1), 24(2A).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4/1),4(I),10,24(1),24(2A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1664 of 1975-76 decided on 29-1-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir, for the Appellant. Ali Raza Masood, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 9 = 1978 SLD 9 = (1979) 39 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex-Parte Assessments and Penalties\nConclusions:\n1.\nEx-parte assessments made without proper service of statutory notices are liable to be canceled, not set aside.\n2.\nPenalties imposed on tax demands that are not legally exigible are unsustainable.\n3.\nValue of perquisites to directors not receiving salaries is not taxable.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 31(6)(a), 46(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=31,31(6)(a),(11) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 3906 to 3912 of 1977-78 (Assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75), decision dated: 31-1-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javaid Hashmi, Advocate and A. Rahman Mir, C.A., for the Appellant. Aftab Ahmad. D.R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 10 = 1978 SLD 10 = (1979) 39 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Undisclosed Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nCompanies declaring undisclosed income should have assessments based on returns with specific disallowed expenses added back.\n2.\nCentral Board of Revenue's rules amplifying the term income charged to tax under the Fifth Schedule are valid and not ultra vires.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 3C and Fifth Schedule.\n•\nCases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., 34 Taxation 122.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,3C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 282(KB) and 297(KB) of 1977-78 (Assessment year 1974-75), decision dated: 10-9-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Sibtain, D.R. for the Department. I.N. Pasha, Advocate for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 11 = 1978 SLD 11 = (1979) 39 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Dismissed Due to Non-Prosecution by Departmental Representative\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe departmental appeal was listed for hearing but dismissed due to the Departmental Representative's inability to conduct the case.\n2.\nThe Representative lacked access to records and briefs from the department, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution and lack of interest.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 33.\n•\nCase Referred: (1978) 37 Taxation 3 (Trib).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1159 (KB) of 1975-76 (Assessment year 1972-73), decision dated: 24-4-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha Advocate and A. A. Gangat, C. A. for the Appellant. G. R. Ghayyur, D. R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 12 = 1978 SLD 12 = (1979) 39 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure Exceeding Management Expense Limits\nConclusion:\n1.\nManagement expenses exceeding the statutory limit under Rule 40 of the Insurance Act, 1938, are allowable as business expenditure if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\n2.\nAn assessing officer cannot disregard legal positions affirmed by higher authorities, even if appealed to the Supreme Court.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 10(2)(xvi), 33(6).\n•\nCases Relied Upon:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Crescent Star Insurance Co. Ltd. (1974) 30 Taxation III.\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. New India Assurance Co., Karachi (1978) 37 Taxation 273.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi),33(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 405 (KB) to 407 (KB) and 549 (KB) to 551 (KB) of 1976-77 (Assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75), decision dated: 26-4-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rustamjee, F.C.A., for the Assessee. S. A. Khan, D.R., for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 13 = 1978 SLD 13 = (1979) 39 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Appellate Order Lacking Reasoning\nConclusion:\n1.\nSummary appellate orders dismissing arguments without valid reasons are arbitrary, lack legal authority, and hold no consequence.\n2.\nOrders stating, There is no force in the arguments without substantive reasoning violate principles of natural justice.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 30, 31.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nAbdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3 (PLD 1975 Lahore 44).\no\nMolla Ejahar Ali v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 173).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,31 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 667 (KB), to 669 (KB) of 1976-77 (Assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74), decision dated: 5-8-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sidat Hyder Aslam and Co., C. As., for the Appellant. Nemo, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 14 = 1978 SLD 14 = (1979) 39 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Repairs, Depreciation, and Deferred Expenditures\nConclusion:\n1.\nExpenses for furniture and fixtures post-fire were capital expenditure, eligible for depreciation.\n2.\nExpenditure for building repairs and projector parts qualified as current repairs, allowable as deductions.\n3.\nElectric fittings were deferred revenue expenditures, amortizable over the tenancy period.\n4.\nMachinery acquired on a hire purchase agreement was considered owned by the assessee for depreciation purposes.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 10(2)(ii), (v), (vi).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Gulistan Cinema Co. (1968) 17 Taxation 209.\no\nShewram Das Agarwala (PLD 1961 SC 321).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(ii),(v),(vi) ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 967(KB) of 1976-77 (Assessment year 1974-75), decision dated: 7-1-1979", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafizur Rahman Kardar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Feroz Shah, D. R. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 15 = 1978 SLD 15 = (1979) 39 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowability of Business Expenses and Speculative Loss\nConclusion:\n1.\nAppeals were entertained despite delays in filing, as admitted liability was paid before the hearing.\n2.\nHedging losses without delivery were treated as speculative losses.\n3.\nVerified business expenditures and repair claims based on past records were justified.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 22A, 30, 31, 10(2)(xvi), (xi), (v).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\n(1961) 4 Taxation 51.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22A,30,31 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 262 and 397 of 1978-79 (Assessment year 1976-77), decision dated: 7-11 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehman Mir, C.A. and M.H. Khokhar, I.T.P., for the Assessee. Aftab Ahmad, D.R., for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 16 = 1978 SLD 16 = (1979) 39 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Opportunity of Hearing Before Assessment\nConclusion:\n1.\nWhen dissatisfied with returns, assessing officers must issue notices under Section 23(2) for hearings before making assessments under Section 23(3) or 23(4).\n2.\nSummary assessments cannot include additions to the returned version without prior notice and hearing.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 23(1), 23(3), 23(4).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nChief Commissioner of Karachi v. Din Sohran Katrak (PLD 1959 SC 45).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(1),23(3),23(4) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 78 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 230 of 1974), decision dated: 23-10-1978, hearing DATE : 4-7-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Siraj-ad-Din Khalid, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MIAN AZIZ AHMAD, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 17 = 1978 SLD 17 = (1979) 39 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Power to Reframe Reference Questions\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe High Court can reframe reference questions to address the real issue without altering the substance.\n2.\nTribunal's disallowance of salary to a relative was unwarranted without material evidence.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 66(1).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nAbdul Ghani & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (PLD 1962 Kar 635).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1),10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 58 of 1973 (P.T.R. No. 51 of 1973), decision dated: 23-10-1978, hearing DATE : 21-6-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KASHMIR CAP HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 18 = 1978 SLD 18 = (1979) 39 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Tribunal’s Decision to High Court Reference\nConclusion:\n1.\nQuestions not raised before the Tribunal cannot be made subject to a High Court reference.\n2.\nTribunal's setting aside of assessments for reinvestigation cannot be misconstrued as decisions against the assessee.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 66(1).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 76 of 1973 (P.T.R. No. 364 of 192), decision dated: 23-10-1978, hearing DATE : 10-6-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MODerN SILK MILLS LTD.LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 19 = 1978 SLD 19 = (1979) 39 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Termination of Agency\nConclusion:\n1.\nCompensation for the loss of a capital asset (sole-selling agency) is treated as a capital receipt.\n2.\nAccepting a dealership under exclusive terms implied an agreement not to compete with the principal, reinforcing its classification as capital receipt.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 10.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nKettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1964) 53 ITR 271.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 4 of 1970, decision dated: 3-5-1978, hearing DATE : 18th January 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND ZAFFAR. HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan, for the Petitioner. G. M. Qureshi, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST) KARACHI\nvs\nFORBES CAMPBELL & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 145 = 2011 SLD 145 = (2011) 103 TAX 363 = 2011 PTD 748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Taxation Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal held that the Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction as the notice and assessment were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue, whose authority under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, was not validly extended through amendments to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n2.\nSection 2(38A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, inserted via the Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, expired without Parliamentary approval, making subsequent orders void.\n3.\nLevying workers' welfare funds through rectification was declared null and void.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\no\nSections 221, 2(38A), 2(65).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,2(38A) ", + "Case #": "MA(R) No.142/IB of 2010, decision dated: 11-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Suleman, ITP. Ziaullah Khan, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GOOD LUCK TRADING COMPANY, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nCIR, RTO, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 20 = 1978 SLD 20 = (1979) 39 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income of Minor Children in Partnership Firms\nConclusion:\n1.\nShare of profits earned by minor children admitted to the benefits of a partnership is includible in the total income of the parent under Section 16(3).\n2.\nAfter the amendment via the Finance Act, 1965, the expressions any individual, such individual, and spouse were clarified to ensure comprehensive inclusion under income aggregation provisions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 16(3)(a), (i), (ii).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Khatja Begum (1965) 12 Taxation 95 (SC).\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Mst. Fatima Bibi (1968) 17 Taxation 115.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a),(i),(ii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 85 of 1972, decision dated: 9-11-1977, hearing DATE : 30-10-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RAHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Shahid Siddiqui for the Petitioner A. Haq for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RASHID AKHTAR AND SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 21 = 1978 SLD 21 = (1979) 39 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Genuineness of a Firm and Registration\nConclusion:\n1.\nA firm not found genuine based on the facts of the case cannot raise a question of law for refusing registration.\n2.\nThe opportunity of hearing was not considered a valid contention as it was neither requested nor supported by material evidence.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 25A, 66.\no\nIncome Tax Rules: Rules 5, 7.\n•\nCase Distinguished:\no\nRivoli Theatres, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1975) 31 Taxation 55 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25,25A,66 ", + "Case #": "I T.R. No. 31 of 1977, decision dated: 13-12-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RAHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "BAHREEN FOUNDRY AND WORKSHOP, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 22 = 1978 SLD 22 = (1979) 39 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Partnership as a Question of Fact\nConclusion:\n1.\nWhether the assessee carried on business jointly was deemed a pre-eminent question of fact, not law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 66.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 31 of 1967, decision dated: 5-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq for the Appellant. Muhammad Amin Butt for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax APPELLATE TQIBUNAL\nvs\nPIR FAIZ RASUL, GUJRAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 23 = 1978 SLD 23 = (1979) 39 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of a Partnership Firm Comprising a Firm and Individuals\nConclusion:\n1.\nA partnership deed signed by all individual partners of a firm clearly specifying shares is valid and entitled to registration under Section 26A.\n2.\nA partnership can include another firm as long as individual partners are identified, and their shares are explicitly mentioned.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 26A.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nChhotalal Devchand v. CIT (1955) 34 ITR 351 (Bom).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 75 of 1976, decision dated: 12-7-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with VJ. Pandit instructed by KB. Shastri (Attorney) for the Commissioner. V.H, Patil JP. Pandit and SJ. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNEW LIFE CONSTRUCTION CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 24 = 1978 SLD 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision and Waiver of Penal Interest\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise an order rejecting the waiver of penal interest under Section 18A(6).\n2.\nLimitation for revision begins from the date of the order rejecting waiver, not from the date of assessment.\n3.\nAppeals against non-appealable orders (e.g., waiver of penal interest) do not bar revisions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 18A(6), 33A(2), 35.\no\nIncome Tax Rules: Rule 40.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nPt. Deo Sharma v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 226 (All.).\no\nS. A. L. Narayan Rao v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas (1965) 57 ITR 149 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(6),33A(2),35 ", + "Case #": "Civil Misc. Writ No. 2293 of 1972, decision dated: 16-2-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.L. GULATI AND C.S.P. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "SETH BANARSI DAS GUPTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 25 = 1978 SLD 25 = (1979) 39 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consumption Ratio and Tribunal’s Findings\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal failed to justify its findings on coal consumption ratios in ceramic production, despite conflicting evidence in records.\n2.\nHigh Court remanded the case to the Tribunal with directions to reassess consumption ratios based on historical data (60%-65%) and expert recommendations (50%-60%).\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSection 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,256(2) ", + "Case #": "Spl. Jurisdiction Case No. 149 of 1973, decision dated: 30-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND N. K. DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Pasayat for the Assessee. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ORISSA CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 26 = 1978 SLD 26 = (1979) 39 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consumption Ratio and Tribunal’s Findings\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal failed to justify its findings on coal consumption ratios in ceramic production, despite conflicting evidence in records.\n2.\nHigh Court remanded the case to the Tribunal with directions to reassess consumption ratios based on historical data (60%-65%) and expert recommendations (50%-60%).\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSection 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254 ", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 1399 (W) of 1973, decision dated: 12-8-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Present. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J\nSanjoy Batlacharya for the Petitioner. Nanda Lal Pal and Sailendra Nath Datta for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "R. L. RAJGHARIA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICFR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 27 = 1978 SLD 27 = (1979) 39 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Penalty Imposed by Transferred Officer\nConclusion:\n1.\nTransfer of an Income Tax Officer (ITO) does not require an additional order by the Commissioner for validity.\n2.\nPenalty imposed by the transferred ITO under the Central Board of Revenue’s direction was upheld.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 5(5), 5(6), 5(7C), 5(7D), 45(1).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=5,5(5),5(6),5(7C),5(7D),45(I) ", + "Case #": "T. R. No. 4 of 1973 (P. T. R. No, 340 of 1972),decided on 25-2-1978, hearing DATE : 12-2-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javaid Hashmi, for the Appellant. Sh. Abdul Hag, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CORWN BUS SERVICE LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 28 = 1978 SLD 28 = (1979) 39 TAX 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Reduction of Market Value\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal’s decision to reduce market value under the Gift Tax Act was based on facts and did not involve a question of law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Gift Tax Act, 1963.\no\nSection 27.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=27 ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 110 of 1971 (P.C.R. No. 143 of 1971), Decided: on 4-3-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAMEEM HUSSAIN QADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Lone for the Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CQMMKSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nNOMAN JAN ERKIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 29 = 1978 SLD 29 = (1979) 39 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Allowance in Mercantile Accounting\nConclusion:\n1.\nLosses should be allowed in the year liability accrues, even if quantification occurs later.\n2.\nHigh Court upheld the Tribunal’s substitution of the final quantified loss for the initial estimate in the relevant assessment year.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 10.\n•\nCase Relied On:\no\nCalcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 231 of 1966, decision dated: 12-2-1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.S. PATHAK AND H.N. SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Gupta and Dr. R.R. Misra, for the Commissioner. Gopal Behari, for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P\nvs\nBURHWAL SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 30 = 1978 SLD 30 = (1979) 39 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Mistakes Apparent from the Record\nConclusion:\n1.\nWaiver of penal interest under Section 18A involves discretion and does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.\n2.\nRetrospective amendments do not automatically justify rectifications for past decisions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 18A, 35.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nS. A. L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas [1965] 57 ITR 149 (SC).\no\nVenkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A,35 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Nos. 276 and 277 of 1969, decision dated: 20-5-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.C DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sen with Ajay Miner for the Commissioner. K. Ray with A. K. Roychowdhury for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALI\nvs\nGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 31 = 1978 SLD 31 = (1979) 39 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Power to Remand Cases\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal has the authority to remand cases for fresh consideration without limiting the scope of inquiry.\n2.\nRemanding a case to lower authorities benefits the department and does not warrant grievance.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSection 256(1).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,256(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 73 1971, decision dated: 4-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambram, for the Commissioner. T. Srinivasamoorthi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS-II\nvs\nRANE (MADRAS) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 32 = 1978 SLD 32 = (1979) 39 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Additional Income\nConclusion:\n1.\nTribunal found contracts by the managing agent to be non-genuine but did not attribute additional income to the assessee.\n2.\nRejection of accounts under the proviso to Section 13 and additional income were held unjustified.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 13 (proviso).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 15 of 1975, decision dated: 1-7-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C.J. AND TULZIPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit, for the Commissioner. None appeared for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I\nvs\nINDIA UNITED MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 33 = 1978 SLD 33 = (1979) 39 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Component of Partners’ Salary and Interest\nConclusion:\n1.\nOnly 40% of salaries and interest paid to partners in a tea estate firm, corresponding to taxable income, is includible in their income share for tax purposes.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSections 40(b), 67(1).\n•\nCase Followed:\no\nCIT v. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40,40(b),67(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Nos. 1 and 19 of 1973, decision dated: 3-1-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. SADANANDASWAMY, BAHARUL ISLAM AND D. PATHAK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. K Talukdar and D. K. Talukdar, for the Commissioner. K. C, Bezbaruah, R. P. Agarwalla and R. L. Jain, for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COWINIISSIONER OF INCONIE TAX, ASSAM AND OTHERS\nvs\nAIVISOI TEA ESTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 34 = 1978 SLD 34 = (1979) 39 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty under New Act for Defaults under Old Act\nConclusion:\n1.\nPenalty under the new Income Tax Act, 1961, for defaults committed under the old Act, is valid due to the provisions of Section 297(2)(g).\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSections 271(1)(c), 297(2)(g).\n•\nCase Followed:\no\nJain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(I)(c),297(2)(g) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 263 of 1970 (Reference No. 51 of 1970), decision dated: 17-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASWAMI AND V. SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman for the Commissioner. T. S. Ramu for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS-II\nvs\nV.G. PANNEERDAS & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 35 = 1978 SLD 35 = (1979) 39 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Annuities and Wealth Tax Exemption\nConclusion:\n1.\nAnnuities precluding commutation into a lump sum are excluded from the definition of assets under Section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.\n2.\nThe annuity granted in exchange for a mortgage debt satisfied this condition and was held exempt.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957.\no\nSection 2(e)(iv).\n•\nCase Referred:\no\nCWT v. Dr. E.D. Anklesaria [1964] 53 ITR 393 (Guj).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=2,2(e)(iv) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 20 of 1966, decision dated: 6-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA, C.J. AND TULZIPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit instructed by K B. Shastri (attorney) for the Commissioner. I. M. Munim with S. P. Mehta instructed by M/S. Matubhai Jamiet ram and Munim (attorneys) for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I\nvs\nEHALCHAMORA D. JOKHAKAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 36 = 1978 SLD 36 = (1979) 39 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Commission as Business Expenditure\nConclusion:\n1.\nCommission paid to an agent who assumes responsibility for customer payments cannot be disallowed unless found excessive or paid on extra-commercial considerations.\n2.\nTribunal's disallowance of commission was overturned as it was tied to valid business responsibilities.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 10(2)(xv).\n•\nCases Applied:\no\nAluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC).\no\nCIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 210 of 1973, decision dated: 18-6-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Debi Pal with R. Murarka for the Assessee. S. C. Sen with Ajit Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "J. K. STEEL AND INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 37 = 1978 SLD 37 = (1979) 39 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Minor’s Income in Father’s Total Income\nConclusion:\n1.\nInterest on capital contributed by minors admitted to the benefits of a partnership is included in the father’s income under Section 16(3)(a)(ii).\n2.\nInterest on accumulated profits retained by the firm is not includible.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 16(3)(a)(ii).\n•\nCase Applied:\no\nS. Srinivasan v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 273 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16,16(3)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 27 of 1967 and 215 of 1971, decision dated: 1-12-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S TULZAPURKAR AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. S. E. Dastur instructed by M/S. Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Caroe (Attorneys) for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-II\nvs\nCHANDAMAL KASTURCHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 38 = 1978 SLD 38 = (1979) 39 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Fictitious Sales\nConclusion:\n1.\nAccounts were rejected under the first proviso to Section 13 as sales were found fictitious and purchasers were unverifiable.\n2.\nAdditions to income were upheld as they were based on substantive evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 13 (first proviso).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nSultan Textile Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 22 Taxation 163.\no\nRajput Metal Works Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 33 Taxation 1.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 67 of 1969, decision dated: 25 -7-1978. dates of hearing : 24th April and 3rd May 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Haider Ali Pirzada,/Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "IBRAHIM SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI WEST KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 39 = 1978 SLD 39 = (1979) 39 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reconstitution of Firms and Registration\nConclusion:\n1.\nWhen a firm is reconstituted without dissolution, it remains the same legal entity and qualifies for continued registration under Section 26A.\n2.\nIncome Tax Officers cannot challenge the Registrar of Firms’ certification of reconstitution.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 26A(5).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A(5) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 297 of 1972 (P.T.R. No. 255 of 1972), decision dated: 31-5-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Lone, for the Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt with A. H. Najafi, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nHAJI MUKHTAR AND COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 40 = 1978 SLD 40 = (1979) 39 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change of Previous Year and Tax Levy\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessing Officers cannot impose additional conditions, such as tax computation based on notional income for 12 months, when approving changes to the previous year.\n2.\nSuch actions lack legal sanction.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 2(11)(i)(a), 3, 4, 6, 10.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(11)(i)(a),3,4,6,10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 3 of 1970, decision dated: 06-06-1978. dates of hearing: 05-06-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Applicant. Nemo, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CQMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNISHAT CINEMA, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 41 = 1978 SLD 41 = (1979) 39 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Tax Matters\nConclusion:\n1.\nCriminal proceedings for concealment of income or false returns must be quashed if the foundational assessment order is set aside by the Tribunal as speculative or unfounded.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 51(2), 52, 52A, 53A.\n•\nCases Relied On:\no\nZafar Ahmad Khan v. State (1975) Pak. Cr. L. J. 1300.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52,52A,53A ", + "Case #": "Cr. Misc. Application No. 943 of 1978, decision dated: 21-10-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Z.A. CHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nafis-ud-Din for the Applicants. S. Ansar Hussain No. 1. Muzaffar Hussain Shah,s Nos. 3 to 5. Ghulam Ali H. Agha for the State", + "Party Name:": "MIAN MOHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE IV KARACHI AND FOUR OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 42 = 1978 SLD 42 = (1979) 39 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Grouping of Company and Tax Assessment\nConclusion:\n1.\nA High Court order approving the splitting of a company under the Companies Act, 1913, is not binding on the Income Tax Officer for assessment purposes.\n2.\nThe company continued as a single legal entity for tax purposes.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 10.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nHigh Court’s approval under Section 153(2) of the Companies Act, 1913.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,153(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 633 of 1969, decision dated: 26-6-1978. dates of hearing : 25-6-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFTAB HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. M. Khalid for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Sh. Riazul Haq and Zia Mohammad Mirza for the Government of Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "HAIDERIA TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Income Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 43 = 1978 SLD 43 = (1979) 39 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Jurisdiction in Appeals\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the grounds raised in the appeal.\n2.\nIf the Commissioner has not filed an appeal or cross-objections, the Tribunal cannot pass orders to enlarge the scope of the appeal to the detriment of the assessee.\n3.\nIn this case, the Tribunal’s remand order to re-examine securities held by the co-operative bank and potentially increase tax liability was unjustified.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 33(4).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nAssam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(1978) 112 ITR 87 (Gau)].\no\nCIT v. Chenniappa Mudaliar [(1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC)].", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,33(4) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 33 of 1974, decision dated: 18-08-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M, C. PATHAK, C.L AND D. PATHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. Roy and N. Sarma for the Assessee. G. K. Talukdar and D. K. Talukdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 44 = 1978 SLD 44 = (1979) 39 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Collaboration Agreements\nConclusion:\n1.\nPayments for technical know-how under a short-term licensing agreement (five years) are treated as revenue expenditure if the know-how use is limited to the agreement period.\n2.\nThe High Court held that the payment was not capital expenditure and was deductible as a business expense.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSection 10(2)(xv).\n•\nCase Referred:\no\nCIT v. CIBA of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 230 of 1972 (Reference No. 43 of 1972), decision dated: 11-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K, Ramgopal for the Assessee. J, Jayaraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TIMEAIDS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRASJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 45 = 1978 SLD 45 = (1979) 39 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Order and Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\n1.\nTribunal findings based on materials available at the time are final unless it is proven that relevant materials were considered behind the appellant's back.\n2.\nRejection of accounts and assessment based on net profit rates without allowing for specific expenses and depreciation violates Section 10.\n3.\nThe Tribunal’s application of a flat profit rate without specific reasoning was held improper.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 10(2), 13, 23.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nAllahabad Glass Works v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 439.\no\nNoor Muhammad Muhammad Saeed v. CIT, Lahore (1976) 33 Taxation 243.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 122 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 179 of 1974), decision dated: 15-11-1978, hearing DATE : 5-7-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Javaid Hashmi, Advocate for the Applicant. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M, S. HAMEED MASOOD AND ASSOCIATES, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 46 = 1978 SLD 46 = (1979) 39 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebate and Commissioner's Duty\nConclusion:\n1.\nRejection of an export rebate claim without independent consideration is invalid.\n2.\nThe High Court remanded the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Finance Act, 1963.\no\nSection 8.\n•\nRelevant Constitutional Provision: Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1963=8 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 443 of 1974, decision dated: 29-6-1976. dates of hearing: 4-5-1976, 11-5-1976, 9-6-1976, 16-6-1976 and 2-9-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AFTAB HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Abbas Mirza (with F. H. Lohani Chief Accountant) for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MODerN TENTAGE INDUSTRIES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 47 = 1978 SLD 47 = (1979) 39 TAX 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Profits Tax Act and Limitation\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessment notices issued beyond the statutory time limit under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, as read with the Business Profits Tax Act, are invalid.\n2.\nProvisions of Section 34(2B) and (2D) do not extend the limitation period under the Business Profits Tax Act.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Business Profits Tax Act, 1947.\no\nSections 4, 12(1), 19.\n•\nCase Referred:\no\nKohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1974) PTD 239.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,4,12(1),19 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 13 of 1978, decision dated: 26-8-1978, hearing DATE : 9-8-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMUD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the Applicant. Ali Athar for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (EAST)\nvs\nMUHAMMAD IBRAHIM & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 48 = 1978 SLD 48 = (1979) 39 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Income and Assessment Methods\nConclusion:\n1.\nAdditions to income without evidence that transactions were sham or non-bona fide are unsustainable.\n2.\nUsing an average purchase price for all transactions, regardless of quality or market fluctuations, is unscientific and invalid.\n3.\nThe Tribunal erred in disallowing expenses based on unsound methodology.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\no\nSections 10(2), 23.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nCIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC).\no\nSri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 952 (Mad).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 153 of 1974, decision dated: 16-2-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND P.D. DESAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. P. Shah for the Assessee. K. H. Kaji with R.P. Bhatt of M/s. R.P. Bhatt & Co. (Solicitors) for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MARGHABHAI KISHNABHAI PATEL & CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 49 = 1978 SLD 49 = (1979) 39 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Gift Through Book Entries\nConclusion:\n1.\nA valid gift can be effectuated through book entries if the donor's intent and the donee's acceptance are clear and acted upon.\n2.\nCrediting the amount to the son’s account and allowing him sole control constituted a valid gift.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: General principles of gift under Income Tax Act.\n•\nCase Followed:\no\nChimanbhai Lalbhai v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 259.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nPaliram Mathuradas v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 278.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 85 of 1965, decision dated: 29-11-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): VIMADALAL AND S.K. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "RJ. Joshi for the Commissioner. V.J. Pandit for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-II\nvs\nPOPATLAL MULJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 50 = 1978 SLD 50 = (1979) 39 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Burden of Proof in Cash Credits\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal concluded that the initial burden to prove the genuineness of cash credits was discharged by the assessee through evidence such as confirmation letters and discharged hundi papers.\n2.\nThe Tribunal’s decision was based on factual assessment, and no question of law arose for reference to the High Court.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSection 256.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Jurisdiction Case Nos. 83 and 84 of 1972, decision dated: 31-10-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.N. MISRA AND K.B. PANDA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner B. K. Mohanty for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER .OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA\nvs\nDEO NARAYANLAL JAGDISHLAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 51 = 1978 SLD 51 = (1979) 39 TAX 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Consideration of Unnecessary Contentions in Appeals\nConclusion:\n1.\nIf a contention is unnecessary for the disposal of an appeal and the appeal is resolved based on other material, failure to consider such a contention does not give rise to a question of law.\n2.\nThe Tribunal upheld the order based on prior profit margins without addressing the procedural contention raised by the assessee.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSection 256.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nCIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Case No. 100 of 1974, decision dated: 8-6-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. GOVINDAN NAIR, C.J. AND K. BHASKARAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nagendran, N. N. D. Pillai and K. Anandavalli for the Assessee. P. A. Francis and P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "C. V. MATHUKUTTY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 52 = 1978 SLD 52 = (1979) 39 TAX 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Current Repairs\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe replacement of a petrol engine with a diesel engine in a truck used for business was considered a deductible business expense.\n2.\nThe expenditure was for maintaining and preserving an existing asset rather than creating a new one.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nSections 31, 37.\n•\nCase Followed:\no\nHanuman Motor Service v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 88 (Mys).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=31,37 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1973, decision dated: 5-9-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B., J. DIVAN, C.J. AND B. K. MEHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. H. Kaji with R. P. Bhatt of M/s. Bhaishanker Kanga & Girdharlal for the Addl. Commissioner. K. C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT\nvs\nDESAI BROS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 53 = 1978 SLD 53 = (1979) 39 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift Tax on Retained Life Interest\nConclusion:\n1.\nA gift where the donor retains a life interest is not a transfer in futuro but in praesenti, and it is liable for gift tax.\n2.\nThe transfer of property rights to the donee while reserving life interest does not negate the validity of the gift.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Gift Tax Act, 1958.\no\nSections 2(xii), 2(xxii), 2(xxiv).\n•\nCase Applied:\no\nLallu Singh v. Gur Narain [1922] AIR 1922 All 467 (FB).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,4,12(1),19 ", + "Case #": "Gift Tax Case No. 1 of 1971, decision dated: 3-12-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. AND PUNNAYYA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "W.V. V. Sundara Rao, for the Applicant. P. Rama Rao, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PANDAH SATTI RAJ U AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, A. P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 54 = 1978 SLD 54 = (1979) 39 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Gifts for Education\nConclusion:\n1.\nIncome derived from gifted properties during the donees' education period is irrelevant for determining gift tax exemptions.\n2.\nGift tax exemptions are calculated based on the corpus of the gifted property.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Gift Tax Act, 1958.\no\nSections 2(xii), 5(1)(xii), 6.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,2(xii),5(I)(xii),6 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 42 of 1975, decision dated: 17-3-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. P. GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, ACTG. C.J. AND T. CHANDRASHEKHARA MENON, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. A. Francis and P. K. R, Menon, for the Commissioner. P. C. Chacko and P. Krishnamoorthy, for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, KERALA-I\nvs\nP. V. JOHN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 55 = 1978 SLD 55 = (1979) 39 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Exemption under Wealth Tax\nConclusion:\n1.\nTrusts with purposes that include spending income outside taxable territories are not eligible for exemption under the Wealth Tax Act unless the decision to confine spending to taxable territories is irrevocable.\n2.\nThe trustees’ discretionary decision not to spend income outside taxable territories does not meet the statutory exemption requirements.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957.\no\nSection 5(1)(i).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nNizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5,5(1)(i) ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 18 of 1974, decision dated: 15-4-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHINNAPPA REDDY AND, JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Rao for the Commissioner. Y. V. Anjaneyulu and V. V. Subba Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, A. P\nvs\nTRUSTEES OF H. E. H. THE NIZAMS RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 56 = 1978 SLD 56 = (1979) 39 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Immovable Property by Partner to Partnership Firm\nConclusion:\n1.\nA partner can transfer immovable property to the firm’s stock or capital without requiring a registered deed.\n2.\nOnce the property becomes partnership property, it is not assessable in the hands of the partner as an individual.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLaw: Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957; Partnership Act, 1932.\no\nSection 14 (Partnership Act).\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nCIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 211 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=27 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 700 of 1973, decision dated: 8-4-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.M. CHANDRASHEKHAR AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. K. Gulati, S. Kumar and J. C. Pandey for the Assessee. Deokinandan and Ashok Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K.D. PANDEY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LUCKNOW" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 57 = 1978 SLD 57 = (1979) 39 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nWealth Tax Act, 1957 – Reassessment under Section 17(1)(b).\n•\nDetails:\nThe assessee was a trust whose net wealth was initially assessed under the belief that the entire corpus belonged to the sole beneficiary. A succeeding Wealth Tax Officer examined the trust deed and discovered that the beneficiary was entitled to only 50% of the corpus. A reassessment notice under Section 17(1)(b) was issued based on this oversight, claiming that it constituted information under the Act. The Tribunal initially invalidated the notice, stating no new information was brought to light.\n•\nHeld:\nThe oversight by the previous officer constituted information as defined in Section 17(1)(b), which includes errors or omissions apparent on the record. The reassessment was valid because the prior officer had not applied their mind to the trust deed's terms. The information here did not reflect a change in opinion but a rectification of a mistake.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAnandji Haridas & Co. v. Kushare [1968] 21 STC 326: AIR 1968 SC 565.\no\nMaharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC).\no\nKalyani Mavji & Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=17,17(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 1 of 1974, decision dated: 6-4-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. AND M.P. THAKKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G.N. Desai with R.P. Bhatt of M/s. R.P. Bhatt & Co. (Solicitors) for the Commissioner. J.M. Thakore (Advocate-General) with B.R, Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARAT-III\nvs\nSmt. ARUNDHATI BALKRISHNA TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 38 = 1975 SLD 38 = (1976) 34 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 18A(8) and 35 – Rectification of Mistake and Additional Tax.\n•\nDetails:\nThe Income Tax Officer failed to levy additional tax as required under Section 18A(8) during the initial assessment. Recognizing this as a mistake apparent on the record, the officer rectified it under Section 35. However, the rectification order was passed without giving the assessee a chance to be heard, leading to a dispute about its validity.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe rectification of the error under Section 35 was valid because it dealt with an apparent mistake.\no\nThe omission to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard rendered the rectification order unsustainable as it constituted an enhancement of assessment, necessitating prior notice under Section 35.\n•\nCitations:\no\nM. Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 54 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A(8),35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No, 3107(KB) and 3108 (KB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71), decision dated: 2-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.Z. FARRUKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I.N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Miss Razia Bano, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 39 = 1975 SLD 39 = (1976) 34 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 22(1), 22(2) – Validity of Assessment Based on Revised Return.\n•\nDetails:\nThe assessee voluntarily filed a return under Section 22(1) and later submitted a revised return showing enhanced income. While a notice under Section 22(2) was erroneously issued, it was not formally canceled. The assessment was completed based on the revised return, and the validity of the proceedings was challenged.\n•\nHeld:\nThe issuance of the notice under Section 22(2) did not vitiate the proceedings. The assessment's basis—the revised return—was not affected by the procedural error.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Rachordas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569.\no\nR.P. Kandaswami v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 344.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(1),22(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 203 of 1974-75 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 10-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Hayat Khan, I.T.P., for the Appellant. Khalid Mahmood. D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 40 = 1975 SLD 40 = (1976) 34 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 – Section 34A – Revision and Merger of Orders.\n•\nDetails:\nThe assessee declared excess income for certain years, including the assessment year 1968-69, under Martial Law Regulations. Separate assessment orders were passed under Section 23(3), accepting the income with profit and loss adjustments. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner reopened the assessment, declaring the order prejudicial to revenue, and set it aside entirely for a de novo assessment. The questions of merger of orders and the validity of the reopening were raised.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe orders under Martial Law Regulations and Section 23(3) did not merge.\no\nThe reopening was valid since the prior order was prejudicial to revenue. However, setting aside the entire order without proper scrutiny or addressing specific points was invalid.\n•\nCitations:\no\n(1971) 23 Taxation 27 (Trib).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34A,23(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T.A. Nos. 5172. 5173 and 5174 of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1972-73), decision dated: 15-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shah Din, I. T. P., for the Appellant. Khalid Mahmood, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 41 = 1975 SLD 41 = (1976) 34 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 – Sections 22(1), 28(1) – Late Filing of Return and Penalty.\n•\nDetails:\nThe assessee filed the return within an extended deadline granted by the government. The department contended that the penalty for late filing under Section 28(1) was applicable despite the extension.\n•\nHeld:\nSince the return was submitted within the extended period, the penal provisions were not attracted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,22(1),28(1)(22) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 178 of , 1974-75 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 4-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRI, M .M . AKBAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS AND A. K. FAROOQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "NI. T. Masood, Accountant, for the Appellant. Ashfaque Ahmad, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 42 = 1975 SLD 42 = (1976) 34 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 – Section 18A – Penalty for Non-Payment of Advance Tax.\n•\nDetails:\nThe assessee failed to pay the first two installments of advance tax for the year 1971-72. However, the final assessment for the subsequent year (1972-73) revealed no advance tax liability.\n•\nHeld:\nPenalty for failure to pay the installments was not leviable as no advance tax was found payable at the year's conclusion.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A.28(IB) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 4933 (PB) of 1973-74 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 31-10 1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "U. D. Qureshi, I. T. P., for the Appellant. A. R, Afridi, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 57 = 1976 SLD 57 = (1977) 35 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1922 – Section 12(2) – Deduction for Wealth Tax.\n•\nDetails:\nThe assessee sought to deduct wealth tax paid on income from other sources, arguing that the tax's payment was necessary to maintain income-yielding assets. The department questioned whether wealth tax qualified as an admissible deduction.\n•\nHeld:\nWealth tax was a necessary expense for retaining wealth and income-generating assets. It qualified as a deduction under Section 12(2). Unlike income tax, wealth tax is incurred irrespective of earnings and directly arises from holding assets.\n•\nCitations:\no\n(1966) 60 ITR 277; Rushden Heal Co. (30 TC 298).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T. A No. 8389 of 1973-74 (Assessment year, 1973-74), decision dated: 16-4-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND M. AKBAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ashfaq Ahmad, DR., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 58 = 1976 SLD 58 = (1977) 35 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Assessment on Undetermined Compensation for Nationalized Bank Shares\nDetails:\nAssessee's shares in Habib Bank Limited were nationalized under the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. By January 1, 1974, the shares vested in the Federal Government, and compensation in the form of government bonds was yet to be determined as of the valuation date, March 31, 1974. The question was whether the right to undetermined compensation constituted an asset under Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and if it was liable to wealth tax.\nHeld:\n1.\nMajority (President and Judicial Members): The promise of compensation was inchoate and intangible, not amounting to an asset as defined under Section 2(e). The shares, which had vested in the government, were not owned by the assessee on the valuation date, thus not taxable under the Wealth Tax Act.\n2.\nMinority (Accountant Member): The right to compensation was a valid debt representing an entitlement under the law, and its valuation should reflect government-issued bond values.\nCitations:\n•\nMaharaja Pateshwari Prashad Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) 78 I.T.R. 581\n•\nMir Imdad Ali v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1963) 50 I.T.R. 216\n•\nCommissioner of Sales-Tax (West), Karachi v. Kruddsons Ltd. (PLD 1974 SC 180)\n•\nMuhammad Ayyub and another v. Muhammad Yaqub and another (PLD 1975 Lah 445)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No, 136(KB)/1975-76 (Assessment year 1974-75), decided by majority on 10-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): (1) A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND A.A.ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (2) M. KARIM, MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, ACCAUNTANT MEMBERS AND A. KARIM FAROOQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "W.T.A. No, 136(KB)/1975-76 (Assessment year 1974-75), decided by majority on 10-11-1976\nK.. Salah-ud-Din Advocate, and Far-iq Ali, C.A., for the Appellant. G. R. Ghayyur, D.R., for the Respondent. Ali Athar Advocate and Faruq Ali, CA-, for the Appellant. Mohammd Ahmed, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 59 = 1976 SLD 59 = (1977) 35 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Demand and Stay of Recovery During Pending Appeals\nDetails:\nTaxpayers facing coercive measures for recovery of disputed tax liabilities sought stays during the pendency of appeals. It was argued that premature recovery during unresolved appeals hindered business operations.\nHeld:\nThe tribunals granted stays for 60 days, emphasizing that business activities should not be hampered due to unresolved liabilities, and premature recovery was contrary to legal principles.\nCitations:\n•\nM/s. Sunrise Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2006 PTD 535)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 420 of 1975-76, decision dated: 10-3-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAFIZ ABDUR RASHID, MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS, AND A. A. ZUBERI. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nawab Ali, for the Appellant. Abdul Malik, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 219 = 2013 SLD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts in Income Tax Assessment\nDetails:\nThe taxpayer, a manufacturer of spare parts, had their trading account challenged for not issuing notices to verify purchases. The declared gross profit was not unusually low.\nHeld:\nThe book version of accounts could not be rejected solely for not issuing notices if the gross profit appeared reasonable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,131 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No. 200/IB/2013 & I.T.A. No. 591/IB/2013 Tax Year 2007. DATE of order 07/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Malik Adnan Ejaz, ACMA. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan DR", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Mustehkam Cement Limited, Islamabad. \nvs\nCommissioner of Inland Revenue, LTU, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 220 = 2013 SLD 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Demand and Stay of Recovery During Pending Appeals\nDetails:\nTaxpayers facing coercive measures for recovery of disputed tax liabilities sought stays during the pendency of appeals. It was argued that premature recovery during unresolved appeals hindered business operations.\nHeld:\nThe tribunals granted stays for 60 days, emphasizing that business activities should not be hampered due to unresolved liabilities, and premature recovery was contrary to legal principles.\nCitations:\n•\nM/s. Sunrise Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2006 PTD 535)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,131 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No. 201/IB/2013, M.A. (Stay) No. 202/IB/2013, M.A. (Stay) No. 203/IB/2013, M.A. (Stay) No. 204/IB/2013 & I.T.A. No. 581/IB/2013 Tax Year 2007. DATE of order 07/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Aurang Zeb, ITP. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Zaheer Electronics, Islamabad. \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 221 = 2013 SLD 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Demand and Stay of Recovery During Pending Appeals\nDetails:\nTaxpayers facing coercive measures for recovery of disputed tax liabilities sought stays during the pendency of appeals. It was argued that premature recovery during unresolved appeals hindered business operations.\nHeld:\nThe tribunals granted stays for 60 days, emphasizing that business activities should not be hampered due to unresolved liabilities, and premature recovery was contrary to legal principles.\nCitations:\n•\nM/s. Sunrise Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2006 PTD 535)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,131 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No.209/IB/2013 (Tax Year 2007), I.T.A. No. 623/IB/2013 (Tax Year 2007), hearing DATE 23-08-2013. DATE of order 26-08-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. M.M. Faisal Banday, FCA for KPMG Taseer Hadi & Co. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.) Ltd., 46-Nazimuddin Road, F7/4, Islamabad. \nvs\nThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue, LTU, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 222 = 2013 SLD 222 = (2013) 108 TAX 465 = 2013 PTD 185 = 2013 PTCL 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Immunity from Wealth Tax for Foreign Currency Accounts\nDetails:\nThe assessee claimed immunity under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, for foreign currency accounts maintained outside Pakistan, which were taxed by the authorities.\nHeld:\nThe immunity under Section 5 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, applied only to foreign currency accounts maintained in Pakistan, not abroad. The taxation of undisclosed foreign accounts was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nMrs. Tehmina Doltana v. Hafiz Naeem-ud-Din (1997 PTD 821)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16(4),SecondSched.Cl.(8) Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=5,5(1),5(2) ", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.168 and S.A.Os. Nos.60 and 61 of 2001, decision dated: 9-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIFTAH UD DIN KHAN AND MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdur Rauf Rehaila. Mohd Khattak", + "Party Name:": "AFTAB AHMED KHAN SHERPAO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 213 = 2008 SLD 213 = 2008 PTD 823 = (2008) 98 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Procedural Errors in Wealth Tax Assessment\nDetails:\nProcedural errors, such as incorrect designations or minor omissions in notices, were challenged in assessments.\nHeld:\nMinor clerical errors in notices did not invalidate assessments if jurisdiction was properly acquired and no substantial harm was caused to the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=45,45A ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.175 to 177 of 2005, 5 to 11, 25, 26, 79 to 84, 152 to 162, 164 to 169, 189, 190, 398, 411 to 414, 480 to 483, 803, 804 and 899 to 902 of 2006, decision dated: 14-02-2008, hearing DATE : 29-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Khadim Hussain Zahid, Sajjad Ali Jafri, Shahid Jamil Khan, Jan Muhammad Chaudhary, Ahmad Rauf and Amjad Hussain Malik. Shahbaz Butt, Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Iqbal Hashmi and Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEC, LAHORE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ALAMGIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 214 = 2008 SLD 214 = 2008 PLD 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability and Sentencing in Abduction Cases\nDetails:\nThe accused were convicted under Section 365-A of the Penal Code and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act for abduction. The involvement of one accused who later joined the crime was also questioned.\nHeld:\n1.\nLiability extended equally to the accused who subsequently joined the crime.\n2.\nThe nature of the offense under Section 365-A of the Penal Code and Section 7(e) of the ATA was substantially the same, and sentencing discretion by the High Court was upheld.\nCitations:\nNone explicitly mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=365A/34 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petitions Nos.63-K and 64-K to 66-K of 2007, Jail Petition No.91-K of 2007, decision dated: 1st August, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "AHMED HUSSAIN alias AMI and OTHERS\nvs\nTHE STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 215 = 2008 SLD 215 = 2008 PLD 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Law – Reappraisal of Evidence in Murder Case\nDetails:\n•\nThe accused was charged under S. 302(b) of the Penal Code for murder. Contentions included allegations that the witnesses were not natural, lacked corroboration, and abscondence proceedings were improperly conducted.\n•\nThe trial court found the eyewitness testimony consistent with medical evidence and motive.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the evidence of related witnesses without enmity could not be disregarded.\n•\nThe Court emphasized the corroboration between medical evidence and ocular testimony.\n•\nIt rejected mitigating factors, like hospital death delay, as reasons to reduce punishment.\nCitations: S. 302(b) of Penal Code, Art. 185(3) of Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2003, decision dated: 9-10-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., SAFDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "DILAWAR HUSSAIN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 212 = 2007 SLD 212 = 2007 PTD 2583 = (2007) 96 TAX 391 = (2008) 97 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Disallowance of Expenses Without Basis\nDetails:\n•\nTaxation Officer disallowed expenses claimed by the taxpayer without identifying specific defects or confronting the taxpayer.\n•\nThe taxpayer had produced audited books and relevant records.\nHeld:\n•\nDisallowance was deemed illegal due to failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under S. 62(1).\n•\nAppellate Tribunal maintained the deletion of disallowances.\nCitations: S. 62(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; PTD cases cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6370/LB and 6372/LB of 2005, decision dated: 17-03-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, D.R.. Jawed Zakaria", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 213 = 2007 SLD 213 = 2007 PTD 2325 = (2007) 95 TAX 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Classification as Manufacturer and Tax Liability\nDetails:\n•\nAssessee claimed manufacturer status for CNG kits and cylinders based on installation activities.\n•\nTax authority classified the activities as non-manufacturing, subjecting imports to presumptive tax.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal restored the tax authority's order, rejecting the manufacturer's claim.\nCitations: S. 80C, 143B, 50(5), 62 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Black's Law Dictionary, related precedents.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C(2)(a)(ii),143B,50(5),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 544/PB of 2003 and 552/PB of 2004, decision dated: 21st June, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Alam, D.R.,. Abdul Rehman Afridi", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 219 = 2005 SLD 219 = 2005 PTD 2419 = (2005) 91 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax – Reopening of Assessment\nDetails:\n•\nWealth tax assessment reopened after cancellation of the original assessment.\nHeld:\n•\nThe tribunal justified canceling the reassessment under technical grounds.\nCitations: Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (Ss. 16(3), 17, 27).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=16,16(3),17,27 ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No.232 of 2002, decision dated: 28-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nMEHFIL, CINEMA (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 302 = 2006 SLD 302 = 2006 PTD 236 = (2006) 93 TAX 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutionality of Wealth Tax Provisions\nDetails:\n•\nPetitioners challenged the vires of S. 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act as unconstitutional and ultra vires.\nHeld:\n•\nHigh Court dismissed the petition, citing prior Supreme Court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of Wealth Tax provisions.\nCitations: Wealth Tax Act, 1963; PLD 1997 SC 582; 1992 PTD 726.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=22(e)(ii)(h),3,7,17 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1408, D-1409, D-1656, D-1682, D-1701, D-1731 of 1991, D-2850, D-2851, D-3023 of 1992, D-1684, D-1685 of 1993, D-144, D-145, D-1344 and 1345 of 1994, decision dated: 24-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Ali Shah, D.A.G. No. 1 \nNasrullah Awan and Jawaid Farooquis Nos.2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS VOLKART PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER FINANCE AND OTHERS\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 62 = 1979 SLD 62 = (1979) 40 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Perquisites and Leave Passage\nDetails:\n•\nWhether leave passage expenses for expatriate employees were includable in declared perquisites for tax purposes.\nHeld:\n•\nSuch expenses were includable under Section 10(4)(d).\nCitations: I.T.A. 439(KB) of 1975-76; Central Board of Revenue Circular 12 of 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(4)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 877(KB) and 878 of 1977-78 (Assessment years 1973-74 a d 1974-75), decision dated: 29-8-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Rafi, C.A., for the Appellant. S. M. Sibtain, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 223 = 2013 SLD 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Departmental Appeals and Procedural Irregularities\nDetails:\n•\nRevenue failed to substantiate grounds for appeal regarding deletion of sums by CIR (A).\n•\nTribunal observed procedural mala fides and lack of clarity in grounds.\nHeld:\n•\nAppeals dismissed as meritless, upholding CIR (A)’s deletion of additions.\nCitations: S. 62A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 721/IB/2010 Tax year 2000-01, I.T.A. No. 722/IB/2010 Tax Year 2002-03. dates of hearing 16.05.2013 & 22.05.2013 DATE of order 22.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Tariq Jamil, FCA and Mr. Waqar Zafar, FCA", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal Division), LTU, Islamabad\nvs\nM/s. Shaheen Foundation - PAF Complex, E9, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 224 = 2013 SLD 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance and Levy of Minimum Tax\n•\nDetails: The appellant, an Independent Power Producer (IPP), contested the levy of minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance on Capacity Purchase Price (CPP) and Supplemental Charges (SC), claiming exemption based on fiscal incentives under the Power Policy. \n•\nHeld: The Tribunal directed the DCIR to allow exemptions claimed under Clauses (11) and (11A) of Part IV, Second Schedule of the Ordinance, finding the appellant’s case aligned with precedent decisions.\n•\nCitations: Pakistan Mobile Communications Ltd. & SMF Bank Ltd.'s case (PTCL 2010 CL.354), Lalpir Power Ltd.'s case (ITA Nos. 894-896/LB/2012).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5),122(1),122(4),210(2),209(1),209(2),113 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 917/IB/2012 Tax Year 2006, I.T.A. No. 918/IB/2012 Tax Year 2007, I.T.A. No. 919/IB/2012 Tax Year 2008, I.T.A. No. 920/IB/2012 Tax Year 2010, I.T.A. No. 921/IB/2012 Tax Year 2011, DATE of order 26-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Awais, FCA, Mr. Waqar Zafar, FCA and Syed Hassaan Naeem, Adv. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, DR", + "Party Name:": "The HUB Power Company Limited, Islamabad. \nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 225 = 2013 SLD 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFiling and Audit of Returns\n•\nDetails: A dispute arose over two assessments under Sections 121(1)(d) and 177(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, with the CIR (A) annulling one assessment on technical grounds.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal remanded the case for re-examination of the tax returns in light of the taxpayer's failure to present financial records.\n•\nCitations: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,121(1)(d),177(10) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 390/IB/2011 Tax Year 2009, DATE of order 16.07.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Ihsan Ullah, DR. Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-I), Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi. \nvs\nM/s Tarkhan Furniture, Shop No. DD13, Gulshan Dadan Khan, Muree Road, Rwp." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 226 = 2013 SLD 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRectification of Tribunal’s Order\n•\nDetails: The taxpayer filed a Miscellaneous Application challenging double taxation on electricity expenses. The DCIT had added the expense twice, leading to an erroneous assessment.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal rectified its order, modifying sales figures and preventing duplication of electricity expenses.\n•\nCitations: ATIR's order in ITA No. 431/IB/2012.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rectification) No.105/IB/2012 Assessment Year 2006, DATE of order 21/02/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Muhammad Mazhar, IPT. Respondent by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Point Plastic Works, Rawalpindi. \nvs\nCIR, RTO, Rawalpindi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 227 = 2013 SLD 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNon-Deduction of Tax and Penalty\n•\nDetails: A penalty imposed under Section 182(1) based on orders under Sections 161 and 205 was challenged. The CIR (A) vacated the penalty, and the department appealed.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal upheld the CIR (A)'s order, rejecting the departmental appeal since the foundational orders had been remanded.\n•\nCitations: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,182(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 68/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2010) NTN 0848047. DATE of order 06.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Akhtar Abbas, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Nazir Ch. F.C.A", + "Party Name:": "The CIR, ZonEVIII, RTO-II, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Swift Papers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 228 = 2013 SLD 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAmendment of Assessment and Audit\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal examined issues of definite information and jurisdiction over amendments under Section 122(5). The appellant argued that the notices issued were based on the same facts already decided by the High Court.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal rejected the department’s Miscellaneous Applications, finding no mistake requiring rectification.\n•\nCitations: Lahore High Court decision, cases of Shaheen CNG Station and Khan CNG Filling Station.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,177(4),122(1),122(5),122(9) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) No. 8/IB/2012, (Tax Year 2004), M.A. (R) No. 9/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2005). DATE of order 02/07/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Ehsanullah, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Atif Waheed, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-I) Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi \nvs\nM/s. Macca CNG Gas Enterprises, PD78, Saidpur Road, Rawalpindi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 229 = 2013 SLD 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction over Audit and Assessment\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal considered jurisdiction under Sections 121 and 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, with the taxpayer arguing that dual assessments were not permissible pre-Finance Act, 2010 amendments.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal vacated the orders, citing jurisdictional flaws based on Lahore High Court precedent.\n•\nCitations: 2013 PTD 837.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,120,177,121 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.773/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2004), I.T.A. No.774/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2005), I.T.A. No. 775/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2006), I.T.A. No.776/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2007). DATE of order 20/08/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Nasim Ilyas, I.T.P. Respondent by Mr. Ahsan Ullah Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Qureshi, PropAl Badar Hotel, Sherpao Colony, Committee Chowk, Rawalpindi \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Rawalpindi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 230 = 2013 SLD 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLimitation and Rectification in Sales Tax Cases\n•\nDetails: The appellant contested errors in assessment timelines and double taxation of input tax under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act. They argued that delays in adjudication invalidated the proceedings.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal identified procedural and substantive errors, allowing rectification of the order. Time limitations and double taxation claims were revisited.\n•\nCitations: Various cases, including Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (2008 PTD 60) and Pace International (PTCL 2005 CL. 836)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,45A ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect.) S.T.A. No. 07/IB/2013, hearing DATE 28-05-2013. DATE of order 03-07-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Tahir Razzaque Khan, FCA/AR Respondent by Mr. Imran Shah, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Army Welfare Trust - Nizampur Cement Plant, Rawalpindi \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 231 = 2013 SLD 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Import of Prohibited Goods\nConclusion:\nThe appellant imported a used overhead crane listed in the banned and non-importable items under Appendix-C of the Import Policy Order 2007-2008. The importer failed to provide evidence from the Engineering Development Board that the machinery was not locally manufactured. Additionally, the import of used machinery in this category is expressly barred. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, stating that all issues were adequately addressed, and dismissed the appeal.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 79(1), 80, 25, 181, 32, 32A, Customs Act, 1969\n•\nRule 107(a) of Customs Rules, 2001\n•\nSRO-487(I)/07, dated 09/06/2007\n•\nAppendix-C of Import Policy Order 2007-2008", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=79,79(1),80,25,181,25,32,32A,16,6(2) ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-524/2011 (old No.K-251/2008), hearing DATE 11.06.2013. DATE of order 03.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II), KARACHI AND MR. ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), KARACHI", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. M. Usman Shaikh (Advocate) present for the appellant. Mr. Ghulam Yasin (P.A) present for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Precision Engineering Services, No. 14, Mogul Tobacco Godown, Plot No. B-31.SITE, Karachi \nvs\nThe Assistant Collector of Customs Model Customs Collectorate of PaCCS, Customs House, Karachi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 232 = 2013 SLD 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Selection for Audit and Amendment of Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe appellant challenged the selection for audit and the issuance of notices. The Lahore High Court directed the department to justify the audit criteria under Section 177(4). Despite this, the amended assessment by the DCIR was found to rely on the same disputed facts. The Tribunal vacated both the CIR(A) and DCIR's orders, ruling in favor of the appellant. Prior case law, including CIR vs. Khan CNG Filling Station, was followed to resolve the issue.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 177, 122(9), 122(1), 122(5), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\n•\nITR No. 31/2012 dated 12/11/2012\n•\nITA No. 224-225/IB/2011", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,122(9),122(1),122(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 633/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2005). DATE of order 02/07/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Atif Waheed, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Ehsanullah Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Fast CNG Filling Station \nvs\nCIR, RTO, Rawalpindi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 233 = 2013 SLD 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Condonation of Delay and Misreporting of Assets\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal condoned the delay in filing an appeal due to Eid holidays, citing no deliberate intent. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found the taxpayer's evidence regarding the purchase year of a vehicle (2006, not 2008) convincing. The matter was remanded to the taxation officer for reassessment after obtaining relevant documents.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 111(1)(b), 114(4), 122C, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=214,214A ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Cond.) No. 22/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2008), hearing DATE 18.07.2013. DATE of order 23.08.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Applicant by Mr. Tariq Aziz, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Ayyaz Butt, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 234 = 2013 SLD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Circular Interpretation and Local Sales\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal noted discrepancies in how FBR Circular No. 20 of 1992 was applied, particularly in treating 20% of local sales as exports. It emphasized consistent treatment for all taxpayers and remanded the case to the taxation officer to align treatment with similar cases. Circulars inconsistent with statutory provisions were deemed non-binding on the Tribunal.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 120(1), 122(5A), 18, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\n•\nCBR Circular No. 20 of 1992\n•\nPLJ 2004 SC 164, 2002 SCMR 71, 2011 YLR 2705", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),122(5A),18 ", + "Case #": "M.A No. 76/LB/2012 (Tax year 2008 ), M.A. No. 77/LB/2012 (Tax year 2009), hearing DATE 19.06.2013. DATE of order 03.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): APPELLANT BY MR. JAVED IQBAL QAZI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY DR. MUHAMMAD IDREES, D.R", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Javed Iqbal Qazi, Advocate. Respondent by Dr. Muhammad Idrees, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Premier Industrial Chemical Manufacturing Co., (Pvt.) Ltd., Sheikhupura \nvs\nThe CIR ZonEVII, R.T.O, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 17 = 1971 SLD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) - Rejection of Accounting Method\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that income tax authorities have the discretion to reject an assessee's method of accounting if profits cannot be accurately deduced. The question of whether production figures were understated was deemed a matter of fact and not referable to the High Court.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 13 & 66(2), Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)\n•\nHaroon Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967 PTD 236)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous No. 2266 of 1964, heard on 26th March 1970. dates of hearing : 12th and 26th March 1970", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): QADEERUDDIN AHMED, C.J. AND ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar and Mumtaz Hussain for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq and Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSES SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1972 7 = 1972 SLD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1962) - Alien Enemy’s Right to Sue\nConclusion:\nAn alien enemy residing outside Pakistan was deemed barred from initiating civil or constitutional proceedings in Pakistani courts under Section 83, CPC. The bar applies to all courts and forms of actions, including writ petitions under Article 98 of the Constitution. The Tribunal emphasized that such personal disabilities stem from public policy and national interest.\nCitations/References:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1962), Article 98\n•\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Sections 83, 117\n•\nProvince of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani (AIR 1950 SC 222)\n•\nIncome-tax Officer, Karachi v. Cement Agencies Ltd. (PLD 1969 SC 322)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=83do117 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.98 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 900 of 1970, decision dated: 29th April 1971. dates of hearing: 7th and 8th April 1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND ZAKI-UD-DIN PAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fazalur Rehman (Karachi), Kh. Muhammad Tufail and Abdul Qayum for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Haqs Nos. 1, 5 to 8 Sh. Aftab Husain, Maulvi Ihsanul Haq and Kh. Muhammad Tufail No 2. Ch. Muhammad Ismail Bhattis Nos. 3 and 4", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.BOMBAY THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. TARIQ ALI ADVOCATE, KARACHI\nvs\nPAKISTAN THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE AND 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 235 = 2013 SLD 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Stay of Recovery Proceedings\nConclusion:\nThe appellant sought an extension of a 30-day stay against tax recovery proceedings, which was initially granted by the CIR(A). The CIR(A) rejected the extension, citing the statutory limitation on stay periods. The Tribunal found that irreparable loss could be caused to the appellant if the recovery continued and observed that the taxpayer had a prima facie arguable case. It vacated the impugned order and directed the CIR(A) to expedite the decision on the pending appeal within one month. Recovery proceedings were stayed until the disposal of the appeal.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 128(1A), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=128(1A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1773/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2009), DATE of order 16/09/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Shahbaz Butt, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Muhammad Tahir, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Kohinoor Sugar Mills, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR, Zone-III, LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 285 = 2000 SLD 285 = (2000) 81 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Development Rebate Reserve\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, a public company, transferred sums from its development rebate reserve to the share capital account via bonus shares. The assessing officer withdrew the development rebate, citing it as a distribution of profits. The appellate authorities ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that issuing bonus shares did not constitute a profit distribution. The High Court reversed this decision, but on appeal, the Tribunal's and appellate authority's decisions were reinstated.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 34(3)(a)(i), 155(5)(ii)(a), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nIRC v. Blott [1921] 2 AC 171 (HL)\n•\nCIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 567 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=34,34(3)(a)(i)&155(5)(ii)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 140-42 of 1988, decision dated: 19-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS C. SEN AND V N. KHARE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Gopal Jain, Advocate, for Mukul Mudgal Advocate, for the appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma, N.K. Agrawal and B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him), for the respondent.", + "Party Name:": "HUNSUR PLYWOOD WORKS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 287 = 2000 SLD 287 = (2000) 81 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Profit Derived from Industrial Undertaking\nConclusion:\nThe High Court ruled that income from selling import entitlements under an export promotion scheme was not directly derived from the assessee's industrial undertaking. The Tribunal’s earlier decision to exclude these receipts was overturned. The requirement of a direct nexus between profits and industrial activities was upheld.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 80HH, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nSterling Foods v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 292", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2390-91, of 1996, decided on. 15-4-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ranbir Chandra, T. C. Sharma, S. Rajappa and S. K. Dwivedi, Advocates, for the appellant. Dhruv Mehta, S. K. Mehta and Ms. Shoba, Advocates, for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSTERLING FOODS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 288 = 2000 SLD 288 = (2000) 81 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Exemption for Processing Shrimps\nConclusion:\nThe High Court determined that buying and processing shrimps into peeled and frozen form did not amount to production under the Act. The assessee’s exemption claim under Section 80HH was rejected as the business did not qualify as industrial production.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 80HH, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCIT v. Marwell Sea Foods [1987] 166 ITR 624", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80HH,80 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3255 of 1995, decision dated: 11-3-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA S.S. MUHAMMAD QUADRI AND RC. LAHOTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate) for the appellant. E.M.S. Anam, Advocate, for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nRELISH FOODS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 289 = 2000 SLD 289 = (2000) 81 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Audit by Chartered Accountants\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal upheld the exclusive right of Chartered Accountants to audit accounts under Section 44AB, rejecting challenges under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Income Tax Practitioners lacked equivalent expertise in audit functions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 44AE, 226(2), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nArticles 14 & 19, Constitution of India", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=44 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2824 of 1992, decision dated: 8-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate, for the appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, Advocate, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "T. D. VENKATA RAO\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 290 = 2000 SLD 290 = (2000) 81 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Industrial Undertaking Status for Poultry Farms\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that poultry farms, including hatcheries, do not qualify as industrial undertakings under Sections 32A and 80J. Hatching eggs was deemed a natural process, not industrial production.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 32A, 80J, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 231 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=70,70(27),32A,80HH,80HHA,801,80J ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal NO. 5066, 4155-4157, 15022-15023 of 1996, 240, 2596, 2694- 2696, 2142, 2129-2131, 4778, 6230, 6251, 7466, of 1997, 3463, 3461, 4787 of 1998 and 1701-04 of 1999. decided 24-3-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, AND IA N. KHARE AND A.P. MISRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Senior Advocates. Dr. M Gauri Shanker R.F. Nariman, Anoop C. Chaudhury B. Sen and Sohrab E. Dastur Advocates. S. Rajappa, Ms. Renu George, Nagpal, B.K. Prasad R.B. Hathikhanawala, Prakash Srivastava, S. Ganesh, P.J. Pardivala, Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, lf Raja Gopala Rao, Sakesh Kumar and S.K, Agnihotr., for the appellant. Nemo, for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nVENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P.) LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 291 = 2000 SLD 291 = (2000) 81 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Exemption for Firm’s Assets\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal affirmed that net wealth of a firm, including exempt assets, must be allocated to partners under Rule 2 before granting individual exemptions. The Supreme Court supported the Tribunal's view, aligning with Karnataka High Court precedent.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 5, Rule 2, Wealth Tax Act, 1957\n•\nCWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza [1978] 114 ITR 532 (Kar)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1957=5,2 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 5 of 1982, decision dated: 23-1-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J. S. VERMA, S, P, BHARUCHA AND MRS. SUJATA V MANOHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S. N. Terdol, Advocates, with him), for the appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nT. S. SUNDARAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 292 = 2000 SLD 292 = (2000) 81 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Agricultural Operation vs. Industrial Operation\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that de-husking paddy was an agricultural process, not an industrial operation. Consequently, rice and husk remained agricultural products, entitling the assessee to deductions under Section 35C.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 35C, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=35c,35 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No. 4403-4404 of 1996, decision dated: 13-4-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA AND FL. C. LAHORE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. K. Dwivedi, S. Rajappa and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCYNAMID INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 293 = 2000 SLD 293 = (2000) 81 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e)\nConclusion:\nLoans advanced to shareholders by a company were deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal emphasized the legislative intent to prevent super-tax evasion, applicable under Sections 2(22)(e) and 104.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSections 2(22)(e), 104, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nMysodet (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 182 ITR 235", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2,104 ", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 4975 of 1994, decision dated: 11-3-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Venkatesh, Advocate, for B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate, for the appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate, for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMYSODET (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 294 = 2000 SLD 294 = (2000) 81 TAX 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Adjustment of Business Losses\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the term loss under Section 205 of the Companies Act applies post-depreciation. This principle was incorporated into Section 115J for computing book profits under the Income Tax Act.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSection 115J, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 33", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=115,205 ", + "Case #": "(Civil Appeal No. 1589 (NT) of 1997), decision dated: 13-4-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P, BHARUCHA AND R. C. LAHORE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, K. Maruthi Rao, Ms. Radha, G. Prabhakar, AV Rangam, Neeraj Sharma, Neeraj Srivastava (S. Rajappa and G. Venkatesh), Advocates, for B.K. Prasad S.K. Gambhir Vivek Gambhir, Vijay Kumar C. Jaykar Abhijit Puri and Ms. V Mohana, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBRITE AUTOMOTIYES AND PLASTICS LTD(Special Leave (C) No. 12388 of 1997) SHREE SYNTHETICS LTD(Special Leave (C) No. 13429 of 1997)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 295 = 2000 SLD 295 = (2000) 81 TAX 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Retrospective Increase in Tax Deduction Rates\nConclusion:\nThe case dealt with the retrospective application of increased rates of advance tax deduction, which the taxpayers argued violated Fundamental Right No. 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The Tribunal concluded that the increase applied only to the rate of advance tax deduction, not the tax rate itself. It ruled that retrospective changes in fiscal laws are valid unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution. It also determined that such changes do not constitute the compulsory acquisition of property without compensation, as income tax is levied by law. Consequently, the High Court's ruling declaring the additional advance tax as unconstitutional was overturned, and the appeals were accepted.\nKey Findings:\n1.\nFundamental Right No. 14: The retrospective tax rate increase was not deemed a violation, as no compulsory acquisition of property was involved.\n2.\nNature of Deduction: The increase applied to advance tax deduction rates, not the income tax rate, and therefore was not an unconstitutional retrospective imposition.\n3.\nValidity of Legislation: The Tribunal upheld that fiscal laws could be applied retrospectively unless explicitly restricted by the Constitution.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation:\no\nSection 50(4) and First Schedule (Para E, Clause (i), Sub-para (i), Clause (iii)), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nAzad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Fundamental Right No. 14.\no\nFinance Act, 1995.\n•\nCases Referred to:\no\nM/s. Spintex Limited, Mirpur v. Income Tax Officer, Government of AJ & K, Mirpur (1998 PTD 2567).\no\nKhyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam (AIR 1964 SC 925).\no\nNovelty Enterprises Limited v. Deputy Collector, Excise and Taxation/Sales Tax Officer, Mirpur (1993 CLC 1165).\no\nGovernment of Azad Jammu and Kashmir v. M/s. Kashmir Tobacco Industries Ltd. (1992 SCH 20).\no\nM/s. Yaseen Sons v. Federation of Pakistan (PTCL 1990 CL 438).\n•\nCases Distinguished:\no\nAzad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Syed Muhammad Akbar Shah (1996 PLC (C.S.) 838).\no\nMessrs Flying Board and Paper Products v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan (PLD 1996 Lahore 718).\no\nAbdul Sattar Noor Muhammad & Co. v. Government of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 2345).\no\nMolasses Trading & Export (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1905).", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),First Schedule ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 74 and 75 of 1999, decision dated: 16-12-1999, hearing DATE : 17-114999. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 29-1-1999 In Writ Petition, No. 386 of 1997)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, GJ. AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, for the Appellants. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Farooq Hussain Kashmiri and Noorullah Qureshi, Advocates, for the Respondents (in both the Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (AJ&K COUNCIL) MUZAFFARABAD and another\nvs\nASIAN D ENTERPRISES through Eijaz Qureshi Managing Director and 5 others Messrs CADE CREETS ASSOCIATES through Managing Partner, Diwan Ali Khan Chughtai and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 296 = 2000 SLD 296 = (2000) 81 TAX 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Minor's Income in Assessment of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Karta\nConclusion:\nThe case examined whether the income of minor children could be included in the income of the Karta of an HUF under Section 64(1)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal ruled that the Karta, acting in a representative capacity for the HUF, cannot have the minors' income included in his individual income. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s view, confirming that Section 64 applies only to individual assessments and not to assessments involving HUF.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation: Section 64(1)(i), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCases Approved and Followed:\no\nHirday Narain v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC).\no\nCIT v. Harbhajan Lal [1993] 204 ITR 361 (SC).\n•\nCases Overruled:\no\nSahu Govind Prasad v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 851 (All).\no\nMadho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492 (All).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=64 ", + "Case #": "(C. A. No. 4046 of 1999), decision dated: 21-1-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, B. N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU, S.S. M. QUADRI AND M. B. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Counsel appearing for the parties. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General Harish N. Salve, P.C. Jain, Senior Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSHRI OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS.(c. A. No. 4234 of 1983) (2) VIMALBHAI NAGINDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 297 = 2000 SLD 297 = (2000) 81 TAX 419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Undertaking Status of Poultry Hatcheries\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that poultry hatcheries do not qualify as industrial undertakings under Sections 32A and 80J of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The mechanical process involved in hatching eggs does not constitute manufacture or production as required by the Act. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to developmental allowances or deductions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation: Sections 10(27), 32A, 80HH, 80J, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCases Approved:\no\nCIT v. Deejay Hatcheries [1995] 211 ITR 652 (Bom).\n•\nCase Overruled:\no\nCIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 231 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=10,10(27),32A80HH,80HHA,801,80J ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal NO. 5066, CA. Nos. 4155-4151 15022-15023 of 1996, 240, 2596, 2694-2696, 2142, 2129-2131, 4778, 6230, 6251, 7466 of 1991 3463, 3461, 4787 of 1998, 1701-04 of 1999. decided on 24-3-1999", + "Judge Name": "", + "Lawyer Name": "Senior Advocates. Dr. V. Gauri Shanker, R.F. Nariman, Anoop C. Chaudhury, B. Sen and Sohrab E. Dastur.Advocates. S. Rajappa, Ms. Renu George, Nagpal, B.K. Prasad, R.B. Hathikhanawala, Prakash Srivastava, S. Ganesh, P.J. Pardivala, Mrs., Janaki Ramachandran. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nVENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P.) LTD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 298 = 2000 SLD 298 = (2000) 81 TAX 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Assets by Husband to Wife - Tax Implications\nConclusion:\nThe case dealt with whether a husband transferring property to his wife without adequate consideration or an agreement to live apart triggers Section 64 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the department, stating that such transfers are taxable under Section 64 as the assets were not transferred for adequate consideration or separation agreements.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation: Section 64(1)(iv), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=64 ", + "Case #": "C. A. Nos. 1252-53 of 1979 with C. A. No. 2594 of 1983, decision dated: 11-11-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS C. SEN AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Qamar-ud-Din. Ms. M. Qamar-ud-Din, Feroz Ahmed, AltalAhmeo 2 Shahid Hussain and Mujtaba Hussain, Advocates, for the Appellants. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (R. P. Wadhwani, Advocate, with him), for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SYED SADIQUE AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 299 = 2000 SLD 299 = (2000) 81 TAX 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Interest on Excess Advance Tax\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that interest on excess advance tax is payable from the first day of the assessment year (April 1), as the right to refund arises on this date. The High Court's finding that refunds were due only after the assessment was completed was overturned. Additionally, technical fees disallowed as revenue expenditure were treated as capital expenditure, permitting depreciation claims.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation: Sections 80I, 214, 37, Rule 19A, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCases Referred to:\no\nModi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759 (SC).\no\nNeptune Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 144.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80,1,214,37 ", + "Case #": "C. A. Nos. 345-346 of 1986 with C. A. Nos. 175-177 of 1991, decision dated: 10-12-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS C. SEN AND S. S, M. QUADRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.N. Nagpal, C.S. Rao and B.K. Prasad, Advocates, with him), for the Appellant. Jehangir Mist/M Ms. Sangeeta Valecha, Ms, A.K. Verma and J.B.D & Co., Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nWARNER HINDUSTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 300 = 2000 SLD 300 = (2000) 81 TAX 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income from Rearing Silkworms\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that income derived from rearing silkworms and selling cocoons does not qualify as agricultural income under Section 2(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act. Only income from cultivating mulberry leaves was deemed agricultural. Selling cocoons was considered a separate activity unrelated to cultivation, and thus taxable.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation: Section 2(1), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCases Referred to:\no\nDooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. [1962] 44 ITR 6.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2,2(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5086-97 of 1984 with Civil Appeals Nos. 4485, 4485A- 4485C of 1995, decision dated: 4-2-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.N. KIRPAL AND S. P, KURDUKAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate, with him), for the Appellants. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava, Advocate, with.him) Advocates, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K. LAKSHMANAN AND CO. AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 301 = 2000 SLD 301 = (2000) 81 TAX 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Profit Derived from Export-Related Activities\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that profits derived from selling goods in the local market, even if tied to import entitlements from export activities, cannot be considered as profits derived from export sales. The immediate source of income was the local sale of goods, and the export connection was deemed too remote.\nCitations/References:\n•\nLegislation: Section 2(5)(D), Finance (No. 2) Act, 1962.\n•\nCases Referred to:\no\nHenriksen v. Grafton Hotel Ltd. [1942] 24 TC 453 (CA).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=28 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1911-11A of 1981, with C. A. Nos. 1912, 1913, 1913A of 1981 and 738 of 1982, decision dated: 2-9-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SUHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Ganesh, Advocate and Ms. A. K. Verma, Advocate, for J. B. D. and Co., Advocate, for the Appellant. B. B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate, (N. B. D. Raju, S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates, with him), for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Hindustan Leven LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 236 = 2013 SLD 236 = (2013) 107 TAX 248 = 2013 PTD 1429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Amendment of Assessment Under Section 122(5):\n•\nPre-requisites: Section 122(5) requires definite information post-assessment related to escapement, under-assessment, or excessive relief. Mere disagreement with higher court rulings does not constitute definite information. \n•\nOutcome: Non-issuance of mandatory notice invalidates proceedings.\n•\nCitations: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 705; 2013 PTD (Trib.) 246; CIT v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2009 SCMR 1279.\n________________________________________\n(b) Exercise of Discretion:\n•\nIf a statute grants discretionary power to advance justice, its exercise is not optional but mandatory.\n•\nCitations: Abu Bakar Siddique v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 2187.\n________________________________________\n(c) Modification Powers under Section 124-A:\n•\nSection 124-A obligates tax authorities to modify orders on legal issues already resolved by courts, avoiding repetitive appeals.\n•\nCitations: Abu Bakar Siddique v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 2187.\n________________________________________\n(d) Bad Debts (Section 29):\n•\nClaims of bad debts cannot be disallowed if aligned with Prudential Bank Regulations.\n•\nCitations: 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1139.\n________________________________________\n(e) Initial Depreciation (Section 23(5)):\n•\nDepreciation is available for all assets except those explicitly excluded in Section 23(5)(a)-(d).\n________________________________________\n(f) Computation of Perquisites (Sections 21(k) & 13):\n•\nValue of perquisites under Section 21(k) must align with Section 13. Allowances within exempt limits do not fall under Section 21(k).\n________________________________________\n(g) Assets Written Off (Sections 20, 22, & 23):\n•\nClaims disallowed by the department for lack of proof were upheld by the Tribunal based on evidence in Annual Reports.\n________________________________________\n(h) Amortization of Premium on Purchase (Section 20):\n•\nPremium payments classified as capital expenditure are not disallowable.\n________________________________________\n(i) Compensated Absences (Section 20):\n•\nProvision for compensated absences cannot be disallowed as it is not merely a provision but a legitimate expense.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Oriental Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. 1992 SCMR 763.\n________________________________________\n(j) Depreciation on Vehicles (Sections 20, 21 & 22):\n•\nVehicle use by employees for personal purposes leads to additions in their individual cases, not the taxpayer’s case.\n________________________________________\n(k) Deduction for Other Assets (Sections 20, 21 & 22):\n•\nProvisions against other assets cannot be disallowed if they are legitimate provisions.\n________________________________________\n(l) Depreciation Disallowance (Sections 22 & 122(9)):\n•\nAdditions made without confronting issues in Section 122(9) notices are invalid.\n________________________________________\n(m) Allocation of Expenses for Dividend and Exempt Capital Gain (Sections 5, 11, 37, 122(5-A), & 150):\n•\nAllocation of expenses against dividend and exempt capital gain was disapproved by the Tribunal.\n________________________________________\n(n) Concessionary Loans to Employees (Sections 13(7) & 21(k)):\n•\nAdditions treating concessionary loans as excess perquisites were overturned since no expenses were claimed.\n________________________________________\n(o) Reversal of Non-Performing Loans (Section 151):\n•\nReversal taxed as income was invalid as the taxpayer had already accounted for it.\n________________________________________\n(p) Depreciation Classification (Section 23(1)):\n•\nClassification of UPS, furniture, etc., as building for depreciation was upheld.\n________________________________________\n(q) Profit on Re-Purchase Agreements (Section 151(1)(d)):\n•\nShort-term loans through securities repurchase agreements fall under Section 151(1)(d) exemptions.\n________________________________________\n(r) Deduction of Tax on Rebate Payment (Sections 122(5) & 233):\n•\nRebate paid on units purchased was taxed as commission, which was disallowed since it didn’t meet the principal-agent relationship.\n________________________________________\n(s) Banking Profits and Gains (Section 100-A & Seventh Schedule):\n•\nBanks’ income computations under the Seventh Schedule disallow re-computation; only permissible adjustments are allowed.\n________________________________________\n(t) Provisions for Diminution in Value of Investments (Section 20):\n•\nDeductions disallowed before Seventh Schedule amendments were later allowed.\n________________________________________\n(u) Bad Debts (Section 29):\n•\nWritten-off amounts added without claims in the return were deleted, favoring the taxpayer.\n________________________________________\n(v) Workers' Welfare Fund (Section 60-A):\n•\nAmendments to the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance were declared unconstitutional, and the charge was removed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=13,13(7),20,21,21(k),22,23(1),23(5),29,60A,100A,SeventhSched.,122(5),122(5A),122(9),124A,150,151,151(1)(d),233 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1267/LB of 2007, 713/LB, 70/LB, 1097/LB of 2008, 901, 902/LB, 807/LB, 808/LB of 2011, 127/LB of 2012, 5001/LB to 5004/LB of 2005, 1292/LB of 2006 and 127/LB, 170/LB of 2012, decision dated: 7-01-2013. dates of hearing: 19th October and 21st December, 2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ikramul Haq and Mansoor Beg. Muhammad Tahir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 237 = 2013 SLD 237 = (2013) 108 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendments of Assessment and Workers’ Welfare Fund (WWF):\n•\nWWF Levy: The CIR(A) followed precedents set by Lahore High Court and the Tribunal, providing relief by deleting WWF levies for tax years 2010 and 2011. Appeals against this were dismissed, confirming that no exception can be made.\n•\nMinimum Tax for Trading Houses:\no\nClause (57) of Part IV, Second Schedule (introduced by Finance Act, 2005) excluded Large Trading Houses from PTR and granted a 10-year exemption from minimum tax starting from the year of business commencement.\no\nIssues Identified:\n\nInequity arises as new businesses receive benefits, but existing businesses fulfilling the same conditions are excluded.\n\nThe exclusion was deemed discriminatory, unreasonable, and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.\n\nRelief provided by CIR(A) deleting minimum tax was confirmed.\no\nCitations: Cases referred (2011) 103 Tax 96 (H.C. Lah.); (2011) 103 Tax 5 (H.C. Lah.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(9) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 725 & 726/KB of 2012 (Tax Years 2010 & 2011), decision dated: 8-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aleem, Advocate far the Appellant. Mumtaz Ali Bhaio, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 238 = 2013 SLD 238 = (2013) 108 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Section 153: Payments for Goods and Services:\n•\nInterpretation of Provisos:\no\nSection 153 and related provisos must be read harmoniously. The role of provisos is to create exceptions without conflicting with main enactments.\no\nAmendments and exclusions, such as for non-corporate service providers, follow a logical sequence.\no\nCorporate Sector: Not covered under the minimum tax regime of Section 153, as Section 113 applies to them.\no\nResult: Amendments confirmed exclusion of corporate service providers from minimum tax through Finance Act, 2011, reinstated via SRO 1003(I)/2011.\n•\nSection 221 (Rectification of Mistakes):\no\nControversial issues outside the scope of Section 221 rectification. Tribunal's orders deemed legally and factually flawed and annulled.\no\nCitations: (1999) 79 Tax 428 (SC); PLD 1971 SC 252.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1377/LB and 1378/LB of 2012 (Tax year 2010 & 2011) decided 6-3 -2013, hearing DATE : 04-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MASOOD AHMAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Afzal, FCA, for the Appellant. Shahid Safdar, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 239 = 2013 SLD 239 = (2013) 108 TAX 212 = 2013 PTD 2005", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court and Mistake Apparent on Record:\n•\nReframing Questions: High Court has jurisdiction to reframe and resettle questions of law for clarity.\n•\nMistake Apparent on Record: Errors affecting substantial rights or material facts are beyond the scope of rectification under Section 156.\n•\nAppeal Validity: Mentioning the wrong provision of law does not invalidate an appeal. Courts focus on merits over technicalities.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-Tax v. National Food Laboratories 1992 PTD 570; 2008 SCMR 204.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131,156(1) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No.108/2008, decision dated: 20-5-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABID AZIZ SHEIKH AND SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Agha Muhammad Akmal Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Malik Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar, Advocate for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\n MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 240 = 2013 SLD 240 = (2013) 108 TAX 249 = 2013 PTCL 518 = 2013 PTD 1883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit for Newly Established Industrial Undertakings (Section 65D):\n•\nTax Credit vs. Tax Exemption:\no\nTax credit offsets tax liability directly, while tax exemption reduces taxable income.\no\nBoth aim to reduce tax burdens but operate on different parameters.\n•\nExemption Certificate (Section 159):\no\nNewly established undertakings with 100% tax credit under Section 65D can claim an exemption certificate.\no\nDenial of exemption in tax credit cases is discriminatory and violates Article 25 of the Constitution.\n•\nRelief: Petition allowed; High Court directed issuance of exemption certificates, subject to Commissioner’s satisfaction.\n•\nCitations: International Directory of Finance Economist; Purposive Interpretation of Statutes by Aharon Barak.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=65,65D,159(1),53,148,122 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,199 ", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 31925/2012, decision dated: 25-3-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Usman Awan, Advocate along with Asim Zulfiqar, Chartered Accountant. A.F Ferguson, for the Petitioner. Imran Rasool, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NISHAT DAIRY (PVT.) LTD. through Company Secretary\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 241 = 2013 SLD 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Appeals Related to Sections 122(5) and 205(IB):\n•\nAppeals involved disputes over assessments for tax years 2006, 2009, and 2010.\n•\nIssues included application of Section 122(5) (amendment of assessment) and Section 205(IB) (default surcharge).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),205(IB),155 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 496/LB/2013 Tax Year 2009, I.T.A. No. 940/LB/2013 Tax Year 2010, I.T.A. No. 1164/LB/2012 Tax Year 2010, DATE of order 26/06/2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MRS. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Yousuf Ali Chaudhry. Respondent by None", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Educational Services (Pvt.) Ltd., 10-11 Industrial Area, Gurumangat Road, Lahore\nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Large Taxpayer Unit, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 242 = 2013 SLD 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wide Powers of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals):\n•\nProvision Cited: Section 251, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nScope: The CIT (Appeals) has extensive powers to confirm, annul, enhance, or modify assessment orders. They may also set aside an assessment and direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a fresh inquiry or assessment.\n•\nKey Principle: These powers allow the CIT (Appeals) to address specific issues, such as the status of the assessee, without reopening the entire assessment.\n•\nPrecedent: CIT v. S.K. Ulagammal Achi (1987) 166 ITR 210 (Mad.) affirmed that appellate discretion includes considering isolated points of contention while ensuring proper inquiry by the AO.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,133(5),122(4A),111(1)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 782 to 785/LB/2008 (Assessment Year 2000-01 & 2001-02). DATE of order 27.09.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Shahid Sattar, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "The C.I.T., Legal Division (RTO), Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Monnoo Industries Ltd., Montgomery Road, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 722 = 2001 SLD 722 = 2001 PTD 1722 = (2000) 241 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wide Powers of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals):\n•\nProvision Cited: Section 251, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nScope: The CIT (Appeals) has extensive powers to confirm, annul, enhance, or modify assessment orders. They may also set aside an assessment and direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a fresh inquiry or assessment.\n•\nKey Principle: These powers allow the CIT (Appeals) to address specific issues, such as the status of the assessee, without reopening the entire assessment.\n•\nPrecedent: CIT v. S.K. Ulagammal Achi (1987) 166 ITR 210 (Mad.) affirmed that appellate discretion includes considering isolated points of contention while ensuring proper inquiry by the AO.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=251 ", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 852 of 1984 (Reference No. 767 of 1984), decision dated: March 4th, 1984", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 214 = 2007 SLD 214 = 2007 PTD 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Operation of Laws & Section 122(5A):\n•\nKey Principle: A statute is prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Substantive laws typically apply prospectively, while procedural laws can apply to pending cases.\n•\nIssue: Assessments finalized under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, could not be reopened under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as the provision lacks retrospective application.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal held that orders framed under Section 122(5A) were void and illegal, restoring original assessments.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nColonial Sugar Refining Company Ltd. v. Irving (1905 AC 369).\no\n2001 PTD 1525 emphasized the prospective application of substantive legal provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 322/KB, 323/KB, 324/KB of 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Iqbal and Hamidullah, I.T.P.. Fazal Abrejo, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 243 = 2013 SLD 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Losses and Administrative Lapses:\n•\nCase Overview: The taxpayer sought to adjust losses from 1996-97 (due to depreciation) against subsequent income. The Tribunal noted chaotic record maintenance by the tax department, causing procedural delays and non-compliance with Tribunal orders.\n•\nDecision: The case was remanded with directions to examine the taxpayer’s return and audited accounts for 1996-97, ensuring proper adjustment of losses as allowed by law.\n•\nSignificance: Highlighted the importance of maintaining administrative records and adherence to Tribunal directives.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122(5) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66A,156,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1173/LB/2008 (Assessment year 2003), hearing DATE 25.06.2011. DATE of order 05.09.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Nadeem Ahmad, F.C.A. Respondent by Mr. Muhammad Tahir, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Malikwal Textile Mills Ltd., 20-E/1-C, GulberGIII, Lahore. N.T.N. 0914054-9 \nvs\nC.I.T., L.T.U., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 244 = 2013 SLD 244 = 2013 PTD 1967", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction on Wealth Statement Requests:\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer was asked to submit wealth and reconciliation statements despite identifying documented sources for investments. The case involved finalized assessments.\n•\nTribunal’s Stance: Without definite information or proper audit selection under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, such demands were deemed jurisdictionally flawed.\n•\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman restrained the Assessing Officer from conducting audits disguised as investment inquiries.\n•\nCase Referred: 2001 SCMR 838 upheld the importance of jurisdictional compliance in tax audits.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116,120(1),121,122(1)(5),176,214C ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.55/LHR/IT(41)/105 of 2013, decision dated: 10-07-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Syed Ali Imran Rizvi Authorized-Representative. Murtaza Ali Akbar, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAVED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 43 = 1975 SLD 43 = (1976) 33 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Tax and Bonus Deductibility:\n•\nIssue 1: Whether taxes paid on behalf of employees with tax-free salaries constitute perquisites.\no\nHeld: Such payments are part of the employee’s salary, not perquisites.\n•\nIssue 2: Whether bonus payments by a loss-incurring branch of a company are deductible.\no\nHeld: Bonuses justified by overall profitability are deductible.\n•\nCases Cited:\no\nHartland v. Giggines (1924 SKBD 168).\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. United Commercial Bank Ltd. (1969) 20 Taxation 216.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(4)(d),10(2)(x)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 991(KB) of 1972-73 (Assessment year 1968-69), decision dated: 5-7-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SALAHUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "A. A. Gangat, FCA, for the Appellant. Ahmad Niaz, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 44 = 1975 SLD 44 = (1976) 33 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Resident Agents and Statutory Requirements:\n•\nKey Principle: Appointment of a statutory agent for non-residents under Section 43 requires notice for each assessment year. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver.\n•\nOutcome: The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with statutory notice requirements invalidated proceedings.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nH.L. Sud v. Tata Engineering (1971) 23 Taxation 5 (SC Ind.).\no\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Ramsukh Motilal (1955) 27 ITR 54.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43 ", + "Case #": "AC. Nos. 238 of 1963-64 (S. Div), 239 of 1964-65 (S. Div), 23 of 1965-66 (S. Div.); 24 of 1966-67 (S., Div.) and 25 of 1967-68 (S. Div,) (Assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, 2965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68), decision dated: 28-4-1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.-SALAHUDDIN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS AND SALEEM CHAUDHRI AND M. MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "H. Shaban, Advocate, for the Appellant. Muhammad Fayyaz Khan, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 45 = 1975 SLD 45 = (1976) 33 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Public Interest in Shareholding:\n•\nFacts: A company’s shares became freely transferable to the public six days before the fiscal year-end.\n•\nDecision: The company was deemed “substantially interested” in the public for the entire year, satisfying conditions under Section 23A(1).\n•\nSignificance: Even partial-year compliance with public interest conditions can confer status benefits.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23A(1),Expl.I(b)(ii)(b) ", + "Case #": "A.A.C. (K.)-Co. 8(567)B (Assessment year 1967-68), decision dated: 25-6-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SALAHUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Majeed, FCA, for the Appellant. Ahmad Niaz, D.R, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 46 = 1975 SLD 46 = (1976) 33 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Discontinued Business and Non-Resident Expenses:\n•\nFacts: A construction company claimed its business continued post-completion due to maintenance contracts. The tax department contested the continuation of business.\n•\nTribunal’s Finding:\no\nBusiness was not discontinued due to ongoing minor works.\no\nInsurance premiums and head office expenses were admissible deductions.\n•\nOutcome: Assessment revised to reflect valid deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=25,25(1),10(2)(xvi),10(4)(bb),18(3BB) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 490(PB) of 1973-74 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 16-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND K. SALAHUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Safdar Saleem, FCA, for the Appellant. Abdul Malik, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 245 = 2013 SLD 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notice and Fair Hearings:\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer’s deemed assessment was amended without adequate notice or hearing.\n•\nTribunal’s View: Procedural fairness demands proper notice and hearing before amending assessments.\n•\nOutcome: Orders were vacated and remanded for reconsideration with instructions to adhere to procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116,122(5),122(9),111, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 328/LB/2013 Tax year 2007, hearing DATE 08.03.2013. DATE of order 08.04.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Waseem Ch., Advocate. Respondent by Mrs. Sadia Sadaf, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Rana Akram and Co., 8-K, Raiwind Road, Lahore. (NTN 1366949) \nvs\nCIR, ZonEX, RTO-II, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 47 = 1975 SLD 47 = (1976) 33 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual for Non-Residents:\n•\nIssue: Whether payments for services rendered entirely outside Pakistan accrued income in Pakistan.\n•\nDecision: Without evidence of significant business connections in Pakistan, income could not be deemed to accrue within the jurisdiction.\n•\nPrecedent: Jethabhai Jevabhai v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1951) 20 ITR 331 clarified the scope of business connection. ", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,4,18(3BB),42(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 147, 148 (PB) of 1974-75 (Assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72), decision dated: 19-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND K SALAHUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Yousaf E. Bhaimia, FCA, for the Appellant. Abdul Malik, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 48 = 1975 SLD 48 = (1976) 33 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debts and Bank Income:\n•\nBad Debts: Deductible only if recovery is deemed impossible and litigation abandoned.\n•\nComposite Bank Income: No bifurcation into sub-trades for income computation under Section 6.\n•\nInterest on Borrowed Capital: Allowed even when invested in tax-free securities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1435/KB of 1973-74 (Assessment year 1970-71), decision dated: 25-11-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND MR. FARRUKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.A. Noorani, I.T.P. for the Appellant. Miss Razia Bano, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 49 = 1975 SLD 49 = (1976) 33 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bonus Exclusion in Salary:\n•\nIssue: Whether bonus payments form part of salary for rent-free accommodation valuation.\n•\nHeld: Without explicit agreement terms, bonus is excluded from salary calculations for perquisite valuation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=39,39(3)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 2152 (KB) to 2155 (KB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73), decision dated: 12-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND A.K. FAROOQ, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "F. Hashmi, FCA., for the Appellant. G.R. Ghayyur, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 50 = 1975 SLD 50 = (1976) 33 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Source Income:\n•\nFacts: Funds withdrawn and redeposited within the same day were treated as undisclosed income by the tax department.\n•\nDecision: Proper documentation validated the taxpayer’s claim, and the Tribunal dismissed adverse inferences.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,10,37 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2120 of 1973-74 (Assessment year 1968-69), decision dated: 15-1-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. KARIM FAROOQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M.E. Naeem. I.T.P. and Mian Mohammad Azeem, Advocate,. Sh. Aftab Ahmad, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 246 = 2013 SLD 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Remittances as Income Source:\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer’s foreign remittance claim was contested due to procedural discrepancies in bank transactions.\n•\nDecision: The remittance was accepted as a valid income source based on evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,120(1),122(9),122(5),111(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2118/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2011), hearing DATE 29.04.2013. DATE of order 06.05.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. M. Nouman Yahya, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "The CIR (Legal Division), RTO, Sahiwal. \nvs\nMr. M. Awais Ali Afzal C/o SherERabbani, Sahiwal." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 247 = 2013 SLD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax Regime (MTR):\n•\nIssue: Misapplication of MTR on corporate entities already covered under Section 113.\n•\nDecision: Tribunal vacated orders, reaffirming that such entities are governed by the normal tax regime.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,120,153(1)(b),153(3)(b),122(5A),122(9),113 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2053/LB/2012 (Tax Yea 2010), I.T.A. No. 2054/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2011), DATE of order 04.04.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tipu Sultan, I.T.P. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Ovex Technologies Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., GulberGII, Lahore. \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 248 = 2013 SLD 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Remittance Validation:\n•\nOutcome: Taxpayer’s foreign remittance was accepted as explained income, dismissing the department’s appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),111(1)(b),111(4)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 465/IB/2012 Tax Year 2009, DATE of order 24.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Habib Ullah Khan, A.R", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi. \nvs\nMrs. Uzma Imran, House No. 187, Street No. 09, Chaklala SchemEIII, Rawalpindi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 249 = 2013 SLD 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Applications:\n•\nOutcome: Application dismissed as no substantive errors were identified in ITAT orders.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "MA (R) No. 12/IB/2013 Tax Year 2010, DATE of order 13.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Jawad Ahmed, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Zahid Masood Chatha, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Rawalpindi. \nvs\nM/s. Karwan ALSiddique International (Pvt.) Ltd. Faizan Plaza, 2nd Floor, Committee Chowk, Rawalpindi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 250 = 2013 SLD 250 = (2013) 108 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Property Tax:\n•\nKey Principle: Federal Government instrumentalities are exempt from provincial property taxes under Article 165.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal upheld the exemption for a public utility company owned and controlled by the Federal Government.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=183 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165 ", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 18373 of 2012, hearing DATE 29-3-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AYESHA A. MALIK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Munawar us Salam, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Muhammad Bilal Khan, Advocate, No. 6. Iftikhar Ahmad Mian, Advocate for City District Government with Firdous Akhtar (DDEEE), Syed Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Addl. A.G., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "LESCO\nvs\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB, etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 251 = 2013 SLD 251 = (2013) 108 TAX 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection and Constitutional Petition:\n•\nIssue: Whether a constitutional petition was valid when statutory remedies were available.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed as statutory appeals under Section 127 were not exhausted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122(5),124,127 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 20783 of 2012, decision dated: 30-5-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AYESHA A. MALIK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate,", + "Party Name:": "UNION LOCAL LOOP (PVT) LTD\nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 252 = 2013 SLD 252 = (2013) 108 TAX 330 = 2013 PTD 2040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Review of High Court Orders:\n•\nKey Principle: High Court cannot review its orders in tax references, as Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, excludes such jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: Review application dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=117,O.XLVII,R.1 ", + "Case #": "R.A.No.16-C/2010 in T.R.No.116/2008, decision dated: 22-5-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, AND SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Khalid Javed Bukhari, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ch. Saghir Ahmed and Muhammad Manzoor-ur-Haq, Advocates, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MOVE (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 153 = 1996 SLD 153 = 1996 PTD 279 = (1995) 72 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Limited Appeals under Section 132:\n•\nKey Point: Mandatory notice requirements under Section 132(6) must be followed for deemed relief in appeals. Failure to serve notice invalidates claims under the provision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,132(5)&(6) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13624 of 1995, decision dated: 12-11-1995, hearing DATE : 7-11-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner in person Shahbaz Butt for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Ch. IRSHAD AHMAD VIRK\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER APPEALS Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 675 = 1999 SLD 675 = 1999 SCMR 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebate for Registered Firms:\n•\nPrinciple: Both firms and their partners are entitled to export rebates on income and super-tax. The proviso cannot limit the broader application of the main provision.\n•\nPrecedent: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Marine Agencies (1973) 87 ITR 41 clarified the inclusive scope of the provision.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Finance Act, 1978=3,3(4)(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.959 of 1993 and 321 of 1994, decision dated: 30-11-1998, hearing DATE : 11-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNASIR ALI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 253 = 2013 SLD 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax on Payments to Non-Resident Banks:\n•\nCase Overview: The appellant (a joint venture) was alleged to have defaulted on withholding tax deductions for interest payments to six non-resident banks under Section 50(3) of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nIncome of non-resident banks was not chargeable in Pakistan under the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement (Article 7) between Italy and Pakistan.\no\nLoans and repayments were conducted entirely outside Pakistan in foreign currency.\no\nRevenue failed to establish that income of non-resident banks was chargeable in Pakistan.\no\nShow-cause notices and subsequent ex-parte orders were issued without adherence to legal prerequisites.\n•\nTribunal’s Observations:\no\nAction under Section 161 was void as chargeability of income in Pakistan was not established.\no\nProvisions of the Tax Treaty override the repealed Ordinance.\no\nNo Permanent Establishments (PEs) for the banks were present in Pakistan.\no\nProceedings were initiated under incorrect figures and without due application of mind.\n•\nDecision: Impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and canceled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=11,11(1)(b),161,205,114(5),107,129(5),221,152(5),239 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 123/IB/2012 Assessment year 1996-97, I.T.A. No. 124/IB/2012 Assessment year 1997-98. dates of hearing 17.10.2012, DATE of order 08.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate, Mr. Imtiaz Anjum Chaudhry & Mr. Nauman Rafique, F.C.As. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Ghazi Barotha Contractors, F7/3, Islamabad. (NTN.0914013) \nvs\nCIR, LTU, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 254 = 2013 SLD 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Judgment Assessment for Unsubstantiated Expenses:\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer failed to provide documents supporting claims of profit and loss (P & L) expenses, leading to additions by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nTribunal’s Action: Remanded the case for the Assessing Officer to verify the taxpayer’s claims with utility bills and other evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,128(5),121(1)(d),122(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 439/IB/2012 Tax Year 2008, I.T.A. No. 577/IB/2012 Tax Year 2008, I.T.A. No.580/IB/2013, DATE of order 20.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Faraz Fazal Sheikh, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-I), RTO, Rawalpindi. \nvs\nM/s. Kandan Marriage Hall, L185, Hyat Bux Plaza, Committee Chowk, Rawalpindi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 255 = 2013 SLD 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Withholding Tax for Hajj Operators:\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer contested denial of fixed tax liability (@ Rs. 1,700/- per Haji) applied to Hajj operators in Karachi but not extended nationwide.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Directed the department to apply the fixed withholding tax across all Hajj operators nationwide, citing equal treatment under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205,122(5A),21,113,152, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 518/IB/2013 Tax Year 2009, I.T.A. No. 519/IB/2013 Tax Year 2010, DATE of order 12.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Shehzad Ahmed Malik. A.R. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Al Waleed International (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad. \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I), Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 256 = 2013 SLD 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Amendments to Assessment:\n•\nIssue: Department amended assessment after the limitation period of five years, claiming retrospective applicability of a 2009 amendment.\n•\nTribunal’s Finding: Substantive laws cannot apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated. Amendment was void for exceeding the limitation period.\n•\nDecision: Appeal allowed; amended order void ab initio.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(2),122(5A),122(6),122(9),37(5C) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 401/IB/2012, DATE of order 10.01.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Aurengzeb, I.T.P. Respondent by Mr. Ziaullah Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "Dr. Ghulam Sabir, Natural Medical & Research Centre, Islamabad. \nvs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 257 = 2013 SLD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exempt Donations and Disallowed Salaries:\n•\nFacts: Taxpayer’s donations to a chamber of commerce were exempt under Clause 64-B, and salaries were paid through contractors.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Exempt donations were upheld. Salaries and wages disallowances were dismissed, consistent with past rulings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1)(a),122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 264/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2009), DATE of order 18-04-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. M. Tahir, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Asrar-Ul-Majeed Khan", + "Party Name:": "CIR (Legal Division), LTU, Lahore. \nvs\nM/s. Mandiali Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 258 = 2013 SLD 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Assessment Beyond Limitation:\n•\nIssue: Amended order was passed after the statutory five-year limitation period.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Retrospective application of procedural amendments was rejected. Appeal upheld; amended order invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120B,122(1)(2),177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 854/IB/2012 (Tax year 2006), DATE or hearing 25-02-2013. DATE of Order 05-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Naveed Hassan. D.R. Respondent by Mr. Umer Rasheed, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "CIR, RTO, Islamabad. \nvs\nM/s. Interactive Communication (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 259 = 2013 SLD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exchange Gain and Other Income:\n•\nKey Points:\no\nExchange gains from foreign donations were deemed non-recurring and linked to the main charitable activity, thus exempt.\no\nIncome from asset sales was taxable as it fell outside the organization’s primary purpose.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal partly succeeded, with exemptions granted for exchange gains.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 697/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2011), DATE of order 10.09.2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Nadeem Tirmizi, F.C.A. Respondent by Mr. Tahir Khan, D.R", + "Party Name:": "M/s. Actioned Aid Pakistan, Islamabad. \nvs\nThe CIR, L.T.U., Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 260 = 2013 SLD 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowed Business Expenses:\n•\nIssue: Additions for head office expenses, sub-contractor costs, and depreciation were challenged.\n•\nTribunal’s Findings: Detailed probing by the CIR(A) revealed the additions were baseless. Tribunal upheld CIR(A)’s orders, dismissing departmental appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 830/IB/2010 (Tax Year 2000-2001), I.T.A. No. 831/IB/2010 (Tax Year 2001-2002), hearing DATE 11.09.2013. DATE of order 19.09.2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MR. FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Appellant by Mr. Ziaullah Khan, D.R. Respondent by Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Khilji, A.C.P", + "Party Name:": "The CIR (Legal Division) RTO, Islamabad. \nvs\nM/s. Compagine General De Geophysique, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 208 = 1991 SLD 208 = 1991 PTD 786 = (1991) 64 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Immovable Property as Capital Gain:\n•\nFacts: A doctor sold a commercial plot without engaging in trade-related activities.\n•\nKey Principle: A one-time property sale, unrelated to the taxpayer’s profession, does not constitute business income.\n•\nOutcome: Surplus treated as capital gain, exempt from tax under constitutional provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27,2(ii),SecondSched.,PartI,item65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched.,PartI,item50 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 222(IB) of 1989-90", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BUKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Hussain and Muhammad Amin Butt. Sultan Mansoor and Muhammad Jehangir Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 209 = 1991 SLD 209 = 1991 PTD 804 = (1991) 64 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Zakat Deduction from Taxable Income:\n•\nPrinciple: Zakat is a charge on assets and not an expense for earning income. It is deductible from taxable income under Section 25 of the Zakat Ordinance, overriding the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nTribunal’s Action: Deleted unjustified addbacks and upheld Zakat deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980=25,3,Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 358/HQ and 379/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 30-03-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND IQBAL M. QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Z.H. Jafri (in I.T.A. No-358/HQ of 1990-91 and in I.T.A. No. 379/HQ of 1990-91). A.D. Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 358/HQ of 1990-92 and in I.T.A. No. 379/HQ of 1990-91)990-91) A.D. Bhatti, D.R. (in I.T.A. No. 358/HQ of 1990-92 and in I.T.A. No. 379/HQ of 1990-91)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 261 = 2013 SLD 261 = 2013 PTD 2121 = (2014) 109 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Property for Wealth Tax:\n•\nIssue: CBR Circulars prescribed separate valuation for land and construction, contrary to Wealth Tax Rules.\n•\nDecision: Valuation must be composite based on market rental value. Circulars were overruled as inconsistent with the Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(5)(16),3,7 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(3) ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No. 245 of 2000, heard on 13-11-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Ghulam Dastgir. Hafiz Muhammad ldrees", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nDr. Syed IMTIAZ ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 262 = 2013 SLD 262 = (2013) 108 TAX 369 = 2013 PTD 2125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Approval Requirements for Additions:\n•\nIssue: Taxation Officer added income without proper approval from the IAC.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Approval was mandatory to ensure checks on discretion. Additions made without proper approval were invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),62,136 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239,210 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.78 of 2012, decision dated: 17-09-2013, hearing DATE : 14-02-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Shaheena Akbar for Petitioner. Farooq Ahmad Nasir, Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue. Amir Sultan, Law Officer. Muhammad Aslam, Inland Revenue Officer. Shujaat Ali, Inland Revenue, Audit Officer. Hafiz Muhammad ldrees, Ch. Neem-ul-Haq and Zahid Shafiqs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Zone-I), R.T.O. RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs ALMEHDI INTERNATIONAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 263 = 2013 SLD 263 = 2013 PTD 2194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment for Non-Filing of Wealth Statement:\n•\nKey Point: A return becomes valid if deficiencies (e.g., wealth statement) are rectified within the stipulated time. Best assessment can only follow a declared invalid return.\n•\nDecision: Original return treated as valid; best assessment annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,114,121(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1010/LB of 2012, decision dated: 7-08-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-AD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Imran Rashid. Sajjad Tasleem, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, FAISALABAD\nvs\nC.I.R. (APPEALS), R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 264 = 2013 SLD 264 = (2013) 108 TAX 314 = 2013 PTD 2204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment for Non-Filing of Wealth Statement:\n•\nKey Point: A return becomes valid if deficiencies (e.g., wealth statement) are rectified within the stipulated time. Best assessment can only follow a declared invalid return.\n•\nDecision: Original return treated as valid; best assessment annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=1,1(2),77 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=246,247 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 732/IB to 736/IB of 2011, decision dated: 19-06-2013, hearing DATE : 9-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND. SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Ahmed. Naveed Hassan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAHIR PropMuhammad Tahir and Brothers\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL) REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, ABBOTTABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 265 = 2013 SLD 265 = 2013 PTD 2226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Record Confidentiality:\n•\nPrinciple: Unauthorized access to taxpayer records constitutes maladministration and data theft under Section 216.\n•\nTribunal’s View: Department’s failure to maintain data integrity violates statutory obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=198,216 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 240/LHR/ST(58)/408 of 2013, decision dated: 12-03-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUR RAUF CHAUDHRY, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN SOHAIL AMIN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt for Authorized Representative", + "Party Name:": "SOHAIL AMIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 266 = 2013 SLD 266 = 2013 PTD 2233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability on Explicit Legal Basis:\n•\nPrinciple: Tax obligations must be based on clear legal provisions, not presumptions or interpretations.\n•\nTribunal’s Stance: Provisional assessments require substantial justification to ensure fairness and compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=Preamble,122C(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1066/LB of 2013, decision dated: 15-08-2013, hearing DATE : 20-06-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaque Khan, FCA for Applicant. \nIftikhar Ahmed Baloch, DR", + "Party Name:": "Raja ABDUL ISLAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 278 = 1992 SLD 278 = 1992 PTD 1088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowance for Journalists:\n•\nIssue: Whether allowances for purchasing newspapers and periodicals were deductible as necessary employment expenses.\n•\nOutcome: Allowances were deductible where directly linked to job performance, except in cases lacking clear evidence of necessity.", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=189 ", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WANER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Alan Moses Q.C. and Nicholas Warren for the Crown Peter Whiteman. Q.C. and Marion Simmons for the Tax Payers Cur. adv. vult", + "Party Name:": "SMITH (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v. ABBOTT\nvs\nSAME v. HOLT SAME v. SCOVELLL SAME v. SHUTTLEWORTH SAME v. WOODHOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 267 = 2013 SLD 267 = 2013 PTD 2082", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration in Raw Material Import:\n•\nIssue: Raw material imported under concessionary notification with misdeclared value. The Intelligence Department acted under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nIntelligence Department was unauthorized to act under Section 32.\no\nThe Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Multan lacked jurisdiction; the case was under Karachi's Collectorate jurisdiction.\no\nEntire proceedings were declared void and without legal effect.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=3,3A,18,19,32,156(1) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.253/LB of 2012, decision dated: 13-05-2013, hearing DATE : 30-04-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD MUBEEN AND CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar. Muhammad Ismail D.R. with Javaid Bhatti, I.O.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAMIL BROTHERS IRON AND STEEL MERCHANT, MULTAN\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 268 = 2013 SLD 268 = 2013 PTD 2186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Imported Goods’ Value:\n•\nIssue: Misdeclaration led to confiscation with redemption fine.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nRedemption fine was to be calculated on evaded duty/taxes, not the consignment's total value.\no\nSRO 499(I)/2009 on fine fixation was unlawful as it conflicted with Section 181 of the Customs Act.\no\nFine reduced to 35% of evaded duty/taxes.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32A,79,80,156(1),179,181 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-395 of 2013, decision dated: 15-07-2013, hearing DATE : 31st May, 2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II) AND ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Ismat Mehdi. Ghulam Yasin, P.A.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NOVO NORDISK PHARMA (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ADJUDICATIONII, KARACHI MCC PaCCS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 220 = 1989 SLD 220 = 1989 PTD 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest for Late Filing of Returns:\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInterest for late filing is not penal but compensatory.\no\nIf tax assessed was fully paid as advance tax, interest cannot be charged.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2 ", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.S, PATHAK, C.J., RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOLTON DUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GANESH DASS SREERAM and others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, A WARD; SHILLONG and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 221 = 1989 SLD 221 = 1989 PTD 1322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Non-Resident’s Income:\n•\nIssue: Overhead expenses misapportioned between business lines.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nAgent’s reassessment barred by time.\no\nNon-resident directly reassessed as fresh information justified proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 208 and 209 of 1975, decision dated: 26th April 1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.S PATHAK C.J.I, AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "KB. Rohtagi. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior and Miss A. Subhashini", + "Party Name:": "CLAGGETT BRACHI CO. Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, A.P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 269 = 2013 SLD 269 = (2013) 108 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Add Backs:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAdd backs on rent and salaries were deleted previously.\no\nForeign indenting commission taxed at 5% per prescribed rates.\no\nSales tax and excise duty allowed as turnover deductions.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Directed error rectification within 7 days.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,113(3)-Clause(2) ofDivisionIV ofPart-IIIt ofirst Schedule-DivisionII ofPartIV ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 636 & 637/IB/2012 Tax Years 2009 and 2010, decision dated: 4-6-2013, hearing DATE : 28-05-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON, AND FAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaque Khan, FCA, for the Appellant. Imran Shah, DR, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 138 = 1995 SLD 138 = 1995 PTD 946 = (1995) 71 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Second Sched., Cls. 93 & 94---Exemption---Assessee, a Charitable Institution---Categories of income exempt from income-tax under Cls. 93 & 94 of Second Sched., Income-tax Ordinance, 1979---Income derived by assessee from sale of car, by process of elimination, does not fall under any category of such exempt incomes.\n \nThe following categories have been exempted under clauses 93 and 94 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 from income-tax:--\n \n(i) Income from house property held under legal obligations.\n \n(ii) Income from investment in securities of the Federal Government.\n \n(iii) Income from voluntary contributions.\n \nBy a process of elimination income derived by the assessee from sale of car does not fall under any of above categories, hence not exempt from tax under clause 93/94 of the Second Schedule.\n \n1986 PTD (Trib.) 441 and 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1294 ref.\n \nRangarya Medical College v. I.T.O. 117 ITR 284 and 1986 PTD 441 (Trib.) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.Cls.93,94 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No.142/LB of 1994, decision dated: 23rd October,1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid. Sh. Zulfiqar Ali, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 58 = 1978 SLD 58 = 1978 PLD 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Right of Pre-emption:\n•\nIssue: Whether pre-emption rights can be withdrawn via private declaration.\n•\nDecision: Public notification in the official gazette is mandatory for legal effect.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913=8,8(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 208 of 1978, decision dated: 1st June 1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Sajjad Raza Jaffary, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain,Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULEMAN ETC.\nvs\nABDUL GHANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 10 = 1977 SLD 10 = (1978) 37 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Production Formula:\n•\nIssue: Accounts were rejected based solely on deviation from the Awan Committee production formula.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Additions invalid as no substantive defects in books were found.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.734(KB) 1976-77 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 2-6-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND A. A DARESHANI, PRESIDENT", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mahmood Ahmad, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 11 = 1977 SLD 11 = (1978) 37 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal of Departmental Appeal:\n•\nIssue: Appeal dismissed due to departmental negligence in defending the case.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Affirmed dismissal citing lack of prosecution.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 128(KB), 129 (KB) of 1975-76, Assessment years 1972-73 and 1974-74), decision dated: 18-9-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND A. A. DARESHI,A PRESIDENT", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Shaukat Ali Zaidi, D. R., for the Appellant. Salah-ud-din, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 12 = 1977 SLD 12 = (1978) 37 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bias in Assessment Officer:\n•\nIssue: Assessee alleged bias in the assessing officer.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: Accepted additional ground as it went to the root of the assessment and directed de novo adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963=R-12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6182-A of 1973-74 (Assessment year 1969-70), decision dated: 6-4-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUKTADA KARIM AND KHIZAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 13 = 1977 SLD 13 = (1978) 37 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Duty Treatment:\n•\nIssue: Excise duty paid on a capacity basis was classified incorrectly.\n•\nDecision: Excise duty to be included in the profit and loss account, not the trading account.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)= ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No 1201 of 1975-76 (Assessment year 1975-76), decision dated: 17-7-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHIZAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND M. MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghafoor Aslam, ITP., for the Appellant. Sanaullah D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 14 = 1977 SLD 14 = (1978) 37 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Goodwill as Wealth:\n•\nIssue: Inclusion of goodwill and incorrectly valued closing stock in wealth tax.\n•\nDecision: Goodwill excluded from wealth; closing stock valuations lacking basis were also rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2,2(e),16(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 96/KB of 1972-73 (Assessment year 1972-73), decision dated: 28-11-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A. A. DARESHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MT. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND K. SALAHUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "I. N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ahmad Niaz, D. R., for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 15 = 1977 SLD 15 = (1978) 37 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation and Taxability:\n•\nKey Issue: Whether compensation for asset sterilization and lease surrender was capital or revenue income.\n•\nDecision: Treated as capital receipt, exempt from tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 12040 of 1971-72 (Assessment year 1969-70), decision dated: 18-4-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, KHIZAR HUSSAIN AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar, Advocate, with S. A. Rahman, Advocate and S. M. Masood, C. A., for the Appellant. Abdul Haq, Legal Adviser, with Khalid Mahmood, D. R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 16 = 1977 SLD 16 = (1978) 37 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income for Non-Residents:\n•\nIssue: Income accrued on securities deposited under statutory obligations.\n•\nDecision: Income deemed accrued in Pakistan and taxable under local law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=13(3),13(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 163(KB), 1363(KB), 1364(KB) of 1972-73, 2074(KB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71), decision dated: 26-12-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND K. SALAHUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Muhammad Kamil, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 17 = 1977 SLD 17 = (1978) 37 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Holiday for Compensation:\n•\nIssue: Compensation awarded post-contract cancellation during a tax holiday.\n•\nDecision: Compensation related to the tax holiday period and was exempt from tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,15BB ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 102(PB), 103(PB), 104(PB) and 3994 (PB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1969 -70 to 1972-73), decision dated: 16-10-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Musheer Pesh Imam, Advocate and Amir Alam Khan, C.A., for the Appellant. S.A. Khan, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 18 = 1977 SLD 18 = (1978) 37 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Building Valuation:\n•\nIssue: Higher valuation without Inspecting Assistant Commissioner approval.\n•\nDecision: Valuation not sustainable due to procedural non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=R-8,8(3) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. Nos. 107 (KB), 108 (KB) of 1976-77 (Assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-55), decision dated: 24-1-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Khan, D.R., for the Appellant. Waris Qadri, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 19 = 1977 SLD 19 = (1978) 37 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption on Inputs:\n•\nIssue: Whether inputs used in exempt goods were also exempt.\n•\nDecision: Inputs exempt if directly linked to the manufacture of exempt outputs.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(12),3(1)(e).4(b),7,8(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1 of 1975-76 (Assessment year 1968-69), decision dated: 23-9-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Haq, Advocate, with Muhammad Siddique, D.R. for the Appellant. Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 20 = 1977 SLD 20 = (1978) 37 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Rates for Religious Printing Machinery:\n•\nIssue: Whether depreciation at a higher rate was applicable.\n•\nDecision: Allowed 10% depreciation as per specified rules.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 729 of 1970, decision dated: 30.5.1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND QAISER KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Lahore ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nTAJ COMPANY LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 21 = 1977 SLD 21 = (1978) 37 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fresh Grounds in Appeals:\n•\nIssue: Whether new grounds could be raised in appeals post-original order.\n•\nDecision: Allowed since the original assessment was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,31 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No, 422 of 1970, decision dated: 1-19-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.C. DEB AND S.K. HAZRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ajit Sen Gupta for the Commissioner. None appeared for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALI\nvs\nSHREE GANESH JUTE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 22 = 1977 SLD 22 = (1978) 37 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capitalization of Pre-Production Costs:\n•\nIssue: Whether pre-production expenses could be capitalized.\n•\nDecision: Allowed capitalization and depreciation as acquisition costs.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No 274 (Reference No. 62) of 1970, decision dated: 6-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASWAMI AND V. SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chtdambaram for the Commissioner. S.V. Subramaniam for M/s. Subbamya Aiyar, Sethuraman and Padmanabhan for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADBAS-I\nvs\nSOUTH INDIA STEEL & SUGARS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 23 = 1977 SLD 23 = (1978) 37 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest as Compensation:\n•\nIssue: Taxability of interest awarded as ex gratia compensation.\n•\nDecision: Exempt as it was compensatory and not contractual/statutory.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,10 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction case No. 135 of 1976, decision dated: 1-3-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND K. B. PANDA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. Rath for the assessees Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GOVINDA CHOUDHURY & SONS\nvs\nCommissioner or Income Tax ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 24 = 1977 SLD 24 = (1978) 37 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Declaration and Reserves:\n•\nIssue: Dividend reasonableness assessed on current vs. accumulated profits.\n•\nDecision: Reasonableness based on current profits, not reserves.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 280 of 1971 (Reference No. 101 of 1970), decision dated: 15.4.1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASWAMI AND SETHURAMAN., JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "I. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram, Stand ing Counsel for income-tax, for the Commissioner. K.R. Ramamani assisted by S.V. Subramaniam for Mis, Subbaraya Aiyar. Sethuraman and Padmanabhan for the assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MADRAS-I\nvs\nAMALGAMATIONS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 25 = 1977 SLD 25 = (1978) 37 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Doctrine of Res Judicata in Tax:\n•\nIssue: Application of res judicata in income tax cases.\n•\nDecision: Doctrine does not apply; case remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 108 of 1968, decision dated: 4-7-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.C. DEB AND PYNE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Sen with A. Sengupta for the Commissioner. K.Roy with R. N. Dutt for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), CALCUTTA\nvs\nCHRESTIAN MICA INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 26 = 1977 SLD 26 = (1978) 37 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital:\n•\nIssue: Firm incurred interest on deposits initially accepted for business purposes but later used for other obligations.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nDeposits received were necessary for the business.\no\nSubsequent use of funds for other purposes was immaterial.\no\nInterest expense allowable under Section 10(2)(xv).\no\nTribunal's decision upheld; earlier contrary ruling not raised in the referred question.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 83 of 1976, decision dated: 30-11-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TULZAPURKAR AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with J. H. Pandit for the Commissioner. R. J. Kolah with H. G. Advani for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-IV\nvs\nKISHINCHAND CHELLARAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 27 = 1977 SLD 27 = (1978) 37 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes:\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a mistake in tax orders must be apparent to qualify for rectification under Section 154.\n•\nDecision:\no\nMistakes must be clear and patent, not requiring extensive reasoning or involving debatable issues.\no\nTribunal correctly ruled that Section 154 was inapplicable for complex or disputable errors.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=154 ", + "Case #": "Case referred No. 18 of 1975, decision dated: 20-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.J.DIVAN, C.J. AND RAGHUVIR-, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Rao for the Commissioner. J. T. Srinivasa Rao and M. J. Swamy for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL CNMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P\nvs\nP.R.N.S. & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 28 = 1977 SLD 28 = (1978) 37 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest and Penalty on Delayed Returns:\n•\nKey Issue: Penalty levied for delayed returns and presumed extension of time for interest computation.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nPresumption of time extension justified under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act.\no\nPenalty not justified if the delay was excused through presumed extension.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139 ", + "Case #": "December 17, 1971. Case Referred No. 81 of 1970", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHINNAPPA REDDY & A. D. V. REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax A. P\nvs\nM. MALIK RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 29 = 1977 SLD 29 = (1978) 37 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Income from Spontaneous Growth Trees:\n•\nKey Issue: Whether proceeds from the sale of trees in gifted forest land are capital or revenue income.\n•\nDecision:\no\nEntire sale proceeds treated as taxable income due to the assessee’s business-like treatment of the proceeds (e.g., recording them in profit and loss accounts).\no\nApportionment of proceeds into capital and revenue parts rejected for lack of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(1)3,4,10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 30 of 1966, decision dated: 14-8-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi and V. J. Pandit for the Commissioner. V. M. Patil with S. P. Mehta and I. M. Munim for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY-III\nvs\nRAJ KUMAR ASHOK PAL SINGHJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 30 = 1977 SLD 30 = (1978) 37 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Limitation:\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment after the statutory limitation period was extended by law.\n•\nDecision:\no\nLegislative amendment removing the limitation period applied retrospectively.\no\nReassessment initiated under extended limitation upheld as valid.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a),34(3) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 419 of 1972, decision dated: 14-10-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): C.S.P. SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan and Ashok Gupta for the Commissioner. S.B.L. Srivastava for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P\nvs\nRAJA MOHD MUSTAFA ALI KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 31 = 1977 SLD 31 = (1978) 37 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital or Revenue Expenditure:\n•\nKey Issue: Cost of constructing additional premises under a leave and license agreement.\n•\nDecision:\no\nExpenditure was capital in nature, providing enduring benefit.\no\nClaim for revenue expenditure deduction disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 86 of 1966, decision dated: 14-7-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KANTAWALA C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "R. J. Joshi with V. J. Pandit instructed by V. B. Shastri (Attorney) the Commissioner. V. H. Patil with I. M. Munim and S. J. Mehta for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I\nvs\nMENORA HOSIERY WORKS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 32 = 1977 SLD 32 = (1978) 37 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital and Revenue Expenditure Tests:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPayment to foreign collaborators treated as capital expenditure.\no\nTechnical know-how report treated as plant eligible for depreciation.\no\nHospital expenses for employees allowed as revenue expenditure.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nPayments linked to capital asset acquisition are capital expenses.\no\nKnow-how reports qualify for depreciation.\no\nTribunal’s factual findings on hospital expenses upheld, no legal question arose.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=43 ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 175 to 179 of 1973, decision dated: 16-8-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND P. K. MOHANTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Dr. B. Pal and B. K. Mohanty for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA\nvs\nBELPAHAR REFRACTORIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 33 = 1977 SLD 33 = (1978) 37 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Registration:\n•\nKey Issue: Whether lack of specific loss-sharing terms in the partnership deed invalidates registration.\n•\nDecision:\no\nDeed need not explicitly specify loss shares if they can be deduced.\no\nNon-mention of details in registration forms curable and not material.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 33 of 3967, decision dated: 14-7-1972", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GOPALRAO EKBOTE, C.J., A.V. KRISHNA RAO AND MADHAVA RAO, J", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Rama Rao for the Commissioner. K. Srinivasamurthy and K. Harnadha Rao for the assessed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P\nvs\nHYDERABAD STONE DEPOT AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 34 = 1977 SLD 34 = (1978) 37 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Filing:\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of penalty for late return when extension request was filed after the due date.\n•\nDecision:\no\nPenalty valid as no prima facie valid reasons for delay were provided.\no\nFailure to quantify penalty amount did not invalidate the penalty order.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 2 of 1974, decision dated: 1-8-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.C. PATHAK, C.J. AND D.M. SEEN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "B. P. Saraf for the assessee. G. K. Talukdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM FRONTIER VENEER AND SAW MILLS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 35 = 1977 SLD 35 = (1978) 37 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Duty on Goodwill and Gifts:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeceased partner’s share in goodwill passed to surviving partners.\no\nGifts by transfer entries to children in partnership assessed under estate duty.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nGoodwill share passed to surviving partners subject to estate duty.\no\nGifts included under Section 10 of Estate Duty Act.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Estate Duty Act, 1953=2,2(16),5,62,10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 269 of 1968 (Reference No. 88 of 1963), decision dated: 21-9-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the Controller. V. Ramachandran for the accountable person", + "Party Name:": "CONTROLLER OF ES FATE DUTY, MADRAS\nvs\nIBRAHIM GHULAM LIUSSAIN CURRIMBHOY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 36 = 1977 SLD 36 = (1978) 37 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Commission to Non-Residents:\n•\nKey Issue: Non-deduction of tax at source on commission paid to non-residents.\n•\nDecision:\no\nCommission disallowed as a deductible expense under Section 10(4)(bb) due to non-compliance with tax deduction requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi),10(4)(bb),17(1),18(38) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 25 of 1969, decision dated: 10-11-1977. dates of hearing; 6-10-1977, 13-10-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Applicant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GULBERG TEXTILE MILLS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 37 = 1977 SLD 37 = (1978) 37 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income in Mercantile Accounting:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTiming of accrual for ticket sales revenue.\no\nTreatment of unclaimed balances for unutilized tickets.\n•\nDecisions:\no\nRevenue accrued at the point of ticket sale, irrespective of refund conditions.\no\nUnclaimed balances transferred to profit and loss account treated as trading receipts.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 15 of 1969, decision dated: 13-10-1977. dates of hearing : 29-9-1977, 6-10-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 38 = 1977 SLD 38 = (1978) 37 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources and Tribunal Findings:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTribunal’s reliance on informal questioning and unsupported findings.\no\nAssessee's onus to explain the nature/source of income.\n•\nDecision:\no\nTribunal’s finding that Rs. 2,33,414 was undisclosed income lacked material support and was unreasonable.\no\nAssessee’s informal replies could not be used adversely without proper procedural adherence.\no\nRevenue entitled to treat unexplained receipts as income but not obligated to prove a specific source.\n•\nCase Reversed: Rosanna DI Hurt v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 370.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 284 of 1972, decision dated: 8-3-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P. N. BHAGWATI, R. S. SARKARIA AND MURTAZA ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. A. K. Sen and Mr. V. S. Desai Senior Advocates (Mr. Bishamber Lal, Advocate with them). Mr. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him", + "Party Name:": "ROSHAN DI HATTI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 39 = 1977 SLD 39 = (1978) 37 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Compound Interest on Mortgages:\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of compound interest in income from house property.\n•\nDecision:\no\nDeduction confined to interest on the principal charge, not on compound interest due to default.\n•\nCase Affirmed: Show Kisses Bhatter v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 331.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,9(1)(iv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1500 to 1502 of 1970, decision dated: 5-3-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. S. HEGDE, P., JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. M.C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for the Appellant. Mr. J. Ramamurthi, Mr. R. N. Sachthey and Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "SHEW KISSEN BHATTER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 40 = 1977 SLD 40 = (1978) 37 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business of Leasing Factories and Registration of Firms:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether leasing a factory constitutes a business.\no\nEligibility of a partnership for registration.\n•\nDecision:\no\nLeasing factories qualifies as a business.\no\nPartnerships engaged in such activities entitled to registration under Section 26A.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10,12,26A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 1975, decision dated: 6-10-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): D.K. MAHAJAN AND BALRAJ TULI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rajinder Nath Mittal, with D. K. Gupta for the assessee. D. N. Awasthy with B. S. Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NAUHARCHAND CHANANRAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 41 = 1977 SLD 41 = (1978) 37 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Principles of Natural Justice in Assessments:\n•\nKey Issue: Denial of procedural fairness in assessment proceedings.\n•\nDecision:\no\nAssessment proceedings judicial in nature; natural justice principles apply.\no\nWithholding witness identities, statements, and inspection rights violated fairness.\no\nAssessment vitiated.\n•\nCases Referred: Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 174 of 1971, decision dated: -8-8-1973", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATISH CHANDRA AND AMITAV BANERJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Assessee in person. Mr. Deokinandan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GARGI DIN JWALA PRASAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 42 = 1977 SLD 42 = (1978) 37 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Shares in Net Wealth:\n•\nKey Issue: Whether shares acquired post-valuation date were part of net wealth.\n•\nDecision:\no\nShares held on valuation date includible in net wealth despite later acquisition notification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 43 of 1974-75 (Assessment year 1973-74), decision dated: 5-1-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood Ahmad, D.R., for the Appellant. Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 43 = 1977 SLD 43 = (1978) 37 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure on Cinema Hall Improvements:\n•\nKey Issue: Cost of permanent improvements to leased cinema hall.\n•\nDecision:\no\nImprovements of a permanent character are capital expenditures, not revenue.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Jurisdiction Case No. 26 of 1973, decision dated: 2-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND N. K. DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Pasayat for the assessee. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RUPRAG P. LTD\nvs\nCOMMlSSlONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 44 = 1977 SLD 44 = (1978) 37 TAX 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Interest Paid by Branches in Pakistan:\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of interest paid on loans by overseas branches.\n•\nDecision:\no\nInterest paid by a single, unified business (with branches in Pakistan) deductible from global income.\n•\nCases Referred: CIT v. Parakh & Co. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=36,36(1)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 318 of 1972, decision dated: 1-8-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Somnath Chatterjee with R. N. Dutta for the assessee. B.L PaI with P. Majumdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CAREW & CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL III" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 45 = 1977 SLD 45 = (1978) 37 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals on Claims Not Made Before Assessing Officer:\n•\nKey Issue: Whether new claims can be raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nDecision:\no\nClaims not raised or substantiated before the Assessing Officer cannot be introduced at appellate stages.\n•\nCase Reversed: CIT v. Gujargravures P. Ltd. [1972] 84 ITR 723.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=84,251(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1655 of 1972, decision dated: 8-11-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): A.C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. B. Ahuja and R. N. Sach they, Advocates, for the appellant. G. L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate (Ravinder Narain, D. N. Mishra, J. EDadachanji and O. C. Mathur, Advocates. with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRAT\nvs\nGURJARGRAVURES P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 46 = 1977 SLD 46 = (1978) 37 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Closing Stock and Work-in-Progress:\n•\nKey Issue: Tribunal’s rejection of long-standing valuation method.\n•\nDecision:\no\nLong-standing, accepted commercial practices can only be rejected for compelling reasons.\no\nTribunal’s reliance on rigid cost or market price rule erroneous.\n•\nCase Referred: Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax, Reference No. 9 of 1970, decision dated: 22-8-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND, JONAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal, P. K. Pal and A. K. Ray Chowdhury for the assessee. S. C. Sen with Ajit Sen Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGALIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 47 = 1977 SLD 47 = (1978) 37 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rental Income vs. Charges for Amenities:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether lift and air-conditioning charges are rental income.\n•\nDecision:\no\nRental income assessable under house property income.\no\nAmenity charges (lift/air-conditioning) assessed under income from other sources. ", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=22,56 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 157 of 1972, decision dated: 18-3-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C.J. AND S.C. DEB, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. D. Pal with Miss M. Seal for the assessee. B.L. Pal with Ajit Sen Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL - I" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 48 = 1977 SLD 48 = (1978) 37 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Money for Investment in Shares:\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of interest even if no dividends received.\n•\nDecision:\no\nDeductible under Section 57(iii) if laid out solely for earning income, regardless of actual returns.\n•\nCase Followed: Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12(2) ", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 81 and 82 of 1974, decision dated: 19-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R. N. MISRA AND K. B. PANDA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. B. K. Mohanty for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA\nvs\nGOPAL CH. PATNAIK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 49 = 1977 SLD 49 = (1978) 37 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Books of Accounts:\n•\nKey Issue: Justification for rejecting accounts due to inadequacies.\n•\nDecision:\no\nStock register inconsistencies, unverifiable sales, and low GP rate justified rejection of book version.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 73 of 1947, decision dated: 3-12-1975. dates of hearing: 5th and 7-11-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GAL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt and Amanullah for the Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haq for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NAWAZ AGENCXES, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, M.CIRCLE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 50 = 1977 SLD 50 = (1978) 37 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credits in Books of Accounts:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBurden of proof on cash credits.\n•\nDecision:\no\nBurden lies on the assessee to prove the source of cash credits.\no\nFailure to explain allows the Revenue to treat them as concealed income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(2A), ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Nos. 9 and 13 of 1969, decision dated: 13.10.1977. dates of hearing: 22.9.1977 and 28.9.1971", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MALIK MIR HASSAN KHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 51 = 1977 SLD 51 = (1978) 37 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Defaults Under Martial Law Regulation:\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of penalty for non-payment of demands under Martial Law Regulation.\n•\nDecision:\no\nPenalty not leviable under Section 46(1) for defaults under Martial Law Regulation No. 32.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 129 of 1974, decision dated: 13-11-1975, hearing DATE : 10-7-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. Lone, for the Appellant. Ali Bin Abdul Qadir, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMST. MAHMOODA SULTANA, LYALLPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 52 = 1977 SLD 52 = (1978) 37 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Diversion of Income by Overriding Title:\n•\nKey Issue: Surcharge for local charities—taxable income or diverted at source.\n•\nDecision:\no\nSurcharge for charities diverted at source; not part of the assessee’s taxable income.\n•\nCases Applied: CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 41 ITR 367 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 578 of 1972, decision dated: 15-3-1977", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): P.N. BHAGWATI AND MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. Sukumar Mitra, Senior Advocate (D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Choudhary, Advocates, with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL\nvs\nTOLLYGUNGE CLUB LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 53 = 1977 SLD 53 = (1978) 37 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Extended Limitation for Penalty:\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of amended limitation rules to pending penalty proceedings.\n•\nDecision:\no\nLimitation procedural; extended period applies to pre-amendment cases.\n•\nCase Applied: Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas [1963] 49 ITR (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=275 ", + "Case #": "Case referred No. 17 of 1975, decision dated: 14-12-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.J. DIVAN, C.J., MADHAVA REDDY AND CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "P. Ramarao for the Addl. Commissioner. M. J. Swamy and J. V. Srinivasa Rao for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P\nvs\nWATAN MECHANICAL AND TURNING WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 54 = 1977 SLD 54 = (1978) 37 TAX 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in the Nature of Trade:\n•\nKey Issue: Sale of land purchased for residential purposes—capital gains or trade income.\n•\nDecision:\no\nSale of land treated as capital gain; not an adventure in the nature of trade.\n•\nCase Applied: Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1962] 57 ITR 21 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 35 of 1966, decision dated: 11-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): VIMADALAL AND S.K. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.J. Joshi with V.J. Pandit for the Commissioner. I.M. Munim with V.H. Patil and S.J. Mehta for the assesse", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nANANDLAL BECHARLAL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 55 = 1977 SLD 55 = (1978) 37 TAX 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Burden of Proof in Transactions of Land:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether land transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade.\n•\nDecision:\no\nRevenue must prove transactions are of trading nature.\no\nIn absence of trading intent, profits treated as capital gains.\n•\nCase Applied: Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4),66 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 360 of 1971, decision dated: 2-12-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. N. SHUKLA AND K. C. AGRAWAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shanti Bhushan and R. K. Gulati for the assessed. Dr. R. R. Misra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DEEP CHANDRA AND CO\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 56 = 1977 SLD 56 = (1978) 37 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) - Section 10(2)(xy) - Business expenditure vs. penalty.\nConclusion: Payment of ₹18,247 for shortfall in export obligations was deemed business expenditure and not a penalty. The court ruled that such payments are commercially expedient and optional under the terms of the bond, without violating public policy.\nCitation: ADDL. CIT v. Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 298 (Guj).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xy) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference, No. 198 of 1974, decision dated: 1-4-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND B.K. MEHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K.H. Kaji with R.P. Bhatt of M/s. R.P. Bhatt & Co. Solicitors, for the Commissioner. J.P. Shah for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax GUJRAT -III\nvs\nTARUN COMMERCIAL MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 57 = 1977 SLD 57 = (1978) 37 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) - Section 28 - Penalty for undisclosed income.\nConclusion: Penalty levied for concealment of income was invalid as the department failed to provide positive evidence of concealment beyond the falsity of the assessee's explanation regarding house construction loans.\nCitation: CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 333 of 1969, decision dated: 10-7-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DEB AND DIPAK KUMAR SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "B. L. Pal with N. L. Pal for the Commissioner. J. C. Pal with M. Benerjee for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL -III\nvs\nLALIT MOHAN DEB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 58 = 1977 SLD 58 = (1978) 37 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business expenditure under Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) - Section 10(2)(xvi).\nConclusion: Excess management expenses of an insurance company, even beyond limits in Insurance Rules, 1938, were allowable as business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi) if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\nCitation: Various cases, including CIT v. Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Co.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 1 of 1970, decision dated: 6-11-1977, hearing DATE : 13-11-1917", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate, for the Appellant. S. Mahmoodul Hassan Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISS10NER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 59 = 1977 SLD 59 = (1978) 37 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty under Section 28(1)(c) - Relevance of past clean records.\nConclusion: Past clean records of an assessee are not always material in determining penalties under Section 28(1)(c). Penalties for concealment are justified based on specific defaults in furnishing accurate particulars of income.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28,28(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 717 of 1972, decision dated: 17-9-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATISH CHANDRA AND H. N. SETH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. R. R. Misra, for the Appellant. Bashir Ahmad, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U. P., LUCKNOW\nvs\nU. P. Tannery Company (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 60 = 1977 SLD 60 = (1978) 37 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax - Deliberate failure to furnish a true estimate under Section 18A(9).\nConclusion: Penalty was deemed leviable for deliberate underestimation of income in advance tax filings.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. U.P. Tannery Co. [1977] 107 ITR 655.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(9) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 492 of 1972, decision dated: 31-7-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.L. GULATI AND C.S.P. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan, for the Appellant. Bashir Ahmed, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR\nvs\nU.P. TANNERY CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 61 = 1977 SLD 61 = (1978) 37 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment under Section 34(1)(a) and Section 34(1)(b).\nConclusion: Reassessment for items covered under Section 34(1)(b) is barred if notice is issued under Section 34(1)(a). The court emphasized strict compliance with limitation rules for reassessment actions.\nCitation: Verappa Chettiar v. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 116 (Mad).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a),(b) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 44 of 1964, decision dated: 4-12-1923", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): VIMADALAL AND DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. E. Dastoor for the assessee. R.J. Joshi with R.M. Hajarnavis for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NEW KAISER-IHIND SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 62 = 1977 SLD 62 = (1978) 37 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Tribunal Jurisdiction under Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 253, 245.\nConclusion: The Tribunal can consider new legal points within the subject matter of the appeal but cannot entertain issues not raised before the lower authorities.\nCitation: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 242 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=253,245 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 72 of 1974, decision dated: 17-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.J. DIVAN. C.J. AND T.U. MEHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K H. Kaji with R. P. Bhat of M/s. R. P. Bhat & Ca. (Solicitors) for the Commissioner. K H. C. Patel for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT-III\nvs\nSTEEL CAST CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 63 = 1977 SLD 63 = (1978) 37 TAX 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for defective account books.\nConclusion: Penalty cannot be levied solely based on estimated income if the assessee is not guilty of fraud or gross negligence.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harnam Singh & Co. [1977] 106 ITR 291.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271,271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 15 of 1973, decision dated: 22-1-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): R.L. GULATI AND C.S.P. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan, for the Appellant. N. D. Pant and M. C. Pant, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHORILAL KUNJ BEHARI LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 64 = 1977 SLD 64 = (1978) 37 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court's scope in reviewing Tribunal findings.\nConclusion: High Courts cannot reappraise facts or override findings of the Tribunal on matters of fact.\nCitation: Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 547 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 418 of 1972, decision dated: 17-2-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K.B. ASTHANA, C.J. AND R.M. SAHAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Deokinandan, for the Appellant. R.K. Gulati, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR\nvs\nSAYEED AHMAD SHARIF AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 65 = 1977 SLD 65 = (1978) 37 TAX 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gift validity and completion under the Indian Gift Tax Act, 1958.\nConclusion: Transfer entries in firm accounts constitute a valid gift even without physical delivery.\nCitation: Bhau Ram Jawaharmal v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 722.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,2(12),4 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1863 of 1974, decision dated: 9-7-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SATISH CHANDRA AND H.N. SETH., JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashok Gupta, for the Petitioner. R.R Misra, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SRINATH DAS\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 66 = 1977 SLD 66 = (1978) 37 TAX 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Testamentary nature of a settlement deed. \nConclusion: A settlement deed with provisions for lifetime enjoyment by the settlors was testamentary in nature and not a gift, thus not attracting the Gift Tax Act.\nCitation: Sakuntala Ammal v. Pattammal [1976] 1 MLJ 296 (Mad).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=2,2(xxiv) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 372 of 1970, decision dated: 13-7-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. N. Rangaswami and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner. G. R. Lakshmanan for M/s, G. Ramarwami, M. S. Sadunand and V. Sundararnurthy for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, MADRAS-II\nvs\nC. THIRUVENKATA MUDALIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 67 = 1977 SLD 67 = (1978) 37 TAX 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's consideration of new points in reference.\nConclusion: Questions not raised before the Tribunal cannot form part of a reference to the High Court.\nCitation: Muhammad Idrees Barry v. CIT (P.L.D. 1959 S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 45 of 1975, decision dated: 1-2-1978", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): I. MAHMOOD AND Z. A. CHANNA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. G. Dastgir, for the Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MST. KHATUA BAI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax [Karachi WEST). KARACHIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 68 = 1977 SLD 68 = (1978) 37 TAX 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business expenditure and technical know-how payments.\nConclusion: Payments for technical know-how were deemed capital expenditure if they led to the acquisition of a capital asset.\nCitation: CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Guj).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 125 and 181 of 1974, decision dated: 13.2.1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BJ. DIVAN, C.J. AND P.DL DESAI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "KH. Kaji with R.P. Bhatt for the Commissioner. J.P. Shah for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT\nvs\nS.L.M. MANEKLAL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 547 = 2002 SLD 547 = 2002 PTD 2548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained investment under Section 13(2).\nConclusion: Estimation of property value without prior approval of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was invalid.\nCitation: M/s Khurram Sagir Industries v. CIT, 2000 PTD 280.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(2),136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 344 of 1991, decision dated: 10-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Shuja Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Mst. ILYAS JAN ALAM, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 270 = 2013 SLD 270 = (2013) 108 TAX 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Rental Income, Exemptions, and Business Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nRental income recovered from employees for accommodation was initially taxed as property income; however, the appellate authority clarified that it should be treated as recoupment of salary expenditure and exempted as part of business income.\n2.\nThe authorities must assess transactions based on their substance rather than form, reinforcing the principle that exemptions under Clause (132) apply to business-related incomes.\n3.\nExpenses related to generating taxable income must be appropriately apportioned as mandated by Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002. The Additional Commissioner failed to do so initially, but the appeal directed necessary adjustments.\n4.\nTax credits under Sections 65A and 65B were denied initially but later restored as income from the primary operations remained exempt.\n5.\nInsurance claims for loss of business capacity due to a flood were exempted under Clause (132) as they were deemed components of business income.\n6.\nGains from the sale of fixed assets were affirmed as business income and thus exempt under Section 22.\n7.\nRevenue from scrap sales was treated similarly, following prior decisions, exempting them from minimum tax under the power purchase agreement.\n8.\nMinimum tax liability on accretions from power purchase agreements was rejected, as these receipts were integrally linked to electricity sales, qualifying for exemption.\nCases Cited:\n•\n2010 PTD 1809 (SC Pak)\n•\n1985 PTD 136 (Bombay HC)\n•\nUCH Power Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT\n•\n2011 PTD 2440", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=16,17,18,19,22,23,27,30,65A,65B,67,122(5A),SecondSched.Cl.132,176,Clause(IIA)(V) ofPart-IV of Second Schedule Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 894 to 896/LB and 1147 to 1149/LB of 2012, decision dated: 24-10-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar FCA, for the Appellant. Mian Asghar Ali Gurdaspuri, LA and Aftab Alam, DR. for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 271 = 2013 SLD 271 = (2013) 108 TAX 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Venture Capital Company Exemptions\nConclusions:\n1.\nTRG International was held eligible for exemption under Clause (101) of Part I of the Second Schedule. The tribunal disagreed with the CIR’s stance on ineligibility, emphasizing that this determination falls under the SECP's purview.\n2.\nExpenses categorized as pre-commencement and capital expenses were disallowed, but TRG’s status as a Venture Capital Company justified its exemption.\n3.\nThe Additional Commissioner acted within delegated powers under Section 122(5A), as upheld by prior rulings of the Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court.\nCases Cited:\n•\nPLD 1965 Dacca 296\n•\nPLD 1961 SC 215\n•\nPakistan Paper Products v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,(5A),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 661 and 786/KB of 2010 (Tax Years 2003 & 2004), decision dated: 28-3-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Ali Khan and Faisal Ahad, Advocates, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 51 = 1975 SLD 51 = (1976) 33 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Income Classification\nConclusions:\nDividend income from investments by an individual or company does not qualify as business income unless the shares are actively traded as stock-in-trade. The act of holding shares for dividends is not considered a business.\nKey Precedents:\n•\nBengal and Assam Investors Ltd. v. CIT\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Chugandasand Co.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,12 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1964, decision dated: 2-11-1965", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. SUBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari with him), for the applicant. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (N. D. Karkhanis, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey with him), for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "BENGAL AND ASSAM INVESTORS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 52 = 1975 SLD 52 = (1976) 33 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Ad-Hoc Additions\nConclusions:\n1.\nRejection of accounts by the Income Tax Officer was upheld based on cogent reasons; however, ad-hoc additions by the Tribunal without a clear computation basis were unsustainable.\n2.\nThe Tribunal must ground adjustments on reasonable and identifiable bases rather than arbitrary estimations.\nCases Cited:\n•\nDhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT\n•\nPandit Bros. v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 124 of 1975, decision dated: 28-10-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Applicant. M.A. Lone, Advocate, for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAJPUT METAL WORKS LTD., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 53 = 1975 SLD 53 = (1976) 33 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accounting Methods and Valuation of Stock\nConclusions:\nValuation of obsolete and slow-moving stock at less than cost price was upheld as reasonable. Higher valuations reported to banks for overdraft purposes do not invalidate recognized accounting methods.\nCases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Chari and Ram", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 147 of 1962, decision dated: 12-2-1965", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHANDRA REDDY C.J. AND KAILSAM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "S. Swaminathan and K. Ramgopal, for the applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "INDIA MOTOR PARTS AND ACCESSOREES (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 54 = 1975 SLD 54 = (1976) 33 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Termination of Employment\nConclusions:\nPayments under a contract for early termination of employment, described as compensation for loss of employment, are not profits in lieu of salary unless they represent an employer's option under the contract.\nCases Cited:\n•\nR.N. Agarwala v. Commissioner of Income-tax", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=7,7(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 76 of 1961, decision dated: 8-2-1965", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y.S. TAMBE AND V.S. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "G. N. Joshi with R. G. Joshi for the applicant. N. A. Palkhivala with Dilip Dwarkadas for the respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS.P. JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 154 = 1996 SLD 154 = 1996 PTD 1042 = (1995) 216 ITR 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 - Exemption for Charitable Trusts and Accumulated Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nScope of Exemption under Section 11(1)(a):\no\nCharitable trusts are entitled to exemption on two components of income:\n(a) Income spent on charitable/religious purposes in the same year.\n(b) Accumulated income up to 25% of total income or ₹10,000, whichever is higher.\n2.\nAdditional Accumulated Income under Section 11(2):\no\nAccumulated income exceeding the 25%/₹10,000 limit can also qualify for exemption if:\n(a) It is invested as specified under Section 11(2).\n(b) The trust follows the stipulated procedures.\n3.\nRelationship Between Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2):\no\nSection 11(1)(a) provides an unconditional exemption for the stipulated portion of accumulated income.\no\nSection 11(2) applies only to the remaining income beyond the exempt limit under Section 11(1)(a).\n4.\nNo Conflict Between Sections:\no\nSection 11(2) does not override or restrict the exemptions provided under Section 11(1)(a).\no\nThe absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(2) supports the independent operation of these provisions.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. C.M. Kothari Charitable Trust (1984) 149 ITR 573 (Mad)\n•\nCIT v. H.H. Marthanda Verma Elayaraja of Travancore Trust (1981) 129 ITR 191 (Ker)\n•\nCIT v. Shri Krishen Chand Charitable Trust (1975) 98 ITR 387 (J & K)\n•\nAddl. CIT v. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust (1976) 103 ITR 44", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=11 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.958 of 1977, decision dated: 13-10-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Sathish and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him)s. Gopal Jain and Mukul Mudgal.", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nvs\nA.L.N. RAO CHARITABLE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 55 = 1975 SLD 55 = (1976) 33 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment under Section 34(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nReasonable Belief for Reassessment:\no\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) must possess sufficient facts leading to a reasonable belief that:\n(a) Income has been under-assessed.\n(b) There was a failure to disclose material facts.\n2.\nCourt's Scope of Review:\no\nCourts cannot question the sufficiency of belief formed by the ITO but can assess its reasonableness.\no\nITO may rely on isolated facts if they reasonably support reassessment.\n3.\nInvalid Reassessment Proceedings:\no\nIn this case, reassessment for the years 1940-41 to 1945-46 was invalid as:\n(a) Records were missing, and no basis existed to reasonably conclude under-assessment.\n(b) There was no proof of non-disclosure by the assessee.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)\n•\nBhimraj Pannalal v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 289", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 1962, decision dated: 18-6-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TARKUNDE, J", + "Lawyer Name": "F.S. Nariman with Mrs. Sujata Manohar and K.H. Parsurampuria for the applicant. G.N. Joshi with R. J. Joshi for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAMNIWAS KARAILAL\nvs\nS.P. SHENDE, Income Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 56 = 1975 SLD 56 = (1976) 33 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Best Judgment Assessment and Renewal of Registration under Section 23(4)\nConclusions:\n1.\nEx-Parte Assessments and Registration:\no\nAn Income Tax Officer (ITO) has the authority to:\n(a) Finalize assessments using best judgment in case of non-compliance.\n(b) Refuse or cancel firm registration under Section 23(4) simultaneously.\n2.\nValidity of Refusal:\no\nThe refusal of renewal of registration in conjunction with the best judgment assessment was upheld as proper and valid.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Krishnama & Co. (1955) 28 ITR 273\n•\nOdeon Cinema v. CIT, Lahore Zone (PLD 1971 Lah 632)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(4) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 180 of 1971, decision dated: 19-2-1975. dates of hearing: 26th November and 2nd December 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUNAWAR ELAHI RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rustam Sidhwa, for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq,.", + "Party Name:": "AHMAD DIN ABDUL RAZAQ, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 57 = 1975 SLD 57 = (1976) 33 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Prosecution for Concealment of Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nImpact of Tribunal’s Decisions on Prosecution:\no\nIf an Appellate Tribunal sets aside an assessment for fresh evaluation, any ongoing criminal proceedings based on the earlier assessment lose validity.\n2.\nStaying Criminal Proceedings:\no\nWhere a connected civil matter is pending before the High Court or Tribunal, criminal proceedings should be stayed to avoid contradictory outcomes.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nA.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 44", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52A ", + "Case #": "Cr. A. 756 of 1973, decision dated: 29-10-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AGHA ALI HYDER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "G.M. Shah, for the Applicant. A.R. Qazi, for State", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN, ETC\nvs\nSTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 58 = 1975 SLD 58 = (1976) 33 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Prosecution for Concealment of Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nImpact of Tribunal’s Decisions on Prosecution:\no\nIf an Appellate Tribunal sets aside an assessment for fresh evaluation, any ongoing criminal proceedings based on the earlier assessment lose validity.\n2.\nStaying Criminal Proceedings:\no\nWhere a connected civil matter is pending before the High Court or Tribunal, criminal proceedings should be stayed to avoid contradictory outcomes.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nA.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 44", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2),52 ", + "Case #": "Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 1974, decision dated: 29-11-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AGHA ALI HYDER, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Z.U. Ahmad, for the Applicant. A. R. Kazi, for the State", + "Party Name:": "HAJI SULEMAN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 59 = 1975 SLD 59 = (1976) 33 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Prosecution for Concealment of Income\nConclusions:\n1.\nImpact of Tribunal’s Decisions on Prosecution:\no\nIf an Appellate Tribunal sets aside an assessment for fresh evaluation, any ongoing criminal proceedings based on the earlier assessment lose validity.\n2.\nStaying Criminal Proceedings:\no\nWhere a connected civil matter is pending before the High Court or Tribunal, criminal proceedings should be stayed to avoid contradictory outcomes.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nA.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 44", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=51,51(2)52 ", + "Case #": "Cr. Misc. 444 of 1974, decision dated: 9-9-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AGHA ALI HYDER., J", + "Lawyer Name": "N. A. Zahid, Advocate, for the Applicant. A.R. Kazi, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MAQBOOL A. SHAH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 60 = 1975 SLD 60 = (1976) 33 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gifts under Muhammadan Law\nConclusions:\n1.\nNon-Registration of Gift Deeds:\no\nA gift under Muhammadan Law is valid and operative if:\n(a) It is accompanied by possession transfer to the donee.\n(b) Registration of the gift deed is not a requirement.\nKey Case Cited:\n•\nPLD 1971 Lah 632", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "R.S.A. No. 38 of 1968, decision dated: 30-9-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL HAKEEM KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Z. Mohfooz Khan, for the Appellants. Fazal EIahi Khan, for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR, ETC\nvs\nGHULAM JAN, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 61 = 1975 SLD 61 = (1976) 33 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in the Nature of Trade\nConclusions:\n1.\nCriteria for Adventure in Trade:\no\nDivision and resale of land in plots for profit-making constitute trade activity.\no\nThe assessee's intention and organization of transactions support this classification.\n2.\nProfit Assessment:\no\nThe nature of trade activity must consider all surrounding circumstances rather than relying on a single legal formula.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nMohammed Meerakhan v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 229", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4),4(3)(xi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 1967, decision dated: 12-2-1969", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Miss Bhuvnesh Kumari, Advocate and J.B. Dadachanji and O.C. Mathur, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. with him). Sukumar Mitra, Senior Advocate (R.N. Sachthery and B.D, Sharma), Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "P.M. MOHAMMED MEERAKHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 62 = 1975 SLD 62 = (1976) 33 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Liability of Executors under Section 19\nConclusions:\n1.\nLimitation of Executors' Liability:\no\nExecutors are liable for wealth tax only for the financial year in which the deceased individual passed away.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=19 ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 555 of 1963, decision dated: 13-11-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. K. DESAI AND PARANJPE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "J. M. Thakar, P. D. Thakar and C. J. Thakar, for the petitioners. D. B. Padhye,s Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "JAMNADAS AND ANOTHER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 63 = 1975 SLD 63 = (1976) 33 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Fixed Assets and Contingent Liabilities under the Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957\nConclusions:\n1.\nValuation of Fixed Assets:\no\nThe value of depreciable assets as per the balance sheet cannot be substituted with the written-down value from income tax records unless the circumstances warrant adjustments under Section 7(2)(a).\no\nIn the absence of evidence showing the balance sheet value is incorrect, it remains the basis for wealth tax assessment.\n2.\nLiability for Gratuity Payments:\no\nGratuity liabilities arising from agreements with labor associations, while not debts due on the valuation date, are considered contingent liabilities.\no\nSuch contingent liabilities are deductible under Section 7(2)(a) in computing net wealth, provided they are properly estimated.\n3.\nRole of the Wealth Tax Officer:\no\nThe Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) can make adjustments to the balance sheet valuation of assets only if specific circumstances justify such changes.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1964) 52 ITR 482\n•\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax v. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 556", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=7,7(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 2 of 1962, decision dated: 27-10-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J.M. SHELAT C.J. AND P.N. BHAGWATI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "J. M. Thakore (Advocate-General) with M. M. Thakore and M. G. Doshit for the Applicant. K. H. Raji and I. M. Nanavati for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nvs\nNEW RAJPUR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 64 = 1975 SLD 64 = (1976) 33 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": " Previous Year under the Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nDefinition and Scope:\no\nThe term previous year originally referred to a full accounting period of 12 months corresponding to the financial year preceding the assessment year.\no\nLater amendments, such as paragraph (b), allowed for flexibility in determining the length of the previous year, which could be shorter or longer than 12 months.\n2.\nRetrospective Amendments:\no\nRetrospective amendments in Section 2(II)(i)(b) clarify the commencement of the previous year without altering the fundamental meaning of such period. \n3.\nMultiple Sources of Income:\no\nTaxpayers can maintain different previous years for different sources of income under the same business head.\no\nHowever, total income from all sources must be consolidated for assessment.\n4.\nCentral Board of Revenue's Authority:\no\nThe Central Board of Revenue cannot retrospectively alter the previous year for existing assessments once the Finance Act is in force.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nNagina Silk Mills v. Income Tax Officer (1963) PLD 322 SC\n•\nGeneral Commercial Corporation Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955) AIR 64", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(II)(i)(b) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 345, 368, 371, 504, 649 to 660, 674, 675, 676, 691, 692, 693, 699, 725, 728, 729, 730 of 1974, decision dated: 5-8-1975. dates of hearing: 28th, 29th and 30th May 1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HAKEEM AND ZAKAULLAH LODHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naim-ud-Din for Petitioners (in C.Ps. 345, 368, 371, 649 to 660, 674 to 676, 691, 692 and 699 of 1974).G.H. Abbasi for Petitioners (in C. P. 504 of 1974). Jan Mohammad Dawood for Petitioners (in C. Ps. 693, 725 and 730 of 1974). A. Sattar Osman Memon for petitioners (in C. Ps. 728 and 729 of 1974). S. A. Nusrats (in all petitions)", + "Party Name:": "SHEIKH MIRAN BUX KARAM BUX LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE 12, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 65 = 1975 SLD 65 = (1976) 33 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in the Nature of Trade and the Definition of Business\nConclusions:\n1.\nDefinition of Business:\no\nThe term business under Section 2(4) includes trade, commerce, manufacture, and any adventure in the nature of trade.\no\nThis definition is broad and not exhaustive, depending on the circumstances of each case.\n2.\nAdventure in Trade:\no\nEven a single or isolated transaction can qualify as an adventure in the nature of trade if factors such as the nature of the asset, intent, organization, and duration of holding support this classification.\n3.\nCorporate Veil:\no\nThe corporate veil can be lifted to determine the true nature of a company’s transactions and its tax liability.\no\nThis approach ensures transparency in understanding the taxpayer's intent and activities.\n4.\nFindings of Fact vs. Law:\no\nDetermining whether a transaction constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade is a factual inquiry.\no\nTribunal findings based on sufficient evidence are conclusive and do not typically raise questions of law for the High Court.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCalifornia Copper Syndicate v. Harris (1904) 5 TC 159\n•\nBalyomnic Land Trust Ltd. v. I.R. (14 TC 684)\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Mercantile Bank of India (1936) 4 ITR 293", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(4),10(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 5 of 1968, decision dated: 18-4-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND K.E. CHAUHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NASEER A. SPIEIKH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 66 = 1975 SLD 66 = (1976) 33 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Hindu Undivided Family Income under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment Validity:\no\nReassessment under Section 34(1)(a) is valid where subsequent information reveals that income initially omitted from the assessment pertains to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).\no\nIn this case, Shankarlal and Ratanlal were partners in a firm in their representative capacity for the HUF, contrary to the original claim of individual partnership.\n2.\nNon-Disclosure of Facts:\no\nThe production of account books alone, which disclosed advances made to the firm, did not amount to a full and true disclosure of material facts.\no\nThe omission to disclose that the partners represented the HUF was a valid ground for reassessment.\n3.\nIndependence of Assessments:\no\nThe assessments of an HUF and a firm are distinct and not interdependent. The original assessment’s exclusion of firm profits attributable to the HUF was an error that warranted correction.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)\n•\nDr. M.R. Dalai v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1963) 49 ITR 492", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34,34(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 4 of 1961, decision dated: 13-4-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): Y.S. TAMBE AND V.S. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.A. Palkhivala with B.A.Palkhivala for the Applicant. G.N. Joshi with RJ, Joshi for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SHANKARLAL DHONDIRAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 67 = 1975 SLD 67 = (1976) 33 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determining Residence for Tax Purposes under Section 4A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nDetermination of Residence:\no\nResidence is determined annually, considering the assessee’s presence in taxable territories and their intent to remain for at least three years.\no\nIntention at the time of arrival is critical; a later decision to stay longer does not retroactively affect residency status.\n2.\nObjective Assessment:\no\nThe Income Tax Officer must objectively assess whether the intention to reside exists based on available evidence and circumstances at the time of arrival.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nJanaba Muhammad Nachiar Ammal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1956) 29 ITR 848\n•\nUnited Nilgiris Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1960) 40 ITR 369", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4A ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 45 of 1958 (Reference No. 23 of 1958), decision dated: 2-4-1964", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RAMCHANDRA IYER C.J. AND SRINIVASAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "V. Balasubramaniam, for the Applicant. R. Venkataraman, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nA.M. DURAI PILLAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 68 = 1975 SLD 68 = (1976) 33 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Tribunal’s Discretion and Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 34A\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal’s Discretion:\no\nThe Tribunal has discretion to allow fresh legal objections that go to the root of the case, even if not raised earlier.\no\nThe Tribunal’s decision to allow such objections does not warrant interference unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious.\n2.\nRevisional Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner:\no\nThe revisional jurisdiction extends beyond the records of the Income Tax Officer and can consider external evidence if necessary.\no\nErrors need not be apparent on record for revision to be valid.\n3.\nReference to High Court:\no\nA High Court reference is limited to the specific questions raised in the Commissioner’s application; unrelated issues require separate applications.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 4 Taxation 103 (SC)\n•\nHunza Asian Textile and Wollen Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1974) 29 Taxation 1", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,34A,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 33 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 21 of 1947), decision dated: 22-7-1975. dates of hearing: 19th, 21st and 25-02-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUNAWAR ELAHEE RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Applicant. Raja Muhammad Akram, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nM. IQBAL SAIGOL, (C/o, M/s. Kohinoor Industries Ltd., Lahore)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 69 = 1975 SLD 69 = (1976) 33 TAX 176 = 1976 PTD 56 = 1976 PLD 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Local Authorities and Jurisdictional Issues\nConclusions:\n1.\nThal Development Authority as a Local Authority:\no\nThe Thal Development Authority qualifies as a local authority under Section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, making its income tax-exempt under Section 4(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nJurisdictional Objections:\no\nThe claim that the Authority’s dissolution removed its tax liability was rejected. The Administrator remains a distinct legal entity.\no\nThe dispute does not fall under Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as it does not involve the Federal and Provincial Governments.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Beach Candy Swimming Bath Trust (1955) 27 ITR 279\n•\nOctavious Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) 4 Taxation", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(iii),66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=184(1) General Clauses Act, 1897=3(28) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 137 of 1973 (P.T.R. No. 140 of 1973), decision dated: 27-11-1975. dates of hearing: 26th, 27th, 28-11-1974; 19-06-1975 and re-heard on 14-10-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUNAWAR ELAHEE RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussein, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 70 = 1975 SLD 70 = (1976) 33 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Non-Resident Income under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(c), and Section 42 of the Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nBasis of Taxation:\no\nIncome of a non-resident assessee, operating through a branch office in Pakistan, is taxable under Section 4(1)(c) on an accrual basis if it accrues or arises within Pakistan, irrespective of where it is received.\no\nThe Tribunal incorrectly assessed income under Section 4(1)(a), which applies to income received in Pakistan and is distinct from income accruing or arising within the country.\n2.\nApplicability of Section 42:\no\nSection 42 applies to income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan through business connections, assets, or property within Pakistan.\no\nThe Tribunal erred in concluding that Section 42 was inapplicable. The facts supported its application, as the income was connected to operations in Pakistan.\n3.\nRule 40 of Income Tax Rules:\no\nRule 40, dealing with the apportionment of income of non-residents where exact income cannot be determined, was deemed inapplicable as the income was ascertainable without significant difficulty or cost.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nOctavious Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) 4 Taxation (SC)\n•\nMac Neill & Barry Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (P.L.D. 1969 S.C. 527)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1)(a),(b),(c),42 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 2 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 45 of 1973), decision dated: 20-11-1975, hearing DATE : 27th, 28th in March and 15-04-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INTERNATIONAL (P.R.) INC. U. S. A\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 71 = 1975 SLD 71 = (1976) 33 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Additional Tax and Penalties under Section 18A of the Income Tax Act, 1922\nConclusions:\n1.\nLevy of Additional Tax (Section 18A(7)):\no\nAdditional tax under Section 18A(7) requires a prior underestimation or deferment of advance tax by the assessee.\no\nIn the given case, the conditions under Section 18A(7) were not met, making the levy unjustified.\n2.\nLevy of Additional Tax under Section 18A(8):\no\nIf regular assessment reveals advance tax payments fall short of 80% of the estimated tax liability, additional tax can be levied under Section 18A(8).\no\nThe Tribunal correctly upheld the imposition of additional tax under this subsection for the relevant assessment year.\n3.\nPenalty for Delayed Payments:\no\nDelays in advance tax installments attract penalties under Section 18A(9)(a), read with Section 46(1).\no\nThe Tribunal rightly held that penalties, not additional tax, were applicable for the delayed payments in this case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(7) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 48 of 1974, decision dated: 13-11-1975, hearing DATE : 4-07-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Appellant. Muhammad Amin Butt, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMst. GAITEE ARA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 72 = 1975 SLD 72 = (1976) 33 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty on Advance Super Tax Defaults under Section 46(1)\nConclusions:\n1.\nPenalty under Section 46(1):\no\nPenalty for default in advance payment of super tax was not applicable under the unamended provisions of Section 46(1).\no\nThe Tribunal correctly quashed the penalty, as the provisions in force at the time did not authorize such penalties.\n2.\nEffect of Amendments:\no\nAmendments to Section 46(1) made by subsequent legislation (e.g., Finance Act, 1974) do not retroactively affect finalized assessments or closed cases.\nCase Relied On:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Aziz-ud-Din (Civil Reference No. 6 of 1968)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 7 of 1969, decision dated: 13-11-1975, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Appellant. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nJALAL AUTOMOBILES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 73 = 1975 SLD 73 = (1976) 33 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Discretion in Entertaining Additional Grounds under Section 33(3A)\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal's Discretion in Allowing New Grounds:\no\nThe Tribunal declined to entertain additional grounds of appeal involving mixed questions of law and fact, as the necessary evidence was not on record.\no\nThe Tribunal's decision to refuse was not capricious, arbitrary, or perverse. Courts cannot interfere in the exercise of such discretion.\n2.\nQuestion of Law:\no\nNo question of law arose from the Tribunal's exercise of discretion since the issue pertained to a mixed question of law and fact.\n3.\nAdmissibility of Late Investments for Exemptions:\no\nInvestments made after the relevant previous year (e.g., purchase of Defense Saving Certificates after year-end) do not qualify for exemptions in the assessment year.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. (1973) 7 Taxation 51\n•\nNew India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1957) 31 I.T.R. 844", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,33(3A),15AA ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 271 of1972, decision dated: 20-11-1975. dates of hearing: 26th and 27-05-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HAMIDUDDIN SAMIUDDIN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 74 = 1975 SLD 74 = (1976) 33 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Ex-Parte Assessments and Consequential Actions\nConclusions:\n1.\nEx-Parte Assessment:\no\nIf the notice of hearing does not conclusively establish that proceedings were conducted on the specified date and that the assessee defaulted, an ex-parte assessment is invalid.\n2.\nRefusal of Registration Based on Ex-Parte Assessment:\no\nConsequential refusal of registration to a firm based on an invalid ex-parte assessment is also unsustainable.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. M. B. Qureshi & Co., Lahore (1975) 32 Taxation 219\n•\nAhmad Din Abdul Razzaq v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Unreported)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(4),26A ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 44 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 140 of 1974), decision dated: 19-2-1975. dates of hearing: 26th and 27-11-1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUNAWAR ELAHEE RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Appellant. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nANWAR & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 75 = 1975 SLD 75 = (1976) 33 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Transactions and Classification as Trade or Investment\nConclusions:\n1.\nAdventure in Nature of Trade:\no\nProfits derived from the sale of shares and bonus shares by a banking company were not an adventure in the nature of trade.\no\nThe transactions were investments and not connected directly with the banking business.\n2.\nTax Immunity Post Nationalization:\no\nNationalization of banks does not confer immunity from income tax unless explicitly provided under law.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nPunjab Co-operative Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1940) 8 I.T.R. 635\n•\nCalifornia Copper Syndicate v. Harris (5 Tax Cas. 159)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(14),4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1968, decision dated: 7-10-1974. dates of hearing: 20th and 23rd September, 1974", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AGHA ALI HYDER AND DORAB PATEL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.A. Nusrat, Advocate, for the Applicant. Ali Athar, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHABIB BANK (OVERSEAS) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 76 = 1975 SLD 76 = (1976) 33 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Bonus Shares as Income and Shareholder Liability\nConclusions:\n1.\nBonus Shares as Income:\no\nBonus shares issued by a company constitute taxable income for both the company and shareholders.\no\nShareholder liability remains even if the company has already paid tax on the profits.\n2.\nTriple Taxation Issue:\no\nWhile bonus shares may be taxed at multiple stages (as profits, distributed profits, and upon receipt by shareholders), this does not contravene the law.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue v. Blott (1921) 2 A.C. 171\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) A.I.R. 1464 (S.C.)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2,2(6A)(a),(6C),4(I),12B(2),(3) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 47 of 1972 (P.T.R. No. 36 of 1972), decision dated: 3-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Miss SHIRIN AYUB KHAN, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 77 = 1975 SLD 77 = (1976) 33 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Nature and Validity of Additional Tax under Section 45A\nConclusions:\n1.\nAdditional Tax as Penalty or Interest:\no\nAdditional tax levied under Section 45A is not a direct tax on income but a penalty or interest for delayed payment of tax.\n2.\nLegislative Authority:\no\nThe legislature has the authority to impose such provisions under the constitutional framework as incidental or ancillary to income tax laws.\nKey Case Dissented From:\n•\nZeenat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (P.L.D. 1969 Dacca 673)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45,45A,2(14) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1418 of 1971, decision dated: 14-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq and Sh. Riazul Hag,", + "Party Name:": "M. SHAKEEL SAIGOL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER (COMPANIES), ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 78 = 1975 SLD 78 = (1976) 33 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Findings and Ignoring Material Evidence\nConclusions:\n1.\nNon-Consideration of Material Facts:\no\nThe Tribunal's decision, ignoring the impact of wartime conditions on sales, was vitiated due to non-consideration of critical material evidence.\no\nThe Tribunal’s order was set aside.\nKey Case Relied On:\n•\nMuhammad Afsar v. Allah Ditta (1970 S.C.M.R. 118)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(I) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 82 of 1973, decision dated: 20-1-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MOHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NOOR MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD SAEED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 79 = 1975 SLD 79 = (1976) 33 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Jurisdiction in Granting Certificates for Supreme Court Appeals\nConclusions:\n1.\nImplied Repeal of Section 66A(2):\no\nSection 66A(2), allowing High Courts to certify appeals to the Supreme Court, stood impliedly repealed post the enactment of the 1973 Constitution.\no\nAppeals to the Supreme Court now lie only with leave under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66A(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=175(2),185(2),185(3).247(7),268 ", + "Case #": "Civil Misc. No. 43-S/Com. of 1974 in T.R. No. 168 of 1971, decision dated: 16-10-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN ACTG. C.J. AND S. RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nUMAR SAIGOL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 80 = 1975 SLD 80 = (1976) 33 TAX 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Section 46(1) Penalties to Martial Law Regulation Tax Demands\nConclusions:\n1.\nPenalties and Martial Law Demands:\no\nSection 46(1) penalties cannot be levied for defaults in tax demands arising under Martial Law Regulations unless explicitly provided in the adaptation order.\n2.\nTaxing Statutes Interpretation:\no\nTaxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, relying solely on the express language of the provisions.\nKey Cases Cited:\n•\nBhikajee Dadabhoi & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1958) 33 I.T.R. 760", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 6 of 1968, decision dated: 19-6-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MOHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUNAWAR ELAHEE RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Malik Mohammad Nawaz, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nAZIZ DIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 81 = 1975 SLD 81 = (1976) 33 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Overdraft Expenditure as Business Expense\nConclusion:\nExpenditure incurred for securing overdraft facilities from banks qualifies as a business expense under Section 10(2)(xv).\n•\nCase Applied: India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1966) 60 I.T.R. 52 (S.C.)\n•\nCase Reversed: Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1965) 57 I.T.R. 132.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No, 1224 of 1967, decision dated: 25-7-1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "N.N. Goswami and S.N. Mukherjee, Advocates. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (R. N. Sachthey and B.D. Sharma, Advocates with him)", + "Party Name:": "JEEWANLAL (1929) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 82 = 1975 SLD 82 = (1976) 33 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Usufructuary Mortgages and Revenue Receipt\nConclusion:\nRent received under a usufructuary mortgage is not considered a revenue receipt but repayment of capital.\n•\nKey Cases Followed:\no\nIshan Chandra v. Sujan Bibi\no\nAbdul Hai Azimullah v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1963) 49 I.T.R. 586.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 579 to 581 of 1967, decision dated: 5-9-1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate (S.A.L. Narayan Rao, R.N. Sachthey and B.D. Sharma, Advocates, with him). E.C. Agrawalla, S.R. Agrawalla. M.V Goswami and P.C. Agrawalla, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nABDUL HAI AZIMULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 83 = 1975 SLD 83 = (1976) 33 TAX 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculation Business and Brokerage Commission\nConclusion:\nCommission received from brokerage activities is distinct from speculative transactions and not taxable under speculation business. \n•\nOutcome: Held in favor of the Commissioner of Income Tax.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 836 to 838 of 1966, decision dated: 22-8-1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Niren De, Solicitor-General of India (A. N. Kirpal, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, advocates with him). S.K. Aiyar, H.K. Puri, Bishambar Lal and K.K. Jain, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPANGAL VITAL NAYAK & CO. (Pvt.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 84 = 1975 SLD 84 = (1976) 33 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Carry Forward and Set-Off in Dissolved Firms\nConclusion:\nUnabsorbed loss from a dissolved firm can be carried forward and set off against profits from the continuing firm.\n•\nCase Affirmed: Commissioner of Income Tax v. A. Dharma Reddy (1965) 58 I.T.R. 356.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,24(2)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1966, decision dated: 19-2-1969", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): J.S. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sukumar Mitra, Senior Advocate (R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, Advocates with him). S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (K. Jayaram, Advocate with him)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nA. DHARMA REDDY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 97 = 1984 SLD 97 = 1984 PTD 15 = (1983) 48 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Market Fee and Trading Receipts\nConclusion:\nMarket fees collected on behalf of the government are not trading receipts or assessable income.\n•\nKey Cases Distinguished:\no\nChowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1973) 87 I.T.R. 542 (S.C.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Refer No. 911 of 1978, decision dated: 12-05-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): K. N. SETH AND RASTOGI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Katju for the Commissioner. R. K. Gulati-for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSITA RAM SRI KISHAN DAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 98 = 1984 SLD 98 = 1984 PTD 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowable Business Expenditure\nConclusion:\nProvisions for gratuity, though not spent during the relevant year, are allowable expenses based on commercial accounting principles.\n•\nKey Case Cited: Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1981) 132 I.T.R. 559 (S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 1133, 1142 and 1249 of .1979, decision dated: 6-12-1982", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND RATHAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. V. Subramaniam for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSITALAKSHMI MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 99 = 1984 SLD 99 = 1984 PTD 21 = (1983) 48 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nConclusion:\nPayments made to resolve disputes related to trade or business are deductible as revenue expenditures.\n•\nPrecedent Rule: Decisions by larger Supreme Court benches should be followed.\n•\nCase Followed: Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1971) 81 I.T.R. 754 (S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 620 of 1975, decision dated: 10th July. 1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAHMANYAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "T. V. Ramanathan for the Assesses. J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GHANSHAM SINGH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 100 = 1984 SLD 100 = 1984 PTD 47 = (1985) 51 TAX 109 = 1985 PTCL 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation – Registered vs. Unregistered Firm\nDetails:\nA firm was denied registration for the assessment year 1959-60 due to late filing of the application. However, for the assessment year 1960-61, the firm was granted registration, and its status was assessed as a registered firm. The firm sought to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed depreciation from the earlier year (when it was assessed as an unregistered firm) against its income in the subsequent year (when it was registered). The Income Tax Officer disallowed the set-off, arguing that the status of the firm had changed. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the set-off, relying on the decision of the West Pakistan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yousuf & Co. (1967 PTD 161).\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the mere change in status from an unregistered to a registered firm does not affect the legal continuity of the firm or its entitlement to claim set-off of unabsorbed depreciation under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Since the constitution of the firm remained unchanged, the benefit of set-off was correctly allowed.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Yousuf & Co., 1967 PTD 161", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24,66(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 17 of 1972, decision dated: 15-12-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasrullah A wan for Applicant\nAli Athar", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nvs\nM/S KHAYAM THEATRE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 302 = 2000 SLD 302 = 2000 PLC 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Grievance Petition Dismissal\nConclusion:\nRepeated failure to appear for cross-examination justified dismissal of a grievance petition for non-prosecution.\n•\nValidity: Labor Court's leniency and repeated opportunities negated further relief.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=25A,38(3a) ", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.5 of 1999, decision dated: 19-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR RAHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. A. K. Azmati for Applicant. Masood A. Khans", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL JABBAR KHAN\nVs\nMessrs GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 216 = 2008 SLD 216 = 2008 PTD 647 = (2008) 97 TAX 301 = 2008 PTCL 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Allowable Expenses and Accounting Practices\nConclusion:\nProvision for compensated absences is an allowable expense if based on mercantile accounting principles, even if unpaid during the year.\n•\nKey Case Ref.: Commissioner of Income Tax v. K.K. & Co. Ltd. (1980) P.T.D. 210.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,25,133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 584 of 2006, heard on 2-07-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER LEGAL DIVISION\nVS\nCIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi for" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 85 = 1975 SLD 85 = (1976) 33 TAX 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Formal Orders\nConclusion:\nLevy of additional tax under Section 18A(8) requires a formal order. A notice of demand without such an order is invalid.\n•\nKey Principle: Formal procedural compliance is mandatory.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,18A(6),(8),29 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 78 of 1969, decision dated: 10-3-1976, hearing DATE : 26-2-1976", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM AND Z. A. CHANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. A. Nusrat Advocate, for the Applicant. Ali Athar. Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI WEST, KARACHI\nvs\nMALIK WALAYAT HUSSAIN & SONS LTD., QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 86 = 1975 SLD 86 = (1976) 33 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculative Loss Transactions\nConclusion:\nContracts settled by delivery orders instead of actual delivery are speculative transactions, and losses from them are speculative losses.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 201 of 1966, decision dated: 18-6-1968", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SANKAR PRASAD MITRA AND KL. ROY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "BUDGE INVESTMENT CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 215 = 2007 SLD 215 = 2007 PTD 2140 = (2007) 96 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Investment and Rectification\nConclusion:\nNotices under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, must be properly served. Admissions during proceedings can bind the assessee under Article 114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),62,65 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.639/KB, 640/KB, 641/KB, 642/KB and 643/KB of 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan H. Naqvi and Mrs. Lubna Pervaiz. Riaz Ahmed D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 87 = 1975 SLD 87 = (1976) 33 TAX 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fresh Demand Notices Post-Appeal\nConclusion:\nOriginal demand notices cease to operate post-modification of assessment in appeal. Fresh notices are mandatory.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty imposed on the original assessment was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1922=29,31,45,46(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 80 of 1971 (P.T.R. No. 132 of 1971), decision dated: 19-12-1975", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nBEGUM MUMTAZ JAMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 143 = 2012 SLD 143 = 2012 PTD 475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Withholding on Defence Saving Certificates\nConclusion:\nTax withholding on Defence Saving Certificates under Section 151(1)(a) is justified if exemption thresholds are exceeded. Departments must guide withholding agents.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=151,151(1)(a),SecondSched ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.496/LHR/IT(394)/994 of 2011, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Mumtaz Hussain Mian Authorized Representative. Ashfaq Hussain, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUMTAZ HUSSAIN MIAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 144 = 2012 SLD 144 = 2012 PTD 501 = (2012) 105 TAX 129 = 2009 PTCL 629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Voluntary Contribution Errors\nConclusion:\nMistakes leading to excess payments by taxpayers can be rectified if evident on the record.\n•\nConstitutional Principle: Equal treatment under Article 4 of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,185(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 340-K, 385-K to 389-K, 520-K of 2009, 392-K to 394-K and 627-K to 630-K of 2011, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts. Salman Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD. and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 221 = 2005 SLD 221 = 2005 PTD 588 = (2005) 91 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Reference Applications\nConclusion:\nErroneous delivery of Tribunal orders affects the limitation period. Applications filed within the revised limitation period are valid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=34 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect.) No.488/KB of 2003, decision dated: 28-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal Rana, D. R.. Yasmeen Ajani, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 145 = 2012 SLD 145 = 2012 PTD 1447 = (2013) 107 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "License Fee for Textile Manufacturing\nConclusion:\nSupreme Court decisions bind all, and license fees lawfully demanded under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance are enforceable.\n•\nKey Principle: Filing constitutional petitions requires proper corporate authorization.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Local Govt, Ordinance, 2001)=SixthSched.,Para44 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189,199 Punjab Local Government (Fee for Licensing and Permits and Licensing of Professions and Vocations) Rules, 2002=3(iii)(f) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 177 of 2008, and C.M. No.2050 of 2012, decision dated: 17-05-2012", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Ahsan Mahmood for Petitioner. Ch. Abrar Ahmad and Hafiz Muhammad Naeem No. 1. Rana Shamshad Khan, A.A.G.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NISHAT (CHUNIAN) LTD. through Chief Financial Officer\nvs\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Local Government Provincial Secretariat and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1371 = 2015 SLD 1371 = (2015) 112 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Audit and Procedural Irregularities\nConclusion:\nImproper application of sales tax rules and lack of evidence invalidated assessments. Authorities must adhere strictly to statutory procedures.\n•\nHeld: Revenue actions were null and void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(3),25,36,46,71,72,72B,214c General Clauses Act, 1897=24A Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007=5(3) ", + "Case #": "STA No. 729/LB/2014, decision dated: 8-12-2014, hearing DATE : 8-12-2014.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate, for the Appellant. Javed Iqbal Sheikh, D.R, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 146 = 2011 SLD 146 = 2011 PTD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Grounds and Interpretation of Rules\nConclusion:\n1.\nAdditional legal grounds can be introduced during an appeal even if not initially raised, especially if they advance justice and do not thwart it.\n2.\nRules of judicial forums must be interpreted to facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.\n•\nKey Cases Referred:\no\n2006 SCMR 1630\no\nManager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1975 SC 678).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,46 ", + "Case #": "M.A. Additional Ground No. 100/LB of 2010, decision dated: 12-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad and Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AFTAB SOAP FACTORY (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nC.I.T., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 147 = 2011 SLD 147 = 2011 PTD 2197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim and Maladministration\nConclusion:\n1.\nShow-cause notices that are time-barred are void, and actions based on them are unlawful.\n2.\nTax authorities must avoid inefficiency, delay, and misuse of power.\n•\nRecommendations to FBR:\no\nSet aside illegal orders.\no\nEnsure proper inquiry and provide opportunity to present evidence.\no\nPenalize staff responsible for delays and non-compliance with legal time limits.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),8,9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 5/ISD/ST(01)/42/2011 to 12/ISD/ST(08)/49/2011, dated 17-4-2011, decision dated: 17-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor, Dealing Officer AND Faraz Fazal, Consultant Authorized Representative AND Nazia Zeb, Dy. Commissioner, Said Munaf, Dy. Commissioner, Amir Sultan, Law Officer and Faisal Shehzad, Auditor Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ART WEAVERS, ATTOCK\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 117 = 2010 SLD 117 = (2010) 102 TAX 240 = 2011 PTD 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Input Tax Refund\nConclusion:\n1.\nRefund claims cannot be denied based on subsequent blacklisting of a supplier if transactions were legitimate at the time.\n2.\nTax authorities must verify evidence thoroughly before declaring suppliers blacklisted.\n•\nOutcome: Show-cause notice and orders were canceled.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(37),2(14),6,7,8,8A,21(2),22,33(1),34(c),73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 555/LB of 2009, decision dated: 20-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Akram Nizami. None for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 148 = 2011 SLD 148 = (2011) 103 TAX 57 = 2011 PTD 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim Rejected Due to Time Bar\nConclusion:\nRefund claims must adhere to strict procedural deadlines. Filing supporting documents beyond the stipulated time renders the claim invalid.\n•\nKey Principle: Justice must balance procedural compliance and fairness.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nPfizer Laboratory Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 64).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,66 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28 ", + "Case #": "M.A.(Cond.) No. 149/LB of 2010 and S.T.A. No. 86/LB of 2009, decision dated: 14-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Hussain Maitla, ITP. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHAUDHRY BROTHERS COTTON INDUSTRIES, BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) (REFUND), CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 149 = 2011 SLD 149 = 2011 PTD 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax and Refund Claim\nConclusion:\nRefund claims rejected without substantial evidence are invalid. Adjudicating authorities cannot rely on conjecture or arbitrary objections.\n•\nOutcome: The appeal was dismissed, and the earlier favorable order was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10,33(2)(cc),46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1647/LB of 2009, decision dated: 2-11-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Sheryar, D.R. and Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 150 = 2011 SLD 150 = (2011) 103 TAX 150 = 2011 PTD 346 = 2011 PTCL 640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund or Set-Off Under SRO 645(I)/2006\nConclusion:\nRefund claims under the SRO are limited. Taxpayers under this regime cannot claim input tax adjustments or refunds on further purchases.\n•\nOutcome: Liability under SRO 645(I)/2006 is considered final.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7A,8,10(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 660 of 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Mehmood Sheikh for Petitioner and Mrs. Amna Warsis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FMC UNITED PVT. LTD. through Company Secretary\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Finance and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 151 = 2011 SLD 151 = 2011 PTD 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Time-Barred Show-Cause Notices\nConclusion:\nRefund claims denied based on time-barred show-cause notices are invalid. Procedural compliance with timelines is mandatory for enforcement.\n•\nOutcome: Orders were set aside, and refunds were directed to be processed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,10,11,33,46,73 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=4,8,9 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1024/LB of 2009, decision dated: 2-11-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh and Dr. Sheryar, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEHAR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 152 = 2011 SLD 152 = 2011 PTD 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Value Addition\nConclusion:\nAssessments based on arbitrary value addition percentages without evidence are invalid. Fresh proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal ordered a fresh show-cause notice to clarify objections.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,7,10,11,33,45,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 497/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JEEA TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 153 = 2011 SLD 153 = (2011) 103 TAX 108 = 2011 PTD 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consolidated Orders in Adjudication\nConclusion:\nPassing consolidated orders for multiple cases undermines the specific context of individual cases and is against procedural norms.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal ruled separate orders must be passed for each case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45B,10(4),11(2),7,8,26 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 725/LB of 2009, decision dated: 2-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Ahmed Khan, D.R. and Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMIAN GHOUS BUX (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 154 = 2011 SLD 154 = 2011 PTD 429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing Appeals by Unauthorized Officers\nConclusion:\nAssistant or Deputy Collectors are not authorized to file appeals as Sales Tax Department. Appeals filed without proper authorization are invalid.\n•\nKey Principle: Right of appeal is statutory and cannot be assumed by unauthorized officials.\n•\nCases Referred:\no\nState through Advocate General Sindh v. Hanif Ahmad (1994 SCMR 749).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(1),32(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1374/LB of 2009, decision dated: 30-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Karamat Chaudhry, D.R. and Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs ZAHEER SOAP FACTORY, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 156 = 2011 SLD 156 = 2011 PTD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Opportunity of Being Heard\nConclusion:\n1.\nEx parte decisions without providing an opportunity to be heard violate principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).\n2.\nOrders passed in such cases are void and must be set aside.\n•\nOutcome: The case was remanded for a fresh hearing.\n•\nKey Cases Referred:\no\nMirza Aslam Beg v. Saghir Iqbal (PLD 1988 SC 24).\no\nMessrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan (1999 PTD 1358).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,11(2),45B Sales Tax Rules, 2006=37 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 566/LB of 2009, decision dated: 4-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed and Mrs. Fozia Fakhar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COSY INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (RTO), FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 157 = 2011 SLD 157 = (2011) 103 TAX 132 = 2011 PTD 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Jurisdiction\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nAppeal Without Party Involvement: A taxpayer who was the subject of the order-in-original was not made a party in the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, rendering the appeal invalid.\n2.\nSuo Moto Review and Delay: The First Appellate Authority reviewed its own earlier order to allow condonation of delay without proper justification. This was vacated by the Tribunal as it lacked legal basis.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe appeal was dismissed for being infructuous due to procedural errors.\n•\nSuo moto condonation of delay was invalidated.\nReferences: 2003 GST Cl. 13", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45B,,2(46)(b)(e),33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1501/LB of 2009, decision dated: 17-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ayaz Ahmad, FCA/A.R. and Shahid-ul-Hassan Chatta, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MADINA TRADERS, KAMOKE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 158 = 2011 SLD 158 = 2011 PTD 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Adjudication of Refunds\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nPecuniary Limit Breach: The Assistant Collector adjudicated a refund claim exceeding Rs. 10 million, which was beyond their jurisdiction. Section 45(1)(ii) specifies that only the Deputy Collector or higher can handle such cases.\n2.\nJurisdictional Questions: Legal questions regarding jurisdiction can be raised at any appellate level, as they go to the root of the case.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe Tribunal declared the Assistant Collector’s Order-in-Original illegal and vacated it.\n•\nSubsequent proceedings built on this defective order were also rendered void.\nKey Cases Referred:\n•\nS.T.A. No. 2728/LB of 2009, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636\n•\n2001 SCMR 1822, 2006 SCMR 783", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,45,11(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1054/LB of 2009, decision dated: 30-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad and Syed Mehmood Jafri, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERLOOP (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 159 = 2011 SLD 159 = (2011) 104 TAX 167 = 2011 PTD 2194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Tax and Compliance with Banking Transactions\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nPayment Timelines: The registered person made payments through banking channels but after the stipulated time period under Section 73, rendering the transactions ineligible for tax adjustment.\n2.\nFailure of Proof: Despite opportunities, the registered person failed to provide evidence to justify the tax adjustment.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe Adjudicating Officer’s rejection of the appeal was upheld due to lack of compliance and documentary evidence.\n•\nPenalty and default surcharge imposed for violations were deemed justified.\nReferences:\n•\nOrder-in-Appeal No. 367 of 2009", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,11(2),34,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T. No. 571/K of 2009, decision dated: 7-03-2011, hearing DATE : 13-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Afzal, Consultant AND Sunil Kumar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALFATEH TRADERS, KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 160 = 2011 SLD 160 = 2011 PTD 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax and Automation System Objections\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nAutomated System Objections: Refunds were rejected based on an abnormal tax profile generated by an automated system (Sales Tax Automated Refund Repository), which lacked legal backing.\n2.\nTime-Bound Refunds: Refund claims for periods before the system's implementation (pre-2006) were scrutinized under incorrect rules, leading to arbitrary denials.\n3.\nHigh-Speed Diesel Refund: Claims for refunds on diesel used in manufacturing were denied based on a rescinded SRO.\nOutcome:\n•\nRefund rejections were overturned, and the system-based objections were declared void.\n•\nRefunds for High-Speed Diesel were allowed, as the rescinded SRO did not apply retroactively.\nKey Cases Referred:\n•\nMessrs A.T. Fabrics Faisalabad v. Collector Sales Tax, 2010 PTD Trib. 1636\n•\n2007 PTD (Trib.) 728", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),11,66,8(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.1167/LB, 1168/LB, 1198/LB and 1042/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Kubaib Ahmad and Syed Mehmood Jafri, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIAGRA MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 161 = 2011 SLD 161 = (2011) 103 TAX 143 = 2011 PTD 491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Scrap and Waste Materials\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nDefinition of Unprocessed : Exemption under the Sixth Schedule, Item 32, applies only to unprocessed foodstuffs. Tamarind with seeds was deemed processed and therefore taxable.\n2.\nLegislative Clarity: The statutory language unprocessed excludes any form of manual or mechanical alteration, such as de-seeding.\nOutcome:\n•\nTamarind with seeds was ruled taxable as it did not qualify as unprocessed under the exemption.\nReferences:\n•\n2002 PTD 654, AIR 1991 SC 354", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,SixthSched ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.668/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Miss Amina Warsi and Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEDIA TIMES (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 162 = 2011 SLD 162 = (2011) 103 TAX 148 = 2011 PTD 543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Limitation\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nTime-Bound Submissions: Taxpayer failed to submit refund claims within the prescribed 60-day period under Rule 28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006.\n2.\nAdmissibility of Late Claims: Strict adherence to timelines was upheld, and no relief was granted for procedural lapses.\nOutcome:\n•\nAppeals challenging rejection of refunds were dismissed. Justice, while paramount, was not extended at the cost of overriding procedural rules.\nKey Cases Referred:\n•\n2001 PTD 2383, 2008 PTD (Trib.) 370", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1192/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd September, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Jamil Bhatti, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmed, Advocate/A.R.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs SHAMSHAD TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 676 = 1999 SLD 676 = 1999 PTD 1179 = (1999) 79 TAX 643 = 1999 PTCL 638 = 1999 SCMR 632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Definitions under the Sixth Schedule\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of Unprocessed : Only foodstuffs in their natural, unaltered form qualify for exemption under Item 3 of the Sixth Schedule.\n2.\nTamarind with Seeds: The product was found to be processed and thus taxable.\nOutcome:\n•\nTamarind with seeds was ruled taxable. Legislative intent and literal meanings were upheld.\nReferences:\n•\n2002 PTD 654", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,6thSched ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 2001-L of 1998, decision dated: 17-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WORLD TRADE CORPORATION\nvs\nTHE EXCISE & SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (LAHORE BENCH), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 118 = 2010 SLD 118 = 2010 PTCL 1119 = 2011 PTD 619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Assessment\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nExpiry of Limitation: Assessment orders issued after the statutory period of 45 days under Section 11(4) were declared void.\n2.\nJurisdictional Limits: Only authorized officers can adjudicate specific tax amounts; breaches render actions null.\nOutcome:\n•\nOrders issued post-limitation and by unauthorized officers were vacated.\nKey Cases Referred:\n•\nMessrs Super Asia v. Collector 2008 PTD 60", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),11(2),36,45 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.46/LB of 2009 and M.A. (Addl.) No.114/LB of 2010, decision dated: 11-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MS. SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, MEMBER (ACCOUNTANT)", + "Lawyer Name": "Hussain Ahmad Shirazi AND Noman Malik, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EN EM ENTERPRISES\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 163 = 2011 SLD 163 = (2011) 103 TAX 179 = 2011 PTD 653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Denials Due to Third-Party Faults\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nSupplier's Non-Filing: Buyers cannot be penalized for their suppliers' failure to file returns or discrepancies in automated systems.\n2.\nVerification Processes: Tax authorities must ensure fair verification before rejecting refunds.\nOutcome:\n•\nRefund claims based on valid invoices were allowed. Administrative failures or supplier defaults were deemed unfair grounds for rejection.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),11(2),4,7,8(1),26,73,21(2)&7(2),26,73 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12(5) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1273/LB of 2009, decision dated: 11-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Akram Nizami AND Faisal Asghar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 303 = 2000 SLD 303 = 2000 PTD 870 = (2000) 81 TAX 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Further Tax\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nStatutory Interpretation: Further tax under Section 3(1A) is applicable only to supplies taxed under Section 3(1). Retroactive amendments cannot justify assessments for earlier periods.\nOutcome:\n•\nImposition of further tax was declared illegal for the relevant period.\nReferences:\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Limited, 1999 SCMR 1442", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(IA),3(2)(c),thirdSched. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1713 of 1998, decision dated: 6-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR-UL-MULK AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Iftikhar-ud-Din Riaz. K. G. Sabirs", + "Party Name:": "NORTHERN BOTTLING CO. (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PAKISTAN SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD through the Secretary Finance and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 164 = 2011 SLD 164 = (2011) 103 TAX 193 = 2011 PTD 677", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Recovery Proceedings\nKey Legal Issues:\n1.\nExtended Limitation: Show-cause notices issued after the statutory three-year period under Section 36(2) were invalid unless fraud or collusion was proven.\n2.\nAdministrative Accountability: No action against officers involved in erroneous refunds undermines claims of fraud.\nOutcome:\n•\nRecovery notices and orders were vacated due to time-barred issuance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.51/IB to 54/IB of 2010, decision dated: 30-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali Qureshi and Ghulam Hasnan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FATIMA FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nCIR (A), LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 165 = 2011 SLD 165 = (2011) 104 TAX 349 = 2011 PTD 2679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Input Tax Credit\nKey Issues:\n1.\nHostile Witnesses and Cross-Examination Rights: Registered persons were denied cross-examination of suppliers who allegedly issued false invoices, violating procedural justice.\n2.\nRejection of Documentary Evidence: The Department rejected refund claims based on alleged oral testimony of suppliers, ignoring documentary evidence provided by the registered person.\n3.\nApplicability of S. 8(1)(d): Refund claims for periods before the provision's enactment (July 2004) were incorrectly disallowed.\nOutcome:\n•\nInput tax invoices were deemed valid as the Department failed to provide substantial evidence to counter them.\n•\nRefund claims were upheld for the relevant tax periods as S. 8(1)(d) was inapplicable retrospectively.\n•\nThe rejection of claims based on a change of opinion was declared invalid.\nReferences:\n•\n2004 PTD 1893, 2003 PTD 63, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 773", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),2(18),10,7,8(1)(d),23,873,33,(16) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=150 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.73/LB to 75/LB of 2011, decision dated: 21st May, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ali Imran Rizvi and Tariq Hanif Maliks. Atif Bashir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JARIT INTERNATIONAL, SIALKOT\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS), CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 166 = 2011 SLD 166 = (2011) 103 TAX 281 = 2011 PTD 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Raid and Seizure of Records\nKey Issues:\n1.\nReasonable Belief and Justification for Raids: Departmental officers raided premises and seized records without disclosing credible reasons in the notice, violating legal norms.\n2.\nAlternative Remedies: Petitioner contested the legality of the raid in constitutional jurisdiction instead of following statutory remedies.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe raid was deemed improper due to insufficient justification in the notice.\n•\nThe case was referred to adjudicating forums for determining the legitimacy of the demand.\nReferences:\n•\n2004 PTD 1731, 2006 PTD 494, PLD 1991 SC 630", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,,38A,40,40A Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=96,98,99A,100,103 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.10370 of 2003, decision dated: 11-11-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TARIQ, JAVAID, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Ms. Kausar Parveens", + "Party Name:": "Messrs Z & J HYGIENIC PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 167 = 2011 SLD 167 = (2011) 103 TAX 235 = 2011 PTD 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "xDeferred Refund Claims\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSystem-Based Discrepancies: Refund claims were deferred due to objections raised by automated systems, such as mismatched invoice details.\n2.\nRemand for Reprocessing: The taxpayer sought reprocessing, arguing that documentary evidence was disregarded.\nOutcome:\n•\nCase remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for reprocessing with instructions to consider all documentary evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),2(14),4,7,8(1),10,26 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.2150/LB and 2151/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asad Ali Malkana and None", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SWEETY TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 168 = 2011 SLD 168 = (2011) 103 TAX 226 = 2011 PTD 717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Misplaced Documents\nKey Issues:\n1.\nFailure to Produce Documents: Refund claims were disallowed as documents were misplaced during office shifting.\n2.\nReconsideration Request: Registered person later located the documents and sought reconsideration.\nOutcome:\n•\nCase remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review of refund claims based on the recovered documents.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26,1(2),2(14),4,7,8(1),10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1263/LB of 2009, decision dated: 14-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Yousaf Khan and Miss Sumaira Umer, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HABIB JUTE MILLS LTD, KHUSHAB\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 169 = 2011 SLD 169 = (2011) 103 TAX 240 = 2011 PTD 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Orders and Natural Justice\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLack of Hearing: Adjudication proceedings were conducted ex parte, depriving the taxpayer of the right to be heard.\n2.\nImpact on Limitation: Time limits for appeal do not apply to void ex parte orders.\nOutcome:\n•\nCase remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to ensure a fair hearing.\nReferences:\n•\n1994 SCMR 2232, 2009 PTD 1507", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 913/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed and Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COSY INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (RTO), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 170 = 2011 SLD 170 = (2011) 103 TAX 286 = 2011 PTD 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment and Agreements\nKey Issues:\n1.\nBinding Nature of Agreements: The Department relied on an agreement limiting input tax claims to 20% of export value.\n2.\nStatutory Instrument Requirement: Taxpayer argued that the agreement was unenforceable as it was not a statutory instrument.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe adjustment of input tax was allowed as the agreement lacked statutory authority.\nReferences:\n•\n2005 PTD 2436", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1752/LB of 2009, decision dated: 11-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Faisal Asghar, D.R. and Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs SUN RISE FOOD INDUSTRY, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 171 = 2011 SLD 171 = (2011) 103 TAX 229 = 2011 PTD 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Abnormal Tax Profile and Limitation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nChanging Grounds: Adjudicating authority deviated from the show-cause notice to reject claims based on abnormal tax profile. \n2.\nCondonation of Delay: Appeals were accepted despite being filed late due to procedural defects in the original orders.\nOutcome:\n•\nOrders were declared illegal for exceeding the scope of the show-cause notice. Appeals allowed.\nReferences:\n•\n1996 SCMR 856, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 451", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),46 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Cond.) No. 140/LB of 2010 and S.T.A. No.816/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed and Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BISMILLAH FABRICS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (RTO), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 172 = 2011 SLD 172 = (2011) 104 TAX 78 = 2011 PTD 770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Submission of Invoice Summary\nKey Issues:\n1.\nNon-Speaking Order: Taxpayer's case was included in a generalized order without specific allegations or discussion.\n2.\nMutatis Mutandis Application: The order was applied to multiple taxpayers without individualized consideration.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe order was vacated for the taxpayer due to lack of reasoning. Fresh proceedings were permitted if within the limitation period.\nReferences:\n•\n2010 SCMR 1778", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(3)(c),2(5) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1903/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Masood Ishaque and Azmat Elahi Ghuman, D.R. (RTO)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALKISSAN SIZING INDUSTRIES, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 173 = 2011 SLD 173 = (2011) 103 TAX 302 = 2011 PTD 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax and Supplier Defaults\nKey Issues:\n1.\nNon-Filing by Supplier: Refund claims were rejected due to non-compliance by suppliers, placing undue responsibility on buyers.\n2.\nScrutiny Delays: Rejections were based on delays in verification and issues beyond the buyer's control.\nOutcome:\n•\nRejections were overturned. Tax administration directed to streamline verification and avoid penalizing buyers for supplier defaults.\nReferences:\n•\nSales Tax Appeal No. ST-141/PB of 2006", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,7,8,26,73,11,45B(3) ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.147/IB to 155/IB of 2010, decision dated: 2-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Karamat Chaudhry, D.R. and Khubaib Ahmad. Ali Gohar DR. Sayed Tauqeer Bukhrai,", + "Party Name:": "CIR, PESHAWAR\nvs\nMessrs WAHEED HAFIZ GHEE INDUSTRY, HATTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 119 = 2010 SLD 119 = (2010) 102 TAX 591 = 2011 PTD 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bias in Appellate Proceedings and Administration of Justice\nDetails:\n•\nThe taxpayer contended that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) erred in law by adjudicating the case despite previously issuing the show-cause notice when she served as Additional Collector Adjudication. This action compromised impartiality, as the FAA had already formed an opinion on the case.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that such actions created a presumption of bias, violating the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause.\n•\nThe Tribunal emphasized that courts and adjudicating bodies must inspire confidence in their impartiality. Failure to do so undermines justice, which must not only be done but seen to be done.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe appeal was accepted. Orders by the First Appellate Authority and the original order were set aside on the basis of legal impropriety and bias.\nCitations: PLD 1999 SC 1126; 1980 PTD 406.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45B,45 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.2099/LB to 2102/LB of 2009, decision dated: 29-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmed Malik AND Muhammad Tahir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 174 = 2011 SLD 174 = (2011) 103 TAX 245 = 2011 PTD 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Blacklisting and Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nThe Department alleged that the taxpayer fraudulently claimed refunds based on invoices issued by suppliers who were later blacklisted. The refunds pertained to the tax period from August 2002 to January 2004, while the suppliers were blacklisted in 2007.\n•\nThe taxpayer argued that the suppliers were operational and not blacklisted during the relevant tax period. Blacklisting in 2007 could not retroactively nullify transactions from prior periods.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority reviewed reported and unreported judgments and concluded that blacklisting should not have a retrospective effect. It found no evidence of fraud or procedural lapses during the relevant tax period.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the FAA’s decision, maintaining that the refund claims were legitimate as they predated the blacklisting. The Department’s appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.\nCitations: 2005 SCMR 492; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 163; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1675; PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,2(14),2(37),7(1),7(2)(I),8(1)(D),1021(2),25,26(1),33,36(1),37A,73 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=Chapter-V ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1878/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo AND Mimi Abdul Basit", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MUGHEES TEXTILE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 120 = 2010 SLD 120 = (2010) 102 TAX 547 = 2011 PTD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Transportation, Loading, and Unloading Charges\nDetails:\n•\nThe Department argued that transportation charges collected by the taxpayer should be included in the value of supply and subjected to sales tax.\n•\nThe taxpayer, engaged in cement trading, provided transportation services as an additional facility, which was neither a core part of their business nor intended for profit-making. The taxpayer argued that these services did not meet the definition of “supply” under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal examined the definitions under Section 2(46) of the Act, concluding that transportation charges did not qualify as taxable supplies. The Tribunal noted that “supply” must involve the disposition of goods in furtherance of business, which did not include ancillary services like transportation.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal, affirming the FAA’s decision that transportation charges were not taxable under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nCitations: Collector Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax Karachi (West) v. Novartis Pakistan Ltd., 2002 PTD 976.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),3 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.11/IB of 2009, decision dated: 29-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Raza Mirza, Sr. Auditor and Ziaullah Khan, D.R.. Fakliar Mehmood Chanda and Muhammad Faazil Butt", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 175 = 2011 SLD 175 = (2011) 103 TAX 250 = 2011 PTD 801", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims with Non-Filing or Suspended Suppliers\nDetails:\n•\nThe Department rejected the taxpayer's refund claims on the grounds that the suppliers’ registration was suspended, they were non-filers, and the input tax claimed exceeded the suppliers’ declared output tax.\n•\nThe taxpayer contended that they had paid the input tax through valid transactions compliant with Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Evidence, including the suppliers' sales tax returns and supply registers, was submitted.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that the suppliers were Commercial Importers filing quarterly returns. Non-filing objections could not be used to disallow refunds unless supported by evidence of malfeasance by the taxpayer. The Tribunal also emphasized that transactions were supported by valid tax invoices under Section 23 of the Act.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders of lower authorities were declared void, and the case was remanded with directions to provide the taxpayer an opportunity to substantiate their claim with relevant documents.\nCitations: Sections 7, 8, 22, 23, 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,10(4),11(2),8(1),7,4,2(14),22,23,26,33(11)(c) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2109/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Basit Sameer; ACA AND Maqsood Ahmad, ACA", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT COTTON PRODUCTS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 176 = 2011 SLD 176 = (2011) 103 TAX 332 = 2011 PTD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Prohibition of Case Remand for De Novo Consideration\nDetails:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority remanded a case for de novo consideration regarding refund claims and demand reassessment.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that under Section 45B(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, remand for de novo consideration is prohibited. The Tribunal emphasized that remands prolong litigation, violate statutory limitations, and shift the burden of proof unfairly to taxpayers.\n•\nAdditionally, the show-cause notice failed to specify allegations, rendering the entire process legally void. The demand related to transactions deemed chargeable to sales tax lacked supporting evidence or specific details.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe remand order was declared unlawful. The Tribunal dismissed the Department’s demand and set aside the orders of lower authorities.\nCitations: Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Hameed Khan (PLD 1965 SC 671); 1991 SCMR 2374; 2008 PTD 1563; 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(3),8(1))d),8A,25(1),3,26,11 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1197/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain AND Muhammad Asif Hashmi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), LAHORE\nvs\nC.I.R., LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 177 = 2011 SLD 177 = 2011 PTD 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deferred Refund Claims and Input Tax on Building Materials\nDetails:\n•\nA refund claim of Rs. 152,863 was deferred due to alleged violations of Section 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, including exceeding declared output tax and discrepancies in suppliers’ returns.\n•\nThe taxpayer argued that their claim did not exceed output tax declared by suppliers. Payments were transacted through banking channels in compliance with Section 73, and evidence, including sales tax returns and supply registers, was provided.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the taxpayer’s claims were supported by valid records, including documentation proving compliance with statutory requirements. It also noted that input tax on building materials like cement and tiles was not restricted under Section 8 or S.R.O. 490(I)/2004.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Department to allow the refund in accordance with the law.\nCitations: Messrs Eastern Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Lahore S.T.A. No. 718/LB/1999.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,10,4,7,26 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 665/LB of 2009, decision dated: 8-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND None", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD EXPORTS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 146 = 2012 SLD 146 = (2012) 105 TAX 351 = 2011 PTD 2712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax on Electricity Bills\nDetails:\n•\nThe Department disallowed the adjustment of input tax on electricity bills, arguing that the bills were not in the taxpayer's name.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority allowed the adjustment, which was challenged by the Department.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that input tax paid earlier was deductible from output tax liability under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, regardless of the name on the bills. Evidence showed the taxpayer had paid the input tax, making it refundable.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's order and dismissed the Department's appeal.\nCitations: Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; Special Procedure for Collection and Payment of Sales Tax (Electric Power) Rules, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 43/K of 2011, decision dated: 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 24-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Gulz Riaz Raza, D.R.. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs H.R. COTTON INDUSTRIES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 178 = 2011 SLD 178 = 2011 PTD 1680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Power of Adjudication in Refund Cases\nDetails:\n•\nA refund claim of Rs. 2,207,157 was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector, despite the show-cause notice being issued by the Deputy Collector.\n•\nThe Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate cases exceeding Rs. 1 million when jurisdiction was assumed by a higher authority.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Department to process the refund claim as per law.\nCitations: Messrs Avari Hotel Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax (2000 PTD 3765); Collector Sales Tax v. Messrs Al-Hadi Industries (2002 PTD 2457).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,10,11,45(1)(iii) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1233/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERLOOP (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 147 = 2012 SLD 147 = (2012) 105 TAX 345 = 2011 PTD 1766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Input Tax Credit\nDetails:\n•\nThe taxpayer challenged the disallowance of input tax on High-Speed Diesel, the calculation of sales tax on electricity supplied to residential areas, and the disallowance of input tax during non-productive periods.\n•\nThe Federal Board of Revenue had clarified that High-Speed Diesel used for electricity generation was admissible for input tax adjustment.\n•\nThe Tribunal allowed input tax on High-Speed Diesel and ordered the Department to verify the necessity of electricity usage during non-productive periods to determine eligibility for input tax adjustment.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were vacated, and the case was remanded for further verification.\nCitations: Sections 7, 8, and 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,7,8 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.1332/LB, 1331/LB and 1297/LB of 2009, decision dated: 19-11-2010, hearing DATE : 19-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khaliqe-ur-Rehman, FCA AND Tahir Tanveer, DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AES PAK GEN (PVT.) COMPANY and others\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 148 = 2012 SLD 148 = (2012) 105 TAX 193 = 2011 PTD 1793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Orders Passed by Appellate Tribunal\nDetails:\n•\nThe Tribunal clarified that it lacked jurisdiction to rectify its own orders under Section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nThe Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification, holding that such powers must be explicitly conferred by statute.\nConclusion:\n•\nApplication for rectification was dismissed.\nCitations: Sections 46 and 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,132 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 611/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No. 270/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st January, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmad Malik for Applicant AND Azmat Elahi Ghumman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUPREME TEC. INTERNATIONAL, KOT ADDU\nvs\nC.I.R. (RTO), MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 179 = 2011 SLD 179 = (2011) 104 TAX 322 = 2011 PTD 1844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Tax Due to General Practice\nDetails:\n•\nA convenience store at a filling station sought exemption under Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, claiming non-levy of tax was a result of a general practice.\n•\nThe Department admitted that similar stores did not charge sales tax, confirming the existence of a general practice.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the taxpayer met all conditions for exemption under Section 65.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe demand and surcharge were annulled, and the taxpayer's exemption claim was upheld.\nCitations: Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; D.G. Khan Cement Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2003 GST CL 100).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=65 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1633/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ali Imran Rizvi AND Atif Bashir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUTIUR-RAHMAN\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 180 = 2011 SLD 180 = (2011) 104 TAX 175 = 2011 PTD 1868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Zero-Rated Supply and Input Tax Adjustment\nDetails:\n•\nThe taxpayer claimed zero-rated supply of optical fiber cable under S.R.O. 549(I)/2008, contested by the Department using a subsequent negative list.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the negative list could not apply retrospectively, and supplies made before its issuance were zero-rated.\n•\nInput tax adjustments on zero-rated supplies were deemed inadmissible for periods post-negative list issuance.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders imposing sales tax and penalties were set aside.\nCitations: Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; S.R.O. 549(I)/2008.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3,4(c),11,4 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 6/IB of 2011, decision dated: 14-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Ali Imran, CFO AND Imran Shah, DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KONNECT HOLDEN (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (AUDIT), LTU, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 181 = 2011 SLD 181 = 2011 PTD 1877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Adjudication of Sales Tax Recovery\nDetails:\n•\nThe Department issued an order after 407 days, well beyond the 180-day limit prescribed by Section 11(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nThe Tribunal declared the order ab initio void due to the lapse in statutory timelines.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe demand and penalties were set aside as unlawful.\nCitations: Section 11(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; Messrs Leo Enterprises v. President of Pakistan (2009 PTD 1978).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (A.G.) No.163/LB of 2010 and S.T.A. No.322/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st May, 2011, hearing DATE : 2-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.A., JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waheed Shahzad Butt AND Madam Rabia Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MASTER POLY PLAST IND., GUJRANWALA\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 182 = 2011 SLD 182 = (2011) 104 TAX 170 = 2011 PTD 1883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Supplier Blacklisting\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims were denied due to supplier blacklisting and alleged non-compliance with sales tax rules.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that suppliers were active and registered during the relevant period, and their blacklisting was retrospective.\n•\nShow-cause notices lacked grounds to support denial of claims.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal declared the Department's actions illegal and upheld the taxpayer's refund claims.\nCitations: Sales Tax General Order No. 6 of 2003; Sections 3, 7, and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(3)(a)(b),10,7,21 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 462-K to 465-K and 476-K of 2009, decision dated: 21st April, 2011, hearing DATE : 5-04-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamshad Younus AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EM EM ENTERPRISES, KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 183 = 2011 SLD 183 = 2011 PTD 1888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax on Packing Material and Legal Validity of Agreements\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer's refund claim was limited to 20% based on an agreement between the Confectionery Association and the Department. The taxpayer contested this, arguing the agreement lacked binding legal authority.\n•\nThe Department argued the refund claim was denied due to non-submission of supporting evidence.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that unless supporting evidence is provided, the refund cannot be determined. It also declared the agreement between the Association and the Department as non-binding unless supported by legislation.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase remanded to the refunding authority to re-examine based on supporting evidence. Orders of lower authorities vacated.\nCitations: 2011 PTD (Trib.) 22, 2007 PTD 47.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 935/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Azmat Elahi Ghumman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUNRISE FOOD INDUSTRY, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 184 = 2011 SLD 184 = 2011 PTD 1904", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Determination of Sales Tax\nDetails:\n•\nShow-cause notice issued in 2002 and the order-in-original passed in 2006 violated the five-year limitation period prescribed by Section 36(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (as amended by the Finance Act, 1996).\nConclusion:\n•\nShow-cause notice and the order-in-original declared null and void due to being time-barred.\nCitations: Section 36(2), Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T. No.7(400)/PB/2000--ST No.7/ATIR of 2009, decision dated: 17-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Danish Ali Qazi AND Shad Muhammad, DR and Shuaib Sultan, IRAO", + "Party Name:": "Messrs M. HAYAT & BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 185 = 2011 SLD 185 = (2011) 104 TAX 247 = 2011 PTD 1932", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax on Import Due to Reduction in Assessed Value\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer claimed a refund on the input tax paid at a higher value (Rs. 9,280/ton) prior to the reduction in assessed value (Rs. 4,610/ton).\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that taxes paid at the higher rate were adjustable and refundable under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Any attempt to deny this refund was arbitrary and reflected mala fide intentions by the Department.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal of the Department dismissed, refund allowed. The Department's actions criticized for being arbitrary and illegal.\nCitations: Sections 7 and 10, Sales Tax Act, 1990; S.R.O. 609(I)/2004; Constitution of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,7 ", + "Case #": "S.T. No. 688/K of 2009, decision dated: 17-03-2011, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Zafar Akhtar, A.R. AND Abdul Raheem Lakhani, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, QUETTA through Additional Collector, Sales Tax, Hub, Balochistan\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (APPEALS), QUETTA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 186 = 2011 SLD 186 = 2011 PTD 1943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax and Time-Limitations\nDetails:\n•\nThe taxpayer claimed input tax adjustments for raw materials used in manufacturing. The Department denied the claim based on procedural lapses and issued show-cause notices beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector.\n•\nTribunal ruled that input tax adjustment is a substantive right and cannot be denied based on technical or procedural lapses. Show-cause notices issued beyond jurisdiction were declared illegal.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders by lower authorities set aside; show-cause notices declared void.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64; 2007 PTD (Trib.) 728; 2010 PTD 1636.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,ThirdSched ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.1763/LB, 1764/LB and 1302/LB of 2009, decision dated: 11-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi AND M. Tahir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 187 = 2011 SLD 187 = (2011) 104 TAX 277 = 2011 PTD 1966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax and Misuse of Power by Department\nDetails:\n•\nDepartment alleged inadmissible input tax adjustment without providing evidence or informing the taxpayer of complaints against them.\n•\nTribunal held that the Department acted unjustly and without due process. Orders passed were declared invalid as they violated principles of natural justice.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders of lower authorities set aside due to procedural violations and misuse of authority.\nCitations: 1998 SCMR 2268; PLD 2005 Lahore 381.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,11,36,34,46 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 24/K of 2011, decision dated: 10-05-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Javed, D. R. AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), R.T.O., HYDERABAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-III), KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 188 = 2011 SLD 188 = 2011 PTD 1978 = 2012 PTCL 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Validity of Show-Cause Notices under Section 36\nDetails:\n•\nDepartment issued vague show-cause notices without specifying subsections of Section 36 or providing evidence of collusion or deliberate acts by the taxpayer.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that failure to cite applicable provisions rendered the notices and subsequent proceedings void.\nConclusion:\n•\nShow-cause notices and orders declared invalid. Subsequent proceedings nullified.\nCitations: GST 2004 CL 635; Messrs Inam Packages v. Appellate Tribunal (2007 PTD 2265).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.203/LB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Usman Asghar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DILPASAND HOSIERY, FAISALABAD\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 189 = 2011 SLD 189 = 2011 PTD 2064", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Handling Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nAn independent power producer alleged that Large Taxpayer’s Unit (LTU) failed to process its refund claims and acted inefficiently, requiring multiple extensions.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that LTU displayed bureaucratic indifference, inefficiency, and highhandedness.\nConclusion:\n•\nRecommendations included fixing responsibility for maladministration, ensuring timely system improvements, and resolving pending refund claims within 30 days.\nCitations: Sections 10, 66, 67 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,66,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.164/ISD/ST(14)/863 of 2010, decision dated: 27-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer. Muhammad Zaheer, Senior Manager Tax Authorized Representative AND M. Imran Shah, Staff Officer (CIR) Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SABA POWER COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 190 = 2011 SLD 190 = (2011) 104 TAX 252 = 2011 PTD 2072", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax, Limitation, and Jurisdiction\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer argued that refund claims were delayed beyond the 14-day limit set by Section 10(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nDepartment contended that investigations related to alleged violations of Section 73 required additional time.\n•\nRefund claims were denied due to payment being routed through a guarantor, violating banking channel requirements under Section 73.\n•\nThe Assistant Collector adjudicated refunds exceeding Rs. 1 million without proper jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal set aside orders, emphasizing that claims exceeding Rs. 1 million could only be handled by a Deputy Collector. Case remanded for reevaluation with proper documentation and jurisdiction.\nCitations: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 928.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2)(4),73,45,12 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 32/IB of 2009, decision dated: 15-04-2011, hearing DATE : 26-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi. Ghulam Hasnain, Audit Officer AND Hafiz Munawwar Iqbal, Legal Advisor", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAFINA IMPEX, ISLAMABAD and others\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALE TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 191 = 2011 SLD 191 = 2011 PTCL 785 = 2011 PTD 2090", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Refund Claims on Scrutiny and Supplier's Registration Issues\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims were rejected based on objections related to scrutiny of supplier records and suspension of supplier registration.\n•\nTribunal ruled that mere assumptions or procedural delays in supplier verification were insufficient grounds for rejection.\n•\nNo formal blacklisting of suppliers occurred, and their transactions were deemed valid.\nConclusion:\n•\nRejections of refunds were invalid due to lack of lawful grounds. Tribunal ordered refunds based on verified evidence.\nCitations: PLD 1991 SC 280; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 857.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,26,73,24 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12(5) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 560/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-12-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Usman Asghar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAMA EXPORTS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 192 = 2011 SLD 192 = 2011 PTD 2103 = 2012 PTCL 106 = 2011 PTR 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Fabricated Storage Tanks\nDetails:\n•\nHigh Court examined whether storage tanks fabricated for commercial use fell under the definition of goods under Section 2(6) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nTanks were deemed immovable property, as they could not be sold or moved without dismantling.\nConclusion:\n•\nStorage tanks were not goods and not subject to sales tax. Impugned notice was vacated.\nCitations: Murree Brewery Case (PLD 1972 SC 279); PLD 1963 SC 322.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(6),3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-644 of 1986, decision dated: 28-03-2011, hearing DATE : 10-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed for Petitioner AND Ms. Masooda Sirajs", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI BULK STORAGE AND TERMINALS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 193 = 2011 SLD 193 = 2011 PTD 2124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Show-Cause Notices and Refund Rejection\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer's refund claim was rejected on grounds not mentioned in the show-cause notice.\n•\nTribunal ruled that an order passed on issues not confronted to the taxpayer lacked legal sanctity.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders rejecting refunds were set aside for being outside the scope of the show-cause notice.\nCitations: 1987 SCMR 1840.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1862/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Sheryar, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs MIAN GHOUS BUX (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 194 = 2011 SLD 194 = (2011) 104 TAX 299 = 2012 PTCL 92 = 2011 PTD 2128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Board Interference in Appellate Decisions\nDetails:\n•\nTribunal ruled that the Board of Revenue cannot interfere in quasi-judicial decisions made by appellate authorities.\n•\nSuch interference undermines the independence of appellate processes.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders interfering with appellate decisions were declared unlawful.\nCitations: PLD 1964 SC 865; 2002 PTD 7.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A,45B,46,72 ", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos.445 and 453 of 2003, decision dated: 1st June, 2011, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseems AND Raja Muhammad Iqbal.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALUMINUM PROCESSING INDUSTRIAL INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. through Manager\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 195 = 2011 SLD 195 = 2011 PTD 2169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit by Directorate of Revenue Receipt Audit\nDetails:\n•\nTribunal ruled that audits conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Receipt Audit lacked jurisdiction and were coram non judice.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase set aside as the audit process was unsustainable under law.\nCitations: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1600.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.14/LB of 2011, decision dated: 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi AND Syed Jawad Ali Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALBERTA SPORTS (PVT.) LTD.IALKOT\nvs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 196 = 2011 SLD 196 = 2011 PTD 2171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delay in Tax Payment\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer delayed payment by 19 days beyond the statutory limit of 180 days under Section 73, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 10,000 and denial of input tax adjustment.\n•\nTribunal upheld the penalty but allowed input tax adjustment as it was a substantive right.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty upheld; input tax adjustment allowed.\nCitations: Section 33(5), Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=74,33(5),46,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2290/LB of 2009, decision dated: 15-02-2011, hearing DATE : 18-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farooq Sheikh AND Dr. Sheryar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IMRAN PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 197 = 2011 SLD 197 = (2011) 104 TAX 161 = 2011 PTD 2180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Rules for Retailers\nDetails:\n•\nAudit pointed out discrepancies for a motorcycle retailer. Taxpayer claimed rules for dealers applied.\n•\nTribunal ruled that retailer-specific rules were applicable, and objections raised by the taxpayer lacked merit.\nConclusion:\n•\nAudit findings upheld; retailer rules deemed applicable.\nCitations: Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2006, Rule 16.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,26,33,34,36(1) Sales Tax Rules, 2006=1,617,123,129,123 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1/IB of 2009, decision dated: 20-04-2011, hearing DATE : 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Tanseer Bukhari AND M. Jawad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ADNAN HONDA CENTRE, KAMRA\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 149 = 2012 SLD 149 = (2012) 105 TAX 136 = 2011 PTD 1813", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting and Burden of Proof in Alleged Fraud Cases\nDetails:\n•\nAppellate Authority did not verify taxpayer's documents regarding disputed transactions.\n•\nTribunal remanded the case for reevaluation, emphasizing the Revenue's burden to prove fraud.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders set aside; case remanded for fresh evaluation.\nCitations: 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=37 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1214/LB of 2009, decision dated: 13-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi. Tahir Tanveer, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Sh. M. IJAZ & COMPANY, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 198 = 2011 SLD 198 = (2011) 104 TAX 48 = 2011 PTD 804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Burden of Proof\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer failed to explain a suspicious transaction where a credited amount matched disputed invoices.\n•\nTribunal held that Revenue discharged its initial burden, shifting the onus to the taxpayer.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal dismissed; fraud allegations upheld.\nCitations: 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.6/LB of 2009, decision dated: 9-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmad. Ghulam Mujtba Bhatti, D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs F.S. CORPORATION, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 199 = 2011 SLD 199 = 2011 PTD 866", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Show-Cause Notices in Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nShow-cause notices lacked specifics regarding errors or alleged fraud in refunds.\n•\nTribunal ruled that such notices were patently illegal and without jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\n•\nNotices and subsequent orders declared void.\nCitations: 2004 PTD 2928.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,2(14),2(37),7(1),7(2)(i),8(1)(d),10,21(2),25,26(1),33,34,73 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12(5) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1796/LB of 2009, decision dated: 5-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CHAUDHRY MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Basit AND Faisal Asghar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED DISTRIBUTORS, MULTAN\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX & FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 200 = 2011 SLD 200 = 2011 PTD 923", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Officers\nDetails:\n•\nAssistant Collector adjudicated a case involving tax exceeding Rs. 1 million, violating jurisdictional limits under Section 45.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders declared coram non judice; case remanded for proper adjudication.\nCitations: 2006 SCMR 470.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,45,11(2),4,7,8(1),10,26,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 569/LB of 2009, decision dated: 29-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed AND Asim Halim D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMTEX LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 201 = 2011 SLD 201 = 2011 PTD 952", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax and Procedural Violations\nDetails:\n•\nThe findings of facts from one case were improperly applied to 17 unrelated taxpayers without examining the specific circumstances of each taxpayer.\n•\nThe taxpayer was charged with violations committed by other registered persons.\n•\nNo independent findings of fact or application of judicial mind were presented in the adjudication process.\n•\nThe taxpayer's claims were dismissed unlawfully based on assumptions.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe tribunal declared the entire process void and ordered the immediate release of refund claims with delayed surcharge under Section 67 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nJudicial findings must be case-specific and cannot rely on generalizations.\nCitations: 2007 SCMR 855; 1994 SCMR 2214; 2009 PTD 1993.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),11,2(14),7,8(1),26,33(17),36,37,67 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=37 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=163 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 803/K of 2009 (Old S.T.A. No.134 of 2009), decision dated: 20-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMEEL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Awan AND Imtiaz Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SALFI TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 179 = 1990 SLD 179 = 1990 PTD 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Ingredients in Manufacturing\nDetails:\n•\nA manufacturer using independently marketable materials (e.g., ingredients or components) in their final product was found liable to pay sales tax on those materials.\n•\nThe principle established was that if any material used in manufacturing is separately marketable, it falls under the definition of taxable supplies.\nConclusion:\n•\nSales tax applies to such materials, regardless of whether they are consumed during production.\nCitations: 1989 PTD 42; PLD 1988 Kar. 233.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(4),(6)(d) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. D 106 of 1983, decision dated: 18-06-1989", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND QAISAR AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Qureshi for Petitioner. Naser Ahmeds", + "Party Name:": "A & B BEVERAGES LTD. (PRIVATE) through Managing Director\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 202 = 2011 SLD 202 = 2011 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Refund Claims Due to Delay\nDetails:\n•\nA refund claim related to zero-rated supplies was withheld for an indefinite period.\n•\nDespite a Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) recommendation to process the claim and pay compensation under Section 67, the department failed to comply.\n•\nThe taxpayer filed an appeal, but the department rejected the refund without addressing the Ombudsman’s findings.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal ruled the rejection was invalid, citing maladministration and procedural noncompliance. Refund and compensation were ordered.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64; 2008 PTD (Trib.) 370.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=67,10,11,45B,46,66,67,73 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=8 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 508/K of 2009, decided oil 18-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza AND Hassan Sardar (DR)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INNOVATIVE IMPEX, KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 203 = 2011 SLD 203 = 2011 PTD 1062", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retroactive Application of Refund Repository Rules\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims for periods before July 2006 were rejected based on objections from the Sales Tax Automated Refund Repository (STARR) system, which was introduced on July 1, 2006.\n•\nThe tribunal observed that these claims should have been scrutinized under the older Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal ruled retroactive application of the STARR system was void, directing refunds to be processed under the applicable rules.\nCitations: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),10 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=37 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.1863/LB to 1868/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Syed Mehmood Jafri, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COSY INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, RTO, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 204 = 2011 SLD 204 = 2011 PTD 1069", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Overreach in Refund Adjudication\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims exceeding Rs. 1 million were adjudicated by an Assistant Collector instead of the Deputy Collector, who had jurisdiction over such cases.\n•\nAdditionally, the adjudication order was passed after the legal deadline of 100 days without an approved extension.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were vacated as being without jurisdiction and in violation of procedural time limits.\nCitations: 2008 SCMR 240.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1007/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Adrian Ahmad Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BASHIR PRNTING (PVT.) LIMTED\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 205 = 2011 SLD 205 = 2011 PTD 1073", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Refund Claims Against Blacklisted Suppliers\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer claimed refunds for transactions made before their suppliers were blacklisted.\n•\nShow-cause notices were issued after three years, exceeding the limitation period prescribed under Section 36(2).\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal ruled the notices were time-barred and vacated all subsequent proceedings.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64; 2008 PTD (Trib.) 370.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,11,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.120/LB of 2010, decision dated: 10-11-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farooq Sheikh AND Azmat Elahi Ghuman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUMTAZ GHANI TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nC.I.R.(A), (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 206 = 2011 SLD 206 = (2011) 103 TAX 377 = 2011 PTD 1076 = 2011 LHC 48 = 2011 PLJ 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prospective Effect of Statutory Amendments\nDetails:\n•\nAmendments to Sections 45-B and 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, introduced through the Finance Act of 2005, were argued to affect prior cases.\n•\nTribunal clarified that amendments are prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals initiated before the amendments were unaffected.\nCitations: PLD 1969 SC 187; PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,46,45B ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 12 of 2009, decision dated: 27-01-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND YAHYA AFRIDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaq Ali Qazi AND Mudasir Amir", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL STEEL MILLS AND REROLLERS (PVT.) LTD., HATTAR\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 207 = 2011 SLD 207 = 2011 PTD 1087", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Rejection of Refund Claims Pre-STARR System\nDetails:\n•\nA refund claim for January 2005 was rejected under the STARR system, which was only implemented from July 2006.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal declared the rejection invalid and directed the claim to be reviewed under the rules applicable in 2005.\nCitations: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1754/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd September, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farooq Sh. AND Syed Mehmood Jafri, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUMTAZ GHANI TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 208 = 2011 SLD 208 = 2011 PTD 1108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims Denied Due to Supplier Deregistration\nDetails:\n•\nRefunds were denied because suppliers were later deregistered for low turnover, despite being registered at the time of the transactions.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were set aside, emphasizing that subsequent deregistration could not retroactively affect legitimate claims.\nCitations: 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66,7,10,23,46,,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 653/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd September, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed AND Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALREHMAT TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 209 = 2011 SLD 209 = 2011 PTD 1120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Refund Claims for Zero-Rated Supplies\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims for zero-rated supplies were denied due to time limitations, despite legal provisions allowing such claims.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal upheld the taxpayer's right to refunds, highlighting that procedural delays should not result in undue denial.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,10,46,66,674 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1934/LB of 2009, decision dated: 26-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Waqas Tarar, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (RTO), FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs KEY AND EMMS (PVT.) LTD, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 210 = 2011 SLD 210 = 2011 PTD 1124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Goods Destroyed by Fire\nDetails:\n•\nInput tax adjustment for yarn stocks destroyed by fire was denied.\n•\nDepartment argued that the taxpayer failed to account for empty bags and cones from the destroyed goods.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal allowed the refund, citing that destroyed goods are not taxable.\nCitations: PTCL 2002 CL 115.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,11,22,23,26,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 637/LB of 2009, decision dated: 15-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad, A.R. AND Syed Mehmood Jafri, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "HABIB CALICO WEAVING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 211 = 2011 SLD 211 = 2011 PTD 1128 = 2011 PTR 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Under Special SRO\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer claimed a refund under SRO 679(I)/99 but failed to meet the conditions stipulated in the notification.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal ruled against the taxpayer, emphasizing compliance with SRO conditions.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No. 67 of 2010, decision dated: 15-03-2011, hearing DATE : 22-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Applicant AND Ms. Masooda Siraj", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED EXPORTS COMPANY, KARACHI\nvs\nREGIONAL TAX OFFICER through Commissioner, Enforcement and Collection Division (I), Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 212 = 2011 SLD 212 = 2011 PTD 1140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Permission to Argue Legal Grounds\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer sought to argue additional legal grounds not raised earlier, focusing on jurisdictional issues.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal permitted the grounds, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities.\nCitations: 2002 PTD 541.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.131/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.130/LB of 2009 and M.A. (AG) No.132/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.131/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st December, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Dr. Syed Ali Adnan Zaidi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMTEX LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCIR (RTO), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 213 = 2011 SLD 213 = 2011 PTD 1143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds Denied Due to Subsequent Blacklisting of Suppliers\nDetails:\n•\nPurchases were made before the suppliers were blacklisted. Refunds were denied based on retrospective application of blacklisting.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal held such retrospective denial unlawful.\nCitations: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 857.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,21,46,66,67 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1315/LB of 2009, decision dated: 17-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sahib Zada Umer Riaz, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, RTO, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs KAMAL FABRICS, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 214 = 2011 SLD 214 = 2011 PTD 1162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Refund and Maladministration\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims were delayed, and the department acted arbitrarily despite taxpayer compliance.\nConclusion:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended expedited refunds and accountability for maladministration.\nCitations: PTCL 1998 CL 354.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,66,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 59/ISD/ST(06)/138 of 2010, decision dated: 13-03-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor, Dealing Officer. Saqib Siddeq, ITP. Authorized Representative AND Anwar Zeb, Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax RTO, Islamabad, Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SANA TRADERS, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 215 = 2011 SLD 215 = 2011 PTD 1170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposed on Quarterly Filer as Non-Filer\nDetails:\n•\nA quarterly filer was penalized as a non-filer due to systemic errors.\nConclusion:\n•\nOmbudsman recommended penalty withdrawal, apology, and systemic corrections.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(ii),9,10 ", + "Case #": "No. 132/ISD/ST(11)/667 of 2010, decision dated: 6-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer. Khurram Shahzad Warraich, Authorized Representative. Naveed Mukhtar, IR (RTO), Islamabad and Mr. Shafqat Mahmaod, Auditor Sales Tax (RTO), Islamabad, Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Syed TAHIR HAIDER\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Complaint" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 216 = 2011 SLD 216 = 2011 PTD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unlawful Blocking of a Company's Name\nDetails:\n•\nCompany name blocked without notice or proper justification.\nConclusion:\n•\nOmbudsman directed immediate rectification and systemic reforms.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Rules, 2001=12 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 174/KHI/ST(48)/751 of 2010, decision dated: 8-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Ahmed, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Aqeel Ahmed and Muhammad Hussain, Authorized Representative AND Jawad Hussain Memon, A.C., Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAMDAM PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 217 = 2011 SLD 217 = 2011 PTD 1192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Refund Sanction Post-Legal Victory\nDetails:\n•\nRefunds withheld despite court orders favoring the taxpayer.\nConclusion:\n•\nOmbudsman directed immediate refund release and disciplinary action.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=37,37A(4),38,66,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No.164/LHR/ST(07)/281/2010, decision dated: 25-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saeed Akhtar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, ITP and M. Imran Rashid, Authorized Representative AND Muhammad Asif, DCIR, Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ SAJJAD POLYPROPYLENE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 218 = 2011 SLD 218 = 2011 PTD 1260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blocking of Refunds Without Audit\nDetails:\n•\nRefunds blocked and registration suspended without due process.\nConclusion:\n•\nOmbudsman recommended refund release and reforms in refund-blocking procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,9,10 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 143//ISD/ST(12)/728 of 2010, decision dated: 11-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Adviser, Dealing Officer. Syed Tauqeer Bokhari and Aslam Pervaiz, Complainant Authorized Representatives. Sardar Zafar Mahmood Khan Addl. Commissioner, LTU, Islamad Ehsan Utah, Assistant Commissioner, LTU, Islamabad and Syed Imran Shah, SO (Legal) LTU Islamabad Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "ASLAM PERVAIZ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 219 = 2011 SLD 219 = (2011) 104 TAX 203 = 2011 PTD 1306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Audit Authority\nDetails:\n1.\nOfficers of the Directorate of Revenue Receipt Audit were not vested with the powers of a Sales Tax Officer under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n2.\nHowever, their observations on revenue leakage or inadmissible tax adjustments, directed at tax-collecting agencies and not taxpayers, were held valid.\n3.\nTaxpayers could only reclaim input tax on taxable supplies, and apportionment was required when dealing with both taxable and non-taxable supplies.\nConclusion:\n•\nDirectorate’s observations were lawful, but direct audit of taxpayers was beyond its jurisdiction.\n•\nInput adjustment was contingent on taxable supplies, and apportionment was necessary for mixed supplies.\nCitations: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1600; 2008 PTD (Trib.) 261.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,25,8(1),(2),3,7,8,2(33),2(35),2(46),33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.132/IB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd March, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rashid Ibrahim, FCA AND Imran Shah, DR/Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAUJI KABIRWALA POWER COMPANY LTD, KHANEWAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 220 = 2011 SLD 220 = 2011 PTD 1368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deferment of Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer engaged in textile exports faced delayed refunds due to alleged incomplete documentation.\n•\nInvestigation revealed negligence on part of tax officials, who had all required documents but failed to process claims on time.\nConclusion:\n•\nFederal Board of Revenue (FBR) was directed to ensure timely processing and finalization of claims.\nCitations: 2003 SCMR 83; 1979 PTD 429.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,66 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 Sales Tax Registration Rules, 2006=26,28 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 165/KHI/ST(46)/742 of 2010, decision dated: 10-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Justice (Retd.) Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal, Advisor, Dealing Officer. M. Afzal Awan and Imran Iqbal, Authorized Representative AND Akhtar Hussain Qureshi Deputy Superintendent, Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LATIF TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 221 = 2011 SLD 221 = 2011 PTD 1371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Shift in Registration\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer’s jurisdiction was arbitrarily shifted from Islamabad to Lahore without notice or adherence to procedural fairness.\n•\nViolation of Sales Tax Registration Rules, 2006, was evident.\nConclusion:\n•\nJurisdiction was ordered to be restored, and guidelines were recommended to prevent arbitrary actions in the future.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Registration Rules, 2006=5,7,8 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.149/Isd/IT(128)/790/2010, decision dated: 2-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Zaheer, Tax Consultant, Authorized Representative AND Sardar Zafar Mahmood, Addl. Commissioner LTU, Islamabad, Syed Imran Shah, Staff Officer to Commissioner (Legal), LTU, Islamabad, Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SABA POWER COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 222 = 2011 SLD 222 = (2011) 104 TAX 114 = 2011 PTD 1399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Supplies\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer disputed the constitution of a valuation committee, arguing that the declared value of supplies was accurate and supported by financial records.\n•\nDepartment’s allegations were based on conjecture and lacked evidence.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal was allowed, and the committee's constitution was deemed unwarranted.\nCitations: 2007 PTD 47.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),7,11,46 ", + "Case #": "S.Ts. Nos. 144/LB and 152/MB of 2010, decision dated: 8-02-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Basit (in S.T. No. 144/LB of 2010). Imran Latif, D.R. (in S.T. No. 144/LB of 2010). Imran Latif, D.R. (in S.T. No. 152/MB of 2010). Abdul Basit, (in S.T. No. 152/MB of 2010)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAMAL NAVEED PAPER MILLS, KHANEWAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 223 = 2011 SLD 223 = 2011 PTD 1416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Refunds for Zero-Rated Exports\nDetails:\n•\nSales Tax Department delayed refund claims without providing a speaking order.\n•\nNon-responsiveness and inefficiency were deemed maladministration.\nConclusion:\n•\nDepartment was instructed to expedite pending claims and streamline refund procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 14/KHI/ST(03)/91/2010, decision dated: 11-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Ahmed, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Ahmed Ali Soomro, OIR and Dr. Zulfiqar Mir, Addl. Commissioner. Departmental Representatives AND Rashid Ahmed, Authorized Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SALEEM TEXTILE, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 224 = 2011 SLD 224 = 2011 PTD 1429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds for Exempt Goods\nDetails:\n•\nSales tax was improperly collected on standing trees, which were exempt under FBR’s clarification.\n•\nTaxpayer sought a refund and policy enforcement to prevent future malpractice.\nConclusion:\n•\nFBR was directed to refund the collected tax and circulate clear instructions to prevent recurrence.\nCitations: 2003 PTD 593.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.182/Lhr/ST(09)/301/2010, to Complaint No.186/Lhr/ ST(13)/305/2010 and Complaint No.188/Lhr/ST(15)/307/2010 to Compliant No.198/Lhr/ST(25)/317/2010, decision dated: 7-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Karamat Chaudhry, D.R. and Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAMEEL and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 225 = 2011 SLD 225 = (2011) 104 TAX 5 = 2011 PTD 1505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability on Inherited Businesses\nDetails:\n•\nA business inherited by a son was found liable for unpaid sales tax.\n•\nTaxpayer argued that liabilities could not pass to legal heirs for unregistered businesses.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax liability was upheld as it applied to the business entity rather than the individual.\nCitations: PLD 1975 Kar. 1029.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1)(3),2(25),2(47),6(2),7,8,46,45,14,21,22(1),23,25,26,34,36(1),45B(2),49,53 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 23/IB of 2009, decision dated: 28-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Nazir Azhar AND Zia Ullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AZIZ BROTHERS, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 226 = 2011 SLD 226 = 2011 PTD 1548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability of Commission Agents\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer, a commission agent, was wrongly held liable for value addition on goods sold at manufacturer’s fixed prices.\n•\nEvidence confirmed that tax liability rested with the manufacturer.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase was remanded for reassessment in line with evidence.\nCitations: 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(47),7A,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 968/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COTTON ARTS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 227 = 2011 SLD 227 = 2011 PTD 1588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Adjudication of Tax Shortfall\nDetails:\n•\nShow-cause notice was adjudicated after 635 days instead of the 90-day statutory limit.\n•\nDelay was unjustified and procedurally defective.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were vacated as being time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),33(2Cc),34,36,45,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T. No. 69/PB/08-S.T.No.38/ATIR/09, decision dated: 1st February, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Issac Ali Qazi AND Shad Muhammad, D.R. and Shuaib Sultan, IRAO", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MYKA STEEL (PVT) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX & FEDERAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 228 = 2011 SLD 228 = 2011 PTD 1621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Delays for Zero-Rated Exports\nDetails:\n•\nRefunds were denied due to non-verification of suppliers’ tax payments.\n•\nTaxpayer was penalized for systemic issues beyond their control.\nConclusion:\n•\nFBR was directed to verify and process refunds promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,66,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 59/ISD/ST(06)/138 of 2010, decision dated: 13-03-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer. Saqib Siddeq, ITP Authorized Representative AND Anwar Zeb, Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax RTO Islamabad Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SANA TRADERS, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 229 = 2011 SLD 229 = 2011 PTD 1625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Dismissed Appeal\nDetails:\n•\nAppeal dismissed due to non-attendance, but taxpayer had not received notice of hearing.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal was restored, emphasizing adjudication on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 ", + "Case #": "M.A.No. 654/LB/2010 in STA No.908/LB/2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed for Applicant AND Azmat Elahi Ghumman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAJ PROCESSING INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD\nvs\nC.I.R. (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 230 = 2011 SLD 230 = 2011 PTD 1647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deregistration and Exemption Claims\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer sought deregistration due to falling below the taxable turnover threshold, but the department delayed action for years.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeregistration was ordered with recommendations for prompt processing in similar cases.\nCitations: PLD 2001 SC 340.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,13,14,21,36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.186/ISD/ST(17)/1249/2010, decision dated: 13-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor, Dealing Officer AND Zafar Ali Khan, Complainant, Authorized Representative AND Dost Muhammad, AC IR and Sharifullah, Law Officer, RTO, Peshawar, Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IMPEX COLOUR LABORATORIES, NOWSHERA\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 231 = 2011 SLD 231 = 2011 PTD 1645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Refund Due to Delayed Adjudication\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claim was rejected after 260 days, exceeding the statutory limit for adjudication.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were set aside as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 829/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Sattar, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISLABAD\nvs\n Messrs BASHIR PRINTING INDUS., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 232 = 2011 SLD 232 = 2011 PTD 1656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment for Diesel\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer claimed input adjustment for diesel used in manufacturing but was denied due to procedural issues.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdjustment was allowed, directing compliance with software requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,46,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 257/LB to 261/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd July, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND SHAHNAZ REFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abzur Hussain and Khubaib Ahmad AND Dr. Shahid Siddique, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIAGRA MILLS (PVT.) LTD, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS), FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 233 = 2011 SLD 233 = 2011 PTD 1658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Input Adjustment\nDetails:\n•\nArbitrary disallowance of input adjustments and discriminatory treatment highlighted systemic issues.\nConclusion:\n•\nFBR was directed to reopen the case and ensure consistent policy enforcement.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),33(5),34(1),36(3),74 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 170/ISD/ST(15)/1014 of 2010, decision dated: 28-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer, H.A. Shirazi and Iqbal Saeed Khattak, Assistant Manager Accounts (PESCO), Authorized Representative AND Barrister Syed Muddassir Amir, Harron Khattak, Audit Officer, RTO Peshawar and Sharifullah, Law Officer, RTO Peshawar, Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PESHAWAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 234 = 2011 SLD 234 = 2011 PTD 1669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Recovery of Input Tax\nDetails:\n•\nAdjudication exceeded the allowable extension period for show-cause notices.\nConclusion:\n•\nProceedings were quashed as invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,2(14)(37),10,11(2),33(11),34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.140/LB of 2010, decision dated: 19-07-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Ishaq Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BASHIR PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nC.I.R. (RTO), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 121 = 2010 SLD 121 = 2010 PTD 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Adjustment Based on Incomplete Verification\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer suffered due to delayed verification of original bills of entry.\n•\nDepartment’s ex parte decisions caused undue inconvenience.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase was reopened with instructions to cancel prior orders and rectify maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-364-K of 2009, decision dated: 12-10-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Ahmad, Advisor/Dealing Officer, FTOs Regional Office, Karachi, Khushnood A. Khan, Authorized Representative AND Masood Sabir, Deputy Collector Sales Tax/Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "Messrs J.M. ENTERPRISES through Messrs Tax & Management Consultant, Karachi\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 122 = 2010 SLD 122 = 2010 PTD 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty and Penalty on Record Non-Production\nDetails:\n•\nAdditional tax was not leviable under S.R.O. 999(I)/2007 when the principal amount was paid, granting amnesty for short payment.\n•\nA penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed for non-production of records was waived since the maximum permissible penalty was Rs.10,000, and the show-cause notice lacked clarity.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly Rs.3,000 was payable for the tax shortfall in February 2001.\nCitation: PLD 1991 SC 963.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(i)(a),34,33(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "C. No. 69/ST/IB of 2007, decision dated: 18-03-2008, hearing DATE : 27-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Danish Ali Qazi AND Dr. Sarmad Qureshi, Deputy Collector/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 123 = 2010 SLD 123 = 2010 PTD 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Recovery\nDetails:\n•\nShow-cause notice issued on 17-6-2004 with adjudication completed on 28-1-2006 exceeded the limitation period under S.36(3).\n•\nExtensions granted by the Board were invalid as they were issued after the expiry of the permissible extended period.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were set aside, and the show-cause notice was vacated for exceeding statutory time limits.\nCitations: 2008 PTD 60; 2008 PTD 1844.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 747/LB of 2006, decision dated: 2-09-2009, hearing DATE : 27-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA AND MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Amjad Javed and Nadeem Ahsan AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 124 = 2010 SLD 124 = (2010) 101 TAX 171 = 2010 PTCL 380 = 2010 PTD 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Adjudication Authority\nDetails:\n•\nTribunal remanded a case after finding the Senior Intelligence Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice.\n•\nThe High Court was directed to resolve jurisdictional questions de novo after hearing all parties.\nConclusion:\n•\nMatter was remanded for fresh adjudication.\nCitation: 1987 SCMR 571.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=33 Central Excise Rules, 1944=197,226(2), ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Reference Application No.267 of 2008, decision dated: 2-07-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND ARSHAD SIRAJ MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohsin Imam for Applicant AND Abid H. Shahban", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (RTO) \nvs\nMessrs ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 125 = 2010 SLD 125 = (2009) 100 TAX 306 = 2010 PTCL 444 = 2010 PTD 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Limitation\nDetails:\n•\nAmendment to S.11(4) in 2008 imposed a five-year limitation, applied retrospectively to pending proceedings, including reference applications before the High Court.\n•\nProceedings based on time-barred notices were extinguished.\nConclusion:\n•\nShow-cause notice was declared time-barred, and subsequent proceedings were void.\nCitations: 1991 SCMR 732; 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4) Finance Act, 2008=47 ", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.2 of 2007, decision dated: 5-05-2009, hearing DATE : 31st March, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SALMAN ANSARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Mehmood Siddique for Applicant. Nadeem Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 126 = 2010 SLD 126 = 2010 PTCL 581 = 2010 PTD 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Refund for Canteen Services\nDetails:\n•\nExemption under item No.3(vii) of the Sixth Schedule was limited to food prepared and served directly by industrial canteens.\n•\nSupplies by third-party vendors were taxable activities and ineligible for exemption.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefund claims were rejected as the appellant failed to meet exemption criteria.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64; 2007 PTD 1473.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1),66,SixthSched. ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.S.T. 252/PB of 2003, decision dated: 26-01-2009, hearing DATE : 22-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Barrister Farrukh Jawad Panni AND Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Dost Muhammad, Sharifullah, Shuaib Sultan, Senior Auditors and Zubair Shah, Asstt. Collector (Legal)s", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 127 = 2010 SLD 127 = (2010) 101 TAX 201 = 2010 PTD 287 = 2010 SCMR 707 = 2010 PTCL 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Evidentiary Standards\nDetails:\n•\nThe burden of proof for exemptions under S.R.O. 533(I)/94 lies with the claimant.\n•\nSelf-serving certificates from private entities lacked evidentiary value.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals to the Supreme Court on settled factual matters were inadmissible.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1576 and 1577 of 2007, decision dated: 1st October, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JAVED IQBAL, SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoorul Arfeen, Advocate Supreme Court AND Syed Arshad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HUFFAZ SEAMLESS PIPE IND. LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 128 = 2010 SLD 128 = (2010) 101 TAX 196 = 2010 PTD 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Non-Owned Supplies\nDetails:\n•\nInput tax adjustment was denied for raw materials processed by a third party, as it did not align with statutory provisions.\n•\nAppellate authorities upheld the denial of the claim.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals dismissed; adjustment claims were unsupported by law.\nCitations: 2003 PTD 1899; 2005 PTD 2446.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1)(a),3(3),33(2)(cc),34,36,45 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1577 of 2006, decision dated: 30-09-2009.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner AND Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. PAK. LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 129 = 2010 SLD 129 = (2010) 101 TAX 193 = 2010 PTD 352 = 2011 SCMR 1414 = 2010 PTCL 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Cases under Amended Powers\nDetails:\n•\nCollector’s reopening of a settled case under amended S.45-A was deemed invalid as amendments were prospective.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court’s order nullifying reopening was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 514 of 2007, decision dated: 11-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. JAVED BUTTAR, MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD AND SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Itaat Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners AND Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court of Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others\nvs\nMessrs NEW AMMUR INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 58 = 2009 SLD 58 = 2009 PTCL 742 = 2010 PTD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Electricity Consumption as Tax Basis\nDetails:\n•\nSales tax assessment based on electricity consumption was flawed due to lack of specifics about production capacity.\n•\nAdditional tax and penalties were waived as non-payment was not willful.\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessment methodology was declared unreliable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,3,11,33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2769/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami AND Imran Tariq, D.R. and Shaukat Hayat, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 130 = 2010 SLD 130 = 2010 PTD 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Submission of Refund Documents\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims rejected due to late submission of documents were reinstated as withholding funds on technical grounds was unjust.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals allowed; orders for rejection were set aside.\nCitation: PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),11(2),7,8,26,33 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 139/LB of 2008, decision dated: 16-09-2009, hearing DATE . 26-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID NASEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Abdul Nasir, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 131 = 2010 SLD 131 = 2010 PTD 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Adjudication vs. Show-Cause Notice\nDetails:\n•\nRefund rejection based on unmentioned grounds in the show-cause notice rendered the adjudication null.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were invalidated for exceeding the scope of the notice.\nCitations: 1987 SCMR 1844; 2008 PTD (Trib.) 36.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 43/LB of 2008, decision dated: 7-09-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 132 = 2010 SLD 132 = 2010 PTCL 736 = 2010 PTD 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Recovery\nDetails:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s order ignored S.36’s limitation of 90 days.\n•\nPetitioner’s constitutional plea led to a stay on recovery until the President’s decision.\nConclusion:\n•\nRecovery stayed pending further resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4955 of 2009, decision dated: 26-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRFAN QADIR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ozaid Chughtai for Petitioner AND Khawar Ikram Bhattis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TOUHEED LEATHER through Proprietor\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION) OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 133 = 2010 SLD 133 = 2010 PTD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of Appeals by Unauthorized Officers\nDetails:\n•\nAppeals filed by Assistant Collector without proper delegation of powers were declared invalid.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals were dismissed as unauthorized.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,31,20 & 23 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1525/LB of 2002, decision dated: 2-09-2009, hearing DATE : 12-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rashid, S.A. AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 134 = 2010 SLD 134 = 2010 PTD 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Objections in Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nCases based on provisional objections rather than finalized data were remanded for reassessment.\nConclusion:\n•\nOriginal orders were set aside; reassessment was ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 1137/LB of 2008 decided on 3rd June, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALID NASEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed AND Muhammad Khurshid, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 135 = 2010 SLD 135 = (2010) 101 TAX 164 = 2010 PTD 515 = 2010 PTCL 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Mandatory Nature of “Shall” in Statutes\nDetails:\n•\nCourts interpreted “shall” in S.34 to mandate imposition of additional tax post-1996 amendments.\nConclusion:\n•\nDiscretion was replaced with mandatory imposition.\nCitation: 1995 PTD 91.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 ", + "Case #": "S.A.Os. Nos. 25 to 27 of 1999, decision dated: 6-01-2005, hearing DATE : 27-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J. AND EJAZ AFZAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rauf Rohaila AND Qasim Ali Chauhan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nvs\nDHAN FIBRES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 136 = 2010 SLD 136 = 2010 PTCL 472 = 2010 PTD 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Zero-Rating and Exemption Distinction\nDetails:\n•\nSupplies to International Red Cross lacked evidence of being under an International Tender.\n•\nExemption and zero-rating provisions were strictly construed.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefund claims were denied for failing statutory requirements.\nCitations: 2007 PTD 2275; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 2262.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),4,8(1)(a),13(2)(a),FifthSched,46,13,7,.34(1),35(5),36(1) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.136/PB of 2007, decision dated: 8-06-2009. dates of hearing: 14th and 16-04-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Razaq, Addl. Collector/D.R. and Muhammad Haroon Khattak, Senior Auditors AND Muhammad Sulaiman, Consultant and Irfan Tahir Manager Accountss", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 137 = 2010 SLD 137 = (2009) 100 TAX 313 = 2010 PTD 716 = 2010 PTCL 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit on Waste Material\nDetails:\n•\nTax credit disallowed on waste wrapping paper used for packaging was reinstated as the waste was not a new product.\nConclusion:\n•\nImpugned show-cause notices were quashed.\nCitations: 2001 PTD 3945; 2001 SCMR 1376.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(2),6,8(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Central Excise Rules, 1944=7,9,52A,54,55,220,236,241,244,246 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1049 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd June, 2009, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND ARSHAD SIRAJ MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Pooja Kalpana for Petitioner AND Umer Hayat Sandhu, Dy. A.G.", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED\nvs\nSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, REVENUE DIVISION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 59 = 2009 SLD 59 = 2009 PTCL 711 = 2010 PTD 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Evasion of Sales Tax and Unlawful Raids\nDetails:\n•\nSurprise raid conducted without proper authorization violated S.40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nAdjudication relied on probabilities without substantial evidence, and the appellant was denied an opportunity to defend.\n•\nAppellant voluntarily deposited the disputed amount under protest.\nConclusion:\n•\nImpugned order was set aside; the case was remanded for fresh adjudication with due process.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36,37C,40A,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2395/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami AND Ashiq Ali", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 138 = 2010 SLD 138 = 2010 PTD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Rejections Based on Invoice Verification and Suspended Registration\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims rejected due to unverified invoices and suspension of registration.\n•\nAppellant fulfilled legal obligations; rejection was premature and unsupported by due process.\n•\nSTARR System's objections lacked statutory backing.\nConclusion:\n•\nRejection orders were nullified; refunds were deemed admissible under the law.\nCitations: 2003 SCMR 1505; 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(14),4,7,8,10,21,23,26,46,66 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 664 of 2009, decision dated: 7-09-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Muhammad Akram, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 139 = 2010 SLD 139 = 2010 PTD 893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Review and Retrospectivity in Refund Decisions\nDetails:\n•\nRefund rejection orders cannot be reopened after finality due to limitation.\n•\nAmendments in law operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders without jurisdiction or lawful authority were voided.\nCitations: 1989 MLD 4310; 2009 PTD 1.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2),11(2),45B,45 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-363 of 2008, decision dated: 25-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II", + "Lawyer Name": "Parvez Iqbal Kasi AND M. Saleem Memon, Deputy Collector", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 140 = 2010 SLD 140 = (2010) 101 TAX 306 = 2010 PTD 967 = 2010 PTCL 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indirect Taxes and Refund Claims for Telecommunication Cards\nDetails:\n•\nRefund claims by intermediaries (tele-card companies) were rejected as taxes were borne by end consumers.\n•\nQuestions involving factual controversies cannot be converted into legal issues for the High Court.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefund claims were denied, and factual disputes were dismissed.\nCitation: PLD 2005 SC 605.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66,3(B),47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No.76 of 2009, decision dated: 2-02-2010, hearing DATE : 19-11-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUSHIR ALAM AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ayyaz Shoukat for Applicant, Respondent in person AND Siddiq Mirza and Mian Khan Malik, D.A.G. No. 1", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TELECARD LTD. Through Deputy General Manager Finance, Karachi\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT), KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 60 = 2009 SLD 60 = 2009 PTCL 803 = 2010 PTD 975", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment Without Banking Instruments\nDetails:\n•\nAppellant failed to produce banking records for transactions exceeding Rs.50,000 but had genuine invoices.\n•\nNo evidence of fraud or bogus claims; contravention was technical.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty limited to 3% under S.33(1)(16); no adjustment denial.\nCitation: Tax Reference No. 100 of 2008.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,33,33(1)(16),7 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 53/ST/IB of 2009, decision dated: 10-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAFIZ AHSAAN AHMED KHOKHAR, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi AND Ghulam Husnain, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 141 = 2010 SLD 141 = (2009) 100 TAX 351 = 2010 PTD 982", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment Beyond Tax Period and Taxation of Fixed Assets\nDetails:\n•\nInput tax claimed beyond the allowed tax period was disallowed.\n•\nFixed assets and other taxable activities were deemed within the scope of sales tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nClaims for late adjustments were denied; taxes on fixed assets upheld.\nCitations: Civil Appeals Nos. 2687-2696 of 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,,66,32A,3,6,11(2),2(4),2(25) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.83/LB of 2002, decision dated: 13-03-2009, hearing DATE : 9-02-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Mudassar Shujjah and Sarfraz, Anjum, Auditor,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 142 = 2010 SLD 142 = 2010 PTD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption and Retrospective Classification Changes\nDetails:\n•\nClassification changes by the Department were applied retrospectively, creating discrimination against the appellant.\n•\nRefunds were due for taxes paid under duress.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were set aside due to discriminatory practices.\nCitations: PLD 1970 SC 453; 2002 PTD 976.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3B,13,46,6thSched ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-270 of 2004, decision dated: 10-11-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhtar Ali and Maqsood Ahmad Chartered Accountants and Taofeeq Ahmad Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 143 = 2010 SLD 143 = 2010 PTD 1112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Banking Payments and Suspected Units\nDetails:\n•\nDelays in payments beyond statutory limits were condoned as non-contumacious.\n•\nCharges against suspected suppliers were invalid without formal blacklisting.\nConclusion:\n•\nProcedural omissions were condoned, and charges were dismissed as unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,8,10,26,34,36(1),31,3 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1341/LB of 2003, decision dated: 30-05-2009, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohammad Nawaz, S.A. AND Falak Sher, Abuzar Hussain and Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 61 = 2009 SLD 61 = 2009 PTCL 829 = 2010 PTD 1146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Adjudication and Open Market Price Presumption\nDetails:\n•\nOrders passed beyond statutory limitation were void.\n•\nPresumption of higher open market price lacked legal backing.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdjudication proceedings and presumptive orders were nullified.\nCitations: 2008 PTD 578; 1987 SCMR 1840.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),2(46)(a) & Third Schedule ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T. 215/PB of 2005, decision dated: 20-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ishtiaq Ahmad AND Muhammad Haroon Khattak and Dost Muhammad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 235 = 2011 SLD 235 = 2011 PTD 2714 = 2012 PTCL 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Bail Grant\nDetails:\n•\nAccused were granted bail as the case involved doubts and lacked sufficient evidence.\n•\nProsecution failed to show tax fraud conclusively.\nConclusion:\n•\nBail granted; trial delays reflected prosecution's mala fide.\nCitations: 2009 SCMR 1488; PLD 2005 Pesh. 150.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),33 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497(2) ", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 20 of 2011, decision dated: 11-08-2011. dates of hearing: 4th and 5-08-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Raja Sikandar Khan Yasir, Khaleeq Ahmed, Shamim Akhtar and Aqeel Ahmed for Applicants. Rana Muhammad Shamim, Muhammad Qasim, Standing Counsel along with I.O. Najeebullah Jafri and Farhatullah Jafri for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FAISAL ELAHI and another\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 145 = 2010 SLD 145 = (2010) 102 TAX 40 = 2010 PTCL 393 = 2010 PTD 1355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Authority and Recovery of Taxes\nDetails:\n•\nAudit conducted by unauthorized entities (Revenue Receipts Audit) was invalid.\n•\nDirectorate lacked jurisdiction over private entities' records.\nConclusion:\n•\nAudit-based recovery orders were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,36,46,47 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(28),36C ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 24 of 2008, decision dated: 18-09-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sharifullah, Law Officer for Petitioner AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR\nvs\nMessrs MAKK BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 146 = 2010 SLD 146 = 2010 PTD 1359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nTaxpayer’s delay was due to genuine reasons, and Collector should have condoned it.\n•\nRegulatory provisions allowed discretionary condonation.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders were set aside, and cases were remanded for fresh adjudication.\nCitations: 1994 CLC 994; PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,7,66 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=26(e),28 ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. ST-25/PB to ST-28/PB of 2009, decision dated: 10-10-2009, hearing DATE : 31st August, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaac Ali Qazi and Danish Ali Qazi AND Dost Muhammad, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 147 = 2010 SLD 147 = 2010 PTD 1377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Stock and Bank Transactions\nDetails:\n•\nSales tax could not be charged on inventory stock or presumed bank transactions.\n•\nCharges based on assumptions or misinterpretations were invalid.\nConclusion:\n•\nCharges dismissed; taxpayer’s appeal was allowed.\nCitations: Sales Tax Appeal No. K-241/2002.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,22,9,73 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-259 of 2007, decision dated: 5-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-17)", + "Lawyer Name": "Habib-ud-Din Ahmed Farooqi, Consultant AND Asadullah and Abdul Shakoor, Auditorss", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 148 = 2010 SLD 148 = (2010) 102 TAX 232 = 2010 PTD 1404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax and Procedural Validity of Notices\nDetails:\n•\nTurnover tax was correctly applied at 2% for unregistered entities.\n•\nNotices issued without proper authorization were void.\nConclusion:\n•\nTaxpayer's appeal was accepted; unauthorized notices were invalid.\nCitations: 2001 SCMR 838; 2004 PTD 2952.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(47),3,25,38 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 655/LB of 2009, decision dated: 13-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana AND Muhammad Nadeem Arif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 303 = 2006 SLD 303 = 2006 PTD 2124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal by Revenue - Condonation of Delay\n•\nAppeal delayed by over two years; plea for condonation based on administrative issues like misplaced files and officer transfers.\n•\nUnattested affidavit submitted with the application held invalid.\n•\nRevenue treated like any ordinary litigant without preferential treatment.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred; negligence on Revenue’s part was inexcusable.\nCitations: 2000 SCMR 1371; 2002 SCMR 1642.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.232/LB of 2004, decision dated: 1st April, 2006, hearing DATE : 5-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Kausar Akhtar. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui and Abdul Bari Rashids", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 149 = 2010 SLD 149 = 2010 PTD 1469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Recovery Orders\n•\nRecovery order passed beyond the legally prescribed period without obtaining an extension.\n•\nThe period of limitation for such orders was mandatory.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrder declared null and void; appeal accepted.\nCitation: 2009 PTD 1978.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1375/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 150 = 2010 SLD 150 = 2010 PTD 1489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Orders in Refund Claims\n•\nInordinate delay of five months in passing the order after hearings.\n•\nSuch delay violates the principle of delivering timely justice.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrder vacated and case remanded for a fresh decision.\nCitations: PLD 1952 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 38.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.73/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-03-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Mian Khadim Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 151 = 2010 SLD 151 = 2010 PTD 1491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Appeals for Refunds\n•\nAppeal dismissed as barred by 27 days without substantive consideration.\n•\nRefund claims involve the taxpayer's money and should not be dismissed on mere technicalities.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders vacated; case remanded to provide the taxpayer a fair opportunity.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,45B ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.171/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Manzoor Hussain Shah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 152 = 2010 SLD 152 = 2010 PTD 1515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Lapse in Input Tax Adjustment\n•\nProcedural lapses without tax evasion or mens rea were condonable.\n•\nNo double taxation was authorized, and penalties were not justified in the absence of fraud.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal upheld; procedural lapses condoned.\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1455.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,7,8,33,34&36(1) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-193 of 2006, decision dated: 20-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Farasat Rizvi, Senior Auditor AND Muhammad Afzal Awan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 153 = 2010 SLD 153 = 2010 PTD 1522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Technical Objections in Input Tax Credit\n•\nSTARR objections disallowing input tax credit were addressed with irrefutable evidence.\n•\nOrder passed beyond statutory limitation was declared void.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal accepted; limitation rules enforced.\nCitation: 2008 PTD 578.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,10,11(4) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.184/LB of 2009, decision dated: 3rd May, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ghulam Mujtaba Bhatti, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 154 = 2010 SLD 154 = 2010 PTD 1636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Rejection Based on De-Registered Supplier\n•\nRefund claims rejected due to de-registration of suppliers after the transaction.\n•\nRefund rules cannot be applied retrospectively.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal accepted; refunds allowed.\nCitation: 2006 PTD 1412.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(14),2(37),7,8,8A,10,11,23,26,45,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 94/LB and 105/LB of 2008, decision dated: 5-09-2009, hearing DATE : 24-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR AND MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abu Zar Hussain and Khubaib Ahmad AND Abdul Nasir, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 155 = 2010 SLD 155 = (2010) 102 TAX 207 = 2010 PTD 1643", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Department-Determined Refunds\n•\nRefund calculation acknowledged by the department but not issued.\n•\nFederal Board of Revenue's instructions were binding.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefunds directed to be issued within two months.\nCitations: 1984 PTD (Trib.) 308.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,30,30A,30B,30C,30D,3ODD,30E,31 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 1148/LB and 1149/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-05-2010, hearing DATE : 5-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Monim Sultan AND Rana Muhammad Luqman, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 236 = 2011 SLD 236 = 2011 PTCL 504 = 2011 PTD 1652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment Claims\n•\nInput tax adjustment disallowed without proper grounds or clarity in the show-cause notice.\n•\nNon-adjustment would cause unnecessary hardship.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal upheld; adjustment allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,8,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 153 of 2005, decision dated: 16-05-2008, hearing DATE : 26-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND QAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Sheikh for the Applicant AND Mohsin Imam for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 304 = 2006 SLD 304 = 2006 PTD 2150 = (2006) 93 TAX 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Activity and Supply\n•\nTaxable activity must involve taxable supply to attract tax liability.\n•\nRepair services without taxable supplies were exempt from sales tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nLevy of sales tax on services rejected.\nCitation: 2005 PTD 2582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(33)(41),3,13 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 61 of 2003, decision dated: 12-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmed. Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "AVERY SCALES (PRIVATE) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION III) KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 156 = 2010 SLD 156 = 2010 PTD 1675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 36, 7, 8, 8A, 10, 11, 23, 26, 2(14), 2(37) & 73---Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2006, R.12---Recovery of tax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded---Post refund audit of refund claims showed that registered person received refund deliberately, knowingly and fraudulently against fake/flying invoices issued by the supplier, which was blacklisted---Registered person was charged with violation of the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and was called upon to show cause as to why sales tax may not be recovered along with default surcharge and penalty---Registered person/appellant contended that he purchased goods from supplier up to 06/2006 through valid sales tax invoices and the payments were made through banking channel, whereas the supplier was blacklisted on 17-11-2007, meaning thereby that at the time of making business transactions with the supplier, they were having status as operative and he had committed no irregularity/fault in making business transactions with the suppliers having operative status , and if the supplier was blacklisted later on, it could not have a retrospective effect---Validity---During post refund audit of refund claims for the tax period 11/2005, 02/2006 to 04/2006 and 06/2006, it was observed that the appellant received refund deliberately, knowingly and fraudulently against fake/flying invoices issued by the supplier which was blacklisted on 17-11-2007---At the time of making business transactions with the supplier by the appellant/registered person, the supplier was not blacklisted and had operative status---Order through which the suppliers were blacklisted was an executive order and the orders or notifications, which confer rights and were beneficial, would be given retrospective effect and those which adversely affect or invade upon vested rights could not be applied with retrospective effect---Appeal was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal and orders in original as well as order in appeal were set aside.\n \nGovernment of Pakistan v. Messrs Village Development Organization 2005 SCMR 492 rel.\n \nMessrs Al-Hilal Mines Stores and others v. The Collector of Sales Tax and Federal Excise (East) Karachi and others 2004 PTD 868; Messrs Brother Engineering (Pvt.) Limited's case 2004 PTD 2928 and Messrs M.Y. Electronics Industries's case 1998 SCMR 1404 = 1998 PTD 2728 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,7,8,8A,10,11,23,26,2(14),2(37),73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1402/LB of 2008, decision dated: 5-09-2009, hearing DATE : 24-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA AND MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abu Zar Hussain and Khubaib Ahmad for the Appellant AND Abdul Nasir Auditor for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 157 = 2010 SLD 157 = 2010 PTD 1681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Rejection Due to Limitation\n•\nLimitation rules cannot deny legitimate claims supported by all required documents.\n•\nDiscriminatory treatment in similar cases was identified.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders set aside; case remanded for reprocessing.\nCitation: 2006 PTD 1412.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,4,7,8(1),11(2),26,2(14) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 577/LB of 2008, decision dated: 5-05-2009, hearing DATE : 4-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Messrs Abuzar Hussain and Khubaib Ahmad AND Messrs Abdul Rashad, S.A. and M. Mushtaq Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 158 = 2010 SLD 158 = 2010 PTD 1687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Collector’s Authority in Adjudication\n•\nCollector acted beyond jurisdiction by passing orders on the executive side for adjudication matters.\n•\nSuch orders were void.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders set aside; show-cause notices vacated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=31,45,45A(4) ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 49/LB of 2008 and 50/LB of 2008, decision dated: 5-10-2009, hearing DATE : 30-09-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA AND MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizamis AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 305 = 2006 SLD 305 = 2006 PTD 2184 = 2007 PTCL 454 = (2006) 93 TAX 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Paperboard Supplies\n•\nDemand for additional tax on manufacturers without statutory support was unlawful.\n•\nRetrospective application of notifications was not permitted.\nConclusion:\n•\nPetition accepted; demand declared illegal.\nCitation: PLD 2001 SC 600.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(12)(31A),3(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8472 of 1995, heard on 9-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR KAMAL FOR PETITIONER. IZHAR-UL-HAQ SHEIKH", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Kamal for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "Messrs W.M. SAYID (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 159 = 2010 SLD 159 = 2010 PTD 1739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Appeals\n•\nAppeals filed without applications for condonation of delay are liable to dismissal.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal dismissed for being time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,3 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No. 171 of 2006, decision dated: 22-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAISAL ARAB, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ammar Yasir for Applicant AND Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "Messrs STAR COTTON CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 160 = 2010 SLD 160 = (2010) 102 TAX 216 = 2010 PTD 1740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estimation of Supply Value\n•\nEstimation disputes require proper evidence and should avoid penalties unless fraud is established.\n•\nPenalty based on mere estimates is not sustainable.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty deleted; appeal partially allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1572/LB of 2009; decided on 23rd April, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Arshad AND Dr. Javed Shehyar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 161 = 2010 SLD 161 = 2010 PTD 1759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Audit by Unauthorized Authority\n•\nAudit conducted by DRRA, which lacked jurisdiction, was declared a nullity.\n•\nShow-cause notices based on such audits were void.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders set aside; appeal allowed.\nCitation: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1600.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,30,10(2),11(2),45B,45A,24,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeal No. K-54 of 2009, decision dated: 20-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza AND Talha Muhammad, Sr. Auditors", + "Party Name:": "S.T. Appeal No. K-54 of 2009, decided on 20th May, 2009\nBefore Muhammad Arif Moton, Member (JudiciaLII)\nNadeem Ahmed Mirza for AND Talha Muhammad, Sr. Auditor for" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 306 = 2006 SLD 306 = 2006 PCRLJ 1427 = 2007 PTCL 71 = (2006) 93 TAX 349 = 2006 PTD 2190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arrest in Tax Fraud Cases\n•\nArrest must be based on material evidence, not just reasonable suspicion.\n•\nJudicial discretion is essential in bail cases.\nConclusion:\n•\nBail granted; prosecution failed to show concrete evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,37,37A,46,66 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497 ", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Application No. 22 of 2006, decision dated: 2-06-2006, hearing DATE : 31st May, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ilyas Khan for Applicant. Mahmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for the State", + "Party Name:": "BABAR YOUNUS\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 307 = 2006 SLD 307 = 2006 PTD 2207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay in Recovery Pending Appeal\n•\nPetitioner sought protection against recovery while appeal was pending due to tribunal vacancies.\n•\nHigh Court restrained adverse actions until appeal hearing.\nConclusion:\n•\nPetition disposed of with protective orders.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1940 of 2000, decision dated: 2-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbals No. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (ADJUDICATIONIII), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 162 = 2010 SLD 162 = (2010) 102 TAX 447 = 2010 PTD 1827 = 2010 PTCL 1081", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Beneficial Rulings\n•\nBeneficial rulings are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n•\nPayphone companies’ refund claims based on reduced tax liability were valid.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefund claims upheld; penalties voided.\nCitations: 1993 SCMR 73.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,3D,FirstSchedule ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 236/LB, 1082/LB, 235/LB, 233/LB and 347/LB of 2009, decision dated: 9-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Munir Hussain, Saqib Munir, Zahid Attiq and Syed Irfan Haiders (in S.T.A. No. 236/LB of 2009)\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi, LA and Imran Shah, D.R. (in S.T.A. No. 236/LB of 2009)\nAkhtar Alis (in S.T.A. No. 1082/LB of 2009)\nSh. Nadeem Anwar, L.A.s (in S.T.A. No. 1082/LB of 2009)\nFurqan Naveed (in S.T.A. No. 235/LB of 2009)\nSh. Nadeem Anwar, L.A.s (in S.T.A. No. 235/LB of 2009)\nRana Munir Hussain, Saqib Munir, Zahid Attiq and Syed Irfan Haiders (in S.T.As. Nos.233/LB and 347/LB of 2009)\nSh. Nadeem Anwar, L.A.s (in S.T.As. Nos.233/LB and 347/LB 2009)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 163 = 2010 SLD 163 = (2010) 102 TAX 374 = 2010 PTD 1861", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax and Club Activities\n•\nItems sold through a club's fair price shop were taxed under S.3A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nTurnover tax applies when input tax accounts cannot be established, targeting total turnover instead of value addition.\n•\nSubscriptions, membership fees, and similar charges of clubs were exempt as they were neither goods nor services.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase remanded for reassessment under turnover tax provisions.\nCitations: PLD 2007 SC 517; 2007 PTD 398.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3A,2(25),2(28),2(24),2(41),2(35),13, ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1577/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-04-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Muhammad Sarwar AND Dr. Javed Shehrar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 164 = 2010 SLD 164 = (2010) 102 TAX 219 = 2010 PTD 1874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowed Tax Credits\n1.\nDiesel and Electricity for Labour Colonies:\no\nDisallowance was reversed as the legislative amendments were applied retrospectively, but input tax claims for prior periods were valid.\n2.\nLiquidated Damages:\no\nDisallowance of tax credit on liquidated damages was improper, as it was tied to the supply value.\n3.\nRent for Pipelines:\no\nPipeline rent not considered supply under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n4.\nSale of Cooking Range:\no\nInput tax claims could not be charged without proper verification of prior claims.\n5.\nTransactions in Kind:\no\nBook adjustments qualified for tax adjustments; cash transaction rules under S.73 did not apply.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals accepted in favor of the taxpayer for valid input tax claims.\nCitations: 2007 PTD 413; 2006 PTD 76.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(b),2(46),73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As: Nos. 707/LB and 89/LB of 2009, decision dated: 20-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEEDCHAIRPERSON AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, F.C.A. AND Aftab Ali Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 308 = 2006 SLD 308 = 2006 PTD 2331 = 2007 PTCL 223 = 2006 SCMR 1577 = (2006) 93 TAX 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions for Machinery Components\n•\nGearboxes: Considered essential for vehicles and exempt under the Exemption Notification SRO 125(I)/1970.\n•\nAxles: Not covered under machinery headings for exemptions, as they do not fall under transmission shaft classifications.\nConclusion:\n•\nGearboxes exempted; axles not exempted.\nCitations: PLD 1988 SC 370; Oxford English Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,FirstSched. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.53 of 2003, decision dated: 7-06-2006, hearing DATE : 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 1", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 165 = 2010 SLD 165 = (2010) 101 TAX 184 = 2010 PTCL 433 = 2010 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation on Electricity Supply\n•\nPetitioners argued sales tax on electricity consumed by CNG stations amounted to double taxation.\n•\nCourt clarified that tax on converted taxable supplies allowed input tax adjustments to prevent duplication.\nConclusion:\n•\nPetition dismissed; input tax adjustments to be processed upon proper application.\nCitation: PTCL 2002 CL 415.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1),7A,71,13,16,20(2)(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2009, decided, on 6-11-2009, hearing DATE : 29-10-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq, Aamir Sohail, Khalid Nawaz Ghuman, Majid Saeed Butt, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Saqib Sheikh, Bilal Ahmed Qazi, Syed Ali Imran Rizvi, Muhammad Nadeem Mirza, Muhammad Akram Nizami, Zeshan Amir, Ajmal Khan, Zulkernen Khan, Muhammad Saleem Ch., Ch. Liaqat Ali Sandhu, Rana Muhammad Abdul Qadoos, Abdul Qadoos Mughal, Muhammad Waseem Ch. Sajjad Sarwar Saqib for Petitioners. Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Kausar Parveen and Dr. Irteza Awans.", + "Party Name:": "GAS LINKS CNG (PVT.) LTD. through Director, Faisalabad\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 166 = 2010 SLD 166 = 2010 PTD 2117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Orders\n•\nShow-cause notices and orders were passed beyond the statutory limit of 45 days without justification.\n•\nTime limits are mandatory when rights of citizens are affected.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders annulled as unlawful.\nCitations: 2009 SCMR 1279; 2008 PTD 60.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.470/LB of 2009, decision dated: 12-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 167 = 2010 SLD 167 = 2010 PTD 2126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Agreements and Refund Claims\n•\nAgreement limiting refund claims to 20% of exported goods' value was void for contradicting tax law.\nConclusion:\n•\nAgreement declared illegal; refund claim to be processed per law.\nCitations: 2005 PTD 72.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Contract Act, 1872=24 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.672/LB of 2009, decision dated: 24-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Dr. Ghulam Mujtaba Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 168 = 2010 SLD 168 = 2010 PTD 2128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 9375\nRefund Claims and STARR Objections\n•\nRefund claims rejected solely based on STARR System objections without verification of supporting documents.\nConclusion:\n•\nDepartment directed to verify documents before rejection.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 642/LB of 2009, decision dated: 15-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Attique-ur-Rehman Mughal, D.R. AND Khubaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 169 = 2010 SLD 169 = 2010 PTD 2188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal\n•\nAppeal filed after nearly six years; sufficient cause for delay accepted to ensure justice.\n•\nEx parte decision violated natural justice principles.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders set aside; case remanded for fresh decision.\nCitations: 1996 SCMR 727; 2005 PTD 501.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 ", + "Case #": "S.T. No. 167/PB of 2009, decision dated: 28-10-2009. dates of hearing: 13-04-23rd June, 5th August and 28-10-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDRI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaac Ali Qazi and Danish Ali Qazis AND Muhammad Haroon Khattak, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 170 = 2010 SLD 170 = (2010) 102 TAX 289 = 2010 PTD 2210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Various Tax Issues and Penalties\n1.\nSecurity Deposits: Not taxable as no supply occurred.\n2.\nReplacement Parts Under Warranty: Replacement supply taxable; penalties annulled under amnesty.\n3.\nNon-Compliance with S.73: Input tax disallowed due to late settlement within 180 days; such disallowance reversed.\n4.\nInadmissible Adjustments: Presumptions used to disallow input tax were rejected due to lack of legal basis.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals largely accepted; penalties removed where applicable.\nCitations: PLD 2007 SC 517; 2007 SCMR 1705.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(33),(44),3,13,33,34,46,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.350/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-02-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulifqar Ali, FCA AND Zulqurnain Tirmizi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 237 = 2011 SLD 237 = (2011) 103 TAX 64 = 2010 PTD 2248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Recovery from Blacklisted Units\n•\nRefund claims based on invoices from blacklisted or non-traceable entities were rejected under S.11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nRefund allowed only if tax is deposited in the government treasury.\n•\nRemedy for non-deposited tax lies between transacting parties, not the government.\nConclusion:\n•\nClaim rightly rejected; order of Collector (Appeals) vacated.\nCitations: S.36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,21(2),36,46,66,73 ", + "Case #": "S. T. As. Nos. 44/IB to 50/IB of 2010, decision dated: 31st August, 2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ziaullah Khan, D.R. AND Faraz Fazal Sheikh, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 171 = 2010 SLD 171 = 2010 PTD 2259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Limited Orders\n•\nShow-cause notice issued on 30-6-2003, but order-in-original passed on 16-10-2004 exceeded statutory limits under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrder declared null and void due to lapse in limitation.\nCitation: 2009 PTD 762.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 509/LB of 2009, decision dated: 4-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEERN SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Ahmad Ch. and M. Iqbal Awans AND M. Nouman Malik, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 238 = 2011 SLD 238 = (2011) 103 TAX 69 = 2010 PTD 2345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax and Banking Records\n•\nRegistered person failed to produce banking instrument records under S.73 but provided proof of tax payment.\n•\nNo fraud or false claims were alleged; penalty under S.33 limited to 3% of the adjustment involved.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty reduced; registered person allowed input adjustment.\nCitations: S.73 and S.33(1), item 16 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,,34,36,46,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 84/IB of 2010, decision dated: 30-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ziaullah Khan, D.R. AND Muhammad Ishtiar, ITP", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 309 = 2006 SLD 309 = 2006 PTCL 335 = 2006 PTD 2533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defects in Show-Cause Notices\n•\nFailure to mention S.36 in a show-cause notice does not invalidate it if material facts establish wilful tax evasion.\n•\nDefault surcharge and penalty reduced due to initial confusion over tax liability.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty reduced; claimants benefitted from amnesty.\nCitations: 1997 SCMR 1368; 2005 Cl. 754.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,33,34,7(2) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 115/ST/IB of 2005, decision dated: 6-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi. Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, Additional Collector/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 172 = 2010 SLD 172 = 2010 PTD 2379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment\n•\nShow-cause notices for input tax adjustments based on suppliers' non-payment of tax were invalid.\n•\nSales tax liability rests with suppliers, not buyers.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals accepted; penalties annulled.\nCitations: 2009 PTD 1799; 2005 PTD 2392.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(3)(a),33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1530/LB of 2009, decided on-11-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh AND Nouman Malik, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 173 = 2010 SLD 173 = (2010) 102 TAX 225 = 2011 PTCL 33 = 2010 PTD 2403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund for Exported Goods\n•\nRefunds allowed for input tax on raw materials purchased before 6-6-2005 but rejected for materials after that date under SRO 538(I)/2005.\nConclusion:\n•\nLimited refunds sanctioned for valid claims.\nCitations: 2008 SCMR 773; 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,10 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 4048, 4757 of 2006, 5234 of 2007 and 1814 of 2008, decision dated: 20-05-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Sultan Tanvir for Petitioner AND Ms. Yasmin Saigol, D.A.G. Sarfaraz Ahmed Cheema No. 2. Miss Kausar Perveen No. 1. Ehsan Yousaf, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHINAS LTD.\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 174 = 2010 SLD 174 = 2010 PTD 2406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Rejected for Blacklisted Suppliers\n•\nRejection of refund claims based on suppliers' blacklisting was deemed illegal, as retrospective application of suspension orders was disallowed.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefunds ordered to be processed under statutory provisions.\nCitations: 2010 PTD 883; 2000 PTD 399.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,10,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeal No.61/K of 2009 (Old S.T. Appeal No.139/K-097) and Order-in-Appeals Nos.114 to 120 of 2007, decision dated: 15-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MALIK ABDUL SAMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat M. Sagar AND Abdul Jabbar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 310 = 2006 SLD 310 = 2006 PTD 2558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal to High Court\n•\nAppeals signed by unauthorized officials or raising new questions not addressed in Tribunal orders were dismissed for procedural impropriety.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals dismissed due to procedural non-compliance.\nCitation: 2006 SCMR 129.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeals Nos.569, 576 and 579 of 2004, decision dated: 13-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal Malik A.R. Arshads", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, (ENFORCEMENT), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs HAMDARD SUPPLIES, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 175 = 2010 SLD 175 = 2010 PTD 2421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Show-Cause Notices\n•\nShow-cause notices issued three years after filing refund claims were invalid.\n•\nRefunds allowed as per prescribed rules and timelines.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders annulled; refunds sanctioned.\nCitations: Standing Order No. 4 of 2006.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10(4),11(2),7,8,73,,3 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=8,9,4 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.704/LB of 2009, decision dated: 30-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Sheryar, D.R.. Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 176 = 2010 SLD 176 = 2010 PTD 2425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Limited Refund Orders\n•\nOrders issued beyond the statutory limit of 180 days under S.36(3) were deemed illegal.\n•\nExtensions sought under incorrect provisions lacked validity.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals by taxpayers accepted; orders overturned.\nCitations: 2008 PTD 578.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),74 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.759/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Attique-ur-Rehman Mughal, D.R. AND Shoaib Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 177 = 2010 SLD 177 = 2010 PTD 2656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment by Cross Cheque\n•\nRefunds already sanctioned could not be recovered solely for non-compliance with S.73's cross-cheque requirement.\n•\nEvidence supporting the claim was valid.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders against taxpayers set aside.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 975.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,,33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T. No.236/KB of 2009, decision dated: 30-06-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat M. Sagar AND Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 178 = 2010 SLD 178 = 2010 PTD 2663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Orders and Refund Claims\n•\nRefund claims rejected based on technical objections were set aside due to procedural delays and failure to meet statutory time limits.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase remanded for fresh decision within reasonable time.\nCitations: PLD 1960 (AJ & K) 11.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(14),4,7,8,10,11,13,26,36,46,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1311/LB of 2009, decision dated: 4-10-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 179 = 2010 SLD 179 = 2010 PTD 2665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Refund Recovery\n•\nRecovery of refunds without invoking S.36 was invalid.\n•\nOrders passed without due process were void.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders overturned; claims reinstated.\nCitations: 2009 PTD 762; 2008 PTD 60.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(3),13,23,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.521/LB of 2009, decision dated: 27-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmed A.R. AND Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 180 = 2010 SLD 180 = 2010 PTD 2670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Adjudication\n•\nOrders issued beyond 90-day statutory limits without justification were annulled.\n•\nTime-bound restrictions favored taxpayers against prolonged uncertainty.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders declared unlawful.\nCitations: PTCL 2005 CL 841; 2009 PTD 762.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),13,36(3),46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1005/LB of 2009, decision dated: 12-08-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 239 = 2011 SLD 239 = (2011) 103 TAX 32 = 2010 PTD 2673 = 2011 PTCL 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax for Exports\n•\nVAT principles upheld for input tax adjustments related to exports.\n•\nZero-rating at final export stage reaffirmed.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal order annulled; reference allowed.\nCitations: 2009 PTD 1799; Foleming v. HM Revenue (2009) UKHL 2.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1)(b),4,7,47 Customs Rules, 2001=Chap.XII(7),R.296(1)(f) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Nos.97 to 116 of 2010, decision dated: 14-09-2010", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Applicant AND Ali Mumtaz Sheikh.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN BEVERAGE LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nLARGE TAXPAYER UNIT (L.T.U.) through Chief Commissioner, Land Revenue, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 548 = 2002 SLD 548 = 2002 PTD 2785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Consistency\n•\nPenalty reduced for consistency across identical cases.\n•\nTribunal criticized for inconsistent treatment of similar appeals.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty reduced for fairness.\nCitations: Principles of consistency applied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,22,23,26,33,34,47 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 158/S of 1999, decision dated: 6-06-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Altaf-ur-Rehman Khan. A. Karim Maliks.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 62 = 2009 SLD 62 = 2009 PTCL 767 = 2010 PTD 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting of Registered Person\n•\nAllegations of paper transactions without valid invoices and issuing output invoices for refunds were not substantiated.\n•\nAppellant was blacklisted while sellers remained unpenalized.\n•\nDepartment failed to provide evidence and did not defend its case.\nConclusion:\n•\nImpugned order set aside due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.\nCitation: Ss. 21 & 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.847/LB of 2008, decision dated: 24-02-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 240 = 2011 SLD 240 = 2011 PTCL 780 = 2011 PTD 2086", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Adjudication\n•\nAdditional Collector issued show-cause notices and orders without authority under S.179 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nOnly the notified authority by the Central Board of Revenue has adjudication powers.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders and notices declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction.\nCitations: PLD 1995 Kar. 587; 2008 PTD 1024.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=179 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=162,148,148(5)(6),162(1) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1210/LB of 2009, decision dated: 3rd February 2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Khubaib Ahmad. Rizwan Ahmad Urfi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERLOOP (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 63 = 2009 SLD 63 = 2009 PTD 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Tax Demand\n•\nShow-cause notice issued in 2003, but decision rendered in 2005 exceeded statutory limits under Ss.11(4) and 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s findings and Presidential orders were ignored.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrder-in-original and order-in-appeal annulled for being time-barred.\nCitation: Ss. 36(1)(3) & 11(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1)(3),11(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 326-L of 2006, decision dated: 12-06-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer), Muhammad Mehtab Chughtai and Asim Afzal for the Complainant AND Muneeza Majeed, D.C., Sales Tax, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMANA TEXTILE\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 64 = 2009 SLD 64 = 2009 PTCL 174 = 2009 PTD 148 = (2009) 99 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Barium Sulphate\n•\nBarium Sulphate is included as a diagnostic reagent under the Drugs Act, 1976 and qualifies for exemption as a drug.\n•\nAuthorities erred in rejecting its status as a medicament.\nConclusion:\n•\nExemption under Schedule VI, Items 12 & 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 upheld.\nCitations: PLD 1992 SC 455; 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=FifthSched ", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 1 to 4 of 2001, decision dated: 31st October, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid S. Zubairy AND Jawaid Farooquis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT DISTRIBUTORS\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 65 = 2009 SLD 65 = 2009 PTD 291 = (2008) 98 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation and Transactions\n•\nValuation committee’s determination of value addition for pesticides suppliers was invalid.\n•\nNon-compliance with S.73's banking instrument requirement examined.\n•\nInput tax adjustments disallowed due to lack of valid invoices.\nConclusion:\n•\nCase remanded for proper valuation and verification of payment methods.\nCitations: Ss. 2(46)(e), 7 & 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(e),73,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.385/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-07-2008, hearing DATE : 30-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. RIAZ MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Waqas Khalid A.R., AND Ikhlaq Ahmad, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 66 = 2009 SLD 66 = 2009 PTD 300 = (2008) 98 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notices and Valuation\n•\nShow-cause notice claimed less tax than determined upon adjudication.\n•\nAdjudicating authority must issue a fresh notice for greater amounts found during adjudication.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrder set aside; new notice required for recalculated amounts.\nCitation: S.2(46)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(d) Customs Act, 1969=25 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.19/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8-01-2003, hearing DATE : 7-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Nya Batool, D.R. and Muhammad Afzal Malik, S.A. AND Mudassar Shuja", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JEEA TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 303 = 2003 SLD 303 = 2003 PTD 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Automatic Additional Tax\n•\nAmendment in S.34 replaced liable to pay with shall pay, making additional tax mandatory for late payments.\n•\nWaiver of additional tax is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals dismissed; additional tax imposition upheld.\nCitations: Ss. 34, 34-A & 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,26,26A,26AA,2(9),33,34 ", + "Case #": "S. T. A. No. 177/LB of 2002, decision dated: 2-05-2002, hearing DATE : 26-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFARUL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan AND Imran Tariq, D. R. with Khurrum Bashir, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 67 = 2009 SLD 67 = 2009 PTD 307 = (2008) 98 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Molasses Valuation and Penalty\n•\nValuation for molasses determined at Rs.450 and Rs.850 per M.T. for specified periods.\n•\nPenalty waived due to non-wilful default regarding advances.\nConclusion:\n•\nValuation fixed; 50% additional tax and penalties remitted.\nCitation: Ss. 33 & 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(e),33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1201/LB of 2003, decision dated: 21st July, 2008, hearing DATE : 30-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. RIAZ MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Ishaq AND Muhammad Amjad, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 68 = 2009 SLD 68 = 2009 PTD 313 = (2008) 98 TAX 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Refund Recovery\n•\nRefunds based on fake invoices from non-existent suppliers were invalid.\n•\nRefund can only be claimed if tax was deposited in the treasury.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrders upheld; refunds denied for transactions with fake suppliers.\nCitations: Ss. 7, 10 & 45-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),45A,37,7,10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 346/LB of 2004, decision dated: 10-01-2008, hearing DATE : 9-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami AND Saleem Akhtar, Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 69 = 2009 SLD 69 = 2009 PTCL 408 = (2009) 99 TAX 281 = 2009 PTD 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Electricity Consumed for Non-Business Use\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether electricity generated and consumed internally for non-business use by a power generation company is subject to sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nUnder the Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) and the Special Procedure for Collection and Payment of Sales Tax (Electric Power) Rules, 2000, electricity self-consumed for non-business purposes qualifies as a taxable activity. The rationale is that the production and utilization of electricity, even for internal purposes, meet the criteria of taxable supply. Courts emphasized that the broad definition of taxable activity ensures uniform application of sales tax.\nConclusion:\nElectricity used internally by a generating company is taxable, reflecting the intention to uniformly apply sales tax to all transactions, including non-commercial usage.\nCitations:\n•\nHaji Sultan Ahmed v. Chairman, C.B.R. Islamabad and 5 others, 2008 PTD 103\n•\nSheikhoo Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, 2001 SCMR 1376", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(41) ", + "Case #": "S.T.R. Nos. 20 of 2007 and 2 of 2008, heard on 9-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioner AND Khawaja Noor Mustafa", + "Party Name:": "FAUJI KABIRWALA POWER COMPANY\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 181 = 2010 SLD 181 = 2010 PTD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim and Retrospective Application of Exemption Notifications\nKey Issue:\n•\nDispute regarding the retrospective application of S.R.O. 839(I)/98 for refund of input tax on tractor components purchased between June 12, 1998, and July 22, 1998.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant sought retrospective application of the S.R.O., claiming a price reduction agreement with the Central Board of Revenue (CBR). However, the court ruled that the S.R.O. was prospective in nature and lacked any provision for retroactive effect. The appellant’s inability to substantiate claims of an understanding with the CBR led to the denial of the refund claim.\nConclusion:\nThe refund claim for the disputed period was denied, as S.R.O. 839(I)/98 explicitly provided prospective applicability. The appellate tribunal upheld the adjudicating officer’s decision.\nCitations:\n•\nS.R.O. 839(I)/98, dated 23-7-1998\n•\nSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 36 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,10,45,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1186/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-12-2007, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Umer Arshad AND Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R. and Rashid Mehmood, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 70 = 2009 SLD 70 = 2009 PTCL 207 = 2010 PTD 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Rejection Due to Non-Filing of Invoice Summary\nKey Issue:\n•\nThe taxpayer’s refund claim was denied due to the alleged non-submission of an invoice summary by the supplier.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe taxpayer’s invoices were found valid upon verification. However, the department’s procedural delays and lack of coordination reflected maladministration. The court emphasized that bureaucratic inefficiencies should not penalize taxpayers. It also highlighted the need for prompt verification to avoid unnecessary litigation.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal directed the department to refund the claimed amount immediately, reserving the right to recover it later if proven fraudulent.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 10(2), 2(14), 7, 8(1), 10 & 26\n•\nSales Tax Rules, 2006", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2),2(14),4,7,8(1),10,26 ", + "Case #": "No.ST-329/PB of 2008, decision dated: 3rd November, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Danish Ali Qazi AND Dost Muhammad Khan, Senior, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 71 = 2009 SLD 71 = 2009 PTCL 317 = 2009 PTD 390 = (2009) 99 TAX 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Effect of Amendment Ordinance on Tax Validity\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether amendments in the Customs Act (IV of 1969) and the Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) validate earlier defective impositions of tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe amendment ordinances corrected procedural defects by providing retrospective validation. Subsection (3) in S.19 of the Customs Act and subsection (1-A) in S.6 of the Sales Tax Act addressed the issues of tax imposition, ensuring no vested rights were taken away. The court held that retrospective application of these amendments was permissible to uphold earlier tax impositions.\nConclusion:\nThe amendments effectively validated earlier tax impositions, ensuring procedural compliance without infringing upon vested rights.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, S.19(3)\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1990, S.6(1-A)", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6 Customs Act, 1969=19 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,187(2) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.1236 of 2008, decision dated: 14-01-2009, hearing DATE : 22-12-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Salman Aslam Butt and Muhammad Waqar Rana, for Petitioner AND Nasir Saeed Sheikhs Nos.3 and 4.", + "Party Name:": "FECTO BELARUS TRACTORS LIMITED through Chief Executive\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Economic Affairs and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 72 = 2009 SLD 72 = 2009 PTD 399 = (2008) 98 TAX 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Payment through Bank Credit Slip under S.73 of the Sales Tax Act\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether payment exceeding Rs.50,000 made via bank credit slip fulfills the requirements of S.73.\nLegal Reasoning:\nS.73 mandates payments exceeding Rs.50,000 to be made through banking instruments like crossed cheques or bank drafts. Bank credit slips do not meet the statutory requirements as they are used for depositing cash or instruments, not transferring funds directly to the seller.\nConclusion:\nPayments made through bank credit slips for amounts exceeding Rs.50,000 violate S.73 and are inadmissible for tax adjustments.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.73", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73 Stamp Act, of 1899=2(14) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.751/LB of 2003, decision dated: 15-12-2007, hearing DATE : 4-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain AND Muhammad Akmal, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 73 = 2009 SLD 73 = 2009 PTD 438 = (2008) 98 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Benefits under S.R.O. No.987(I)/99\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the assessee was entitled to claim tax exemption on machinery imported for manufacturing taxable goods under S.R.O. No.987(I)/99.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe assessee, registered as an importer, exporter, and wholesaler since June 9, 1999, was found eligible for tax benefits provided they imported machinery for manufacturing taxable goods. The Collector of Customs was authorized to verify the installation of the machinery through site inspection and documentary evidence. If satisfied, the registration certificate could be amended retrospectively to align with manufacturing activities.\nConclusion:\nThe show-cause notice was set aside as the assessee met the eligibility criteria for the tax exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Customs Act, 1969=19 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 992/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-12-2007, hearing DATE : 10-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, DR. RIAZ MAHMOOD, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami AND Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R. and Muhammad Ramzan, Inspector for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 74 = 2009 SLD 74 = 2009 PTCL 303 = 2009 PTD 476 = (2009) 99 TAX 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Tax Demand Based on Special Audit\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether a tax demand and penalty issued based on a flawed special audit report were lawful.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe audit, allegedly conducted by clerks rather than chartered accountants, was deemed procedurally flawed. The Assistant Collector's vague show-cause notice lacked essential particulars and failed to prove willful default by the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe impugned order was set aside as it was procedurally defective and lacked legal merit.\nCitations:\n•\nAsstt: Collector v. Khyber Electric Lamps, 2001 SCMR 838\n•\nD.G. Khan Cement v. Collector of Customs, 2003 PTD 1275", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,32,36,38 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. H-188 of 2006, decision dated: 31st March, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. RIAZ MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nasim AND Muhammad Rafique", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 75 = 2009 SLD 75 = 2009 PTCL 250 = 2009 PTD 500 = (2009) 99 TAX 364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defective Show-Cause Notices and Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authorities\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether a defective show-cause notice invalidates subsequent proceedings.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe absence of specific sections and allegations in the notice rendered it defective. Additionally, initiation of action by authorities without proper jurisdiction further invalidated the proceedings.\nConclusion:\nThe notice and subsequent orders were vacated as they lacked legal validity.\nCitations:\n•\nKhyber Lamp’s Case, 2001 SCMR 238", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,2(25),3(1A) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.275 of 2007, decision dated: 7-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-I) AND DR. RIAZ MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem AND D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 304 = 2003 SLD 304 = 2003 PTD 106 = (2003) 87 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Notification of Suspected Units\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether a registered manufacturer was wrongfully listed as a suspected fake unit.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe complainant's grievance was valid as no substantial evidence justified the inclusion of their unit in the suspect list. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revising the list to ensure such errors do not recur.\nConclusion:\nMaladministration was established, and corrective actions were advised.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(14) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 325 of 2002, decision dated: 30-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Bashir Tahir, Mazhar Hussain Shah for Complainant AND Jamil Nasir Khan D.C. (Refunds) Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASGHAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 76 = 2009 SLD 76 = (2009) 100 TAX 194 = 2009 PTD 538 = 2010 PTCL 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments Based on Misconceived Legal Presumptions\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether proceedings initiated on an erroneous presumption are valid.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe High Court's order declaring the reopening of assessments illegal attained finality after dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court. Proceedings initiated post-dismissal were deemed unlawful.\nConclusion:\nProceedings based on erroneous presumptions were invalid, and the department was directed to refund the excess tax.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,47A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1459 of 2008, decision dated: 10-11-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner AND Ms. Kausar Parveens AND Muhammad Nawaz Waseer, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RUPALI POLYESTER LTD., LAHORE through Director\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 77 = 2009 SLD 77 = 2009 PTCL 695 = 2009 PTD 642 = (2009) 99 TAX 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Review of Board's Quasi-Judicial Orders\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the Board of Revenue has the authority to review its own quasi-judicial orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Board’s attempt to review its decision under S.47-A was held to be beyond its jurisdiction as the order was quasi-judicial in nature. High Court quashed the impugned notice.\nConclusion:\nThe Board’s review notice was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A,47A,72 General Clauses Act, 1897=21 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-608 of 2007, decision dated: 24-02-2009. dates of hearing: 19-01-3rd and 11-02-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Danish Zuberi for Petitioner AND Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD. through Attorney\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Federal Secretariat Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 311 = 2006 SLD 311 = 2006 PTD 2633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Sales Tax to Small Retailers\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether a retailer with turnover below the threshold was liable for sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant’s turnover was below Rs. 1 million, exempting them from sales tax liability. Additionally, they were not required to maintain records under S.22.\nConclusion:\nThe orders imposing liability were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,13,14,22,33,34,46 ", + "Case #": "Appeal S.T.A. No.707/LB of 2005, decision dated: 12-08-2005, hearing DATE : 11-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Amin. Nasir Abbas, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 78 = 2009 SLD 78 = 2009 PTD 879 = (2009) 99 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Special Procedures\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether refund claims rejected under the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 were valid.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe claim was wrongly rejected for non-compliance with the 60-day limit, despite applicability of the Special Procedure for Processing Refund Claims.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman advised pursuing the appeal and observed no maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28(6) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1536-L of 2008, decision dated: 25-10-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Rana Muhammad Ishaq Khan for the Complainant. Mian Muhammad Lateef, Collector, R.T.O. and Nadeem Ahmad, A.C., Sales Tax, Multan", + "Party Name:": "SEVEN SEAS INDUSTRIES, SADIQABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 79 = 2009 SLD 79 = 2009 PTD 902 = (2009) 99 TAX 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment by Unregistered Persons\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether an unregistered person could claim input tax adjustment retrospectively.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe law at the time allowed input tax adjustment for persons liable to be registered. Verified invoices and tax payments further supported the claim.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the assessee’s claim was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(25),2(37),2(14),7,8,10,14,22,23,26,34,36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 405/LB of 2002, decision dated: 6-05-2006, hearing DATE : 30-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleem Akhtar, Supdt. AND Falak Sher, Consultant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 80 = 2009 SLD 80 = 2009 PTD 1669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and STARR Objections\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether objections raised by the STARR system justify rejection of refund claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department’s mechanical reliance on the STARR system without verifying supporting documents was criticized. Refunds against blacklisted suppliers were rightly denied.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for reconsideration with instructions for proper verification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2),8(1)(a),8(1)(d),10(4),11(2),26(5),33(11),34(1),73,2336(1) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 447/PB of 2008, decision dated: 21st May, 2009. dates of hearing: 11th, 17th, 26-02-12-03-14th April and 20-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Gul, Manager Accountss AND Muhammad Haroon Khattak Sr. Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 305 = 2003 SLD 305 = 2003 PTD 155 = (2003) 87 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Delays\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the department’s delay in processing refund claims and withholding refunds for invoices deemed fake constituted maladministration.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000, require the department to notify claimants within a month of filing a claim if a refund is inadmissible. The department failed to issue any such notice, violating procedural requirements. The Federal Tax Ombudsman highlighted the delay as neglect and incompetence, recommending immediate proceedings under Rule 8 to address the claims based on valid evidence.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Deputy Collector to resolve refund claims within specified timelines while verifying invoices.\nCitations:\n•\nSilver Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C.S.T., Karachi, 1984 PTD 216", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,10 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000=2(1)(iv),7(4),13,8(2),9(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 189 of 2002, decision dated: 13-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Sagheer Tirmizi and Syed Ali Adrian, A.C.A. for the Complainant AND Fawad Nasir Khan, D.C.S.T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SWEETY EXPORTS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 217 = 2008 SLD 217 = 2008 PTD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reward for Tax Recovery\nKey Issue:\n•\nEntitlement to a reward for tax recovered and conditions for provisional payments.\nLegal Reasoning:\nWhile the petitioner sought full payment of the reward, the Appellate Tribunal's ongoing adjudication allowed only 25% of the reward to be paid provisionally until the case was resolved.\nConclusion:\nOnly 25% of the reward was payable until final adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,7,8,66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-167 of 2006, heard on 20-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed for Petitioner. Mohsin Imam. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, D.A.G", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. MUMTAZ MAQSOOD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 182 = 2010 SLD 182 = (2010) 101 TAX 22 = 2009 PTD 1702 = 2010 PTCL 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sterilization Services and Sales Tax Liability\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether sterilization services for medical products qualify as manufacturing and are subject to sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe process of sterilization does not transform the products into a distinct article; thus, it does not meet the definition of manufacturing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nConclusion:\nSterilization services are not taxable as manufacturing activities.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs AMIE Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Collector, 2006 PTD 1459", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(16)(17)(33),3 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No.1 of 2009, decision dated: 16-06-2009, hearing DATE : 3rd June, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND MUHAMMAD RAMZAN CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Tauqeer Bokhari for Petitioner AND Rizwan Akhtar Awans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALTECHNIQUE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR ADJUDICATION, SALES TAX, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 81 = 2009 SLD 81 = (2009) 100 TAX 74 = 2010 PTCL 128 = 2009 PTD 690", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Audit and Recovery Actions\nKey Issue:\n•\nLegality of audit and recovery actions based on unauthorized entry and procedures.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe authorities conducted audits without proper notice and removed records unlawfully. Subsequent show-cause notices lacked valid reasoning. The High Court mandated a fresh audit by an independent team.\nConclusion:\nThe audit and recovery actions were declared unlawful, and a fresh audit was directed.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector of Sales Tax v. Messrs Mega Tech (Pvt.) Ltd., 2005 SCMR 1166", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17294 of 2005, decision dated: 9-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Salman Akram Raja for Petitioners AND Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Dy. A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "BAYER CHEMICALS through Partner and another \nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Government of Pakistan and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 82 = 2009 SLD 82 = (2009) 100 TAX 155 = 2009 PTD 722 = 2009 PTCL 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definitions of Exempt vs. Zero-Rated Supplies\nKey Issue:\n•\nClarification of differences between exempt and zero-rated supplies under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\nWhile both do not attract sales tax, zero-rated supplies allow input tax adjustments, unlike exempt supplies. The legislative intent for fiscal statutes emphasizes clarity and literal interpretation.\nConclusion:\nZero-rated supplies allow input tax adjustments, distinguishing them from exemptions.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Elahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 582", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,2(41),4,7(2),7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7950 to 7954, 8118, 8233, 9883, 9884, 10290 to 10292, 10327, 10349, 10361 to 10368, 10461, 10462, 10665, 12362 to 12389, 12497 to 12500 and 12531 of 2008, decision dated: 4-11-2008, hearing DATE : 26-09-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Mian Mehmood Rasheed, Zafar dsIqbal Chohan and Miss. Shazia Hassan for Petitioners AND Ahmar Bilal Sufi, Kausar Parveen and Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHEEN STEEL FURNACE, GUJRANWALA through Proprietor\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE through Secretary and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 83 = 2009 SLD 83 = 2009 PTD 762 = 2010 PTCL 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time Limits for Adjudication Orders\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether an adjudication order passed beyond prescribed time limits was valid.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe 90-day limit for adjudication orders could only be extended by an additional 90 days before expiration. An order passed after one year was held to lack jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\nThe impugned order was set aside as it was issued beyond the permissible time limit.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1)(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16171 of 2008, decision dated: 29-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M. Akram for Petitioner AND Ms. Kausar Parveens", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TANVEER WEAVING MILLS through Director Finance\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR SALES TAX and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 84 = 2009 SLD 84 = 2009 PTD 774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax on Electricity Bills\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether withholding tax on fixed electricity charges without consumption was valid.\nLegal Reasoning:\nSales tax applies only to consumed goods, and fixed charges without consumption fall outside its scope. Withholding tax deductions in such circumstances were declared unlawful.\nConclusion:\nWithholding tax on fixed charges without consumption was deemed unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=235 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.14360 of 2008, heard on 22-01-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner AND Muhammad Nawaz Waseer Standing Counsel AND Dr. Muhammad Irtaza Awan No. 5", + "Party Name:": "AHSAN UL HAQ BHATTI \nvs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 85 = 2009 SLD 85 = 2009 PTD 852", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Refund Claims\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether delay in filing a refund claim due to system errors justified condonation.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department’s system error caused the delay, qualifying the case for condonation under S.R.O. 1204(I)/07. The rejection of the claim was deemed maladministration.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended revisiting the claim and granting condonation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=74 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=Preamble Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1263-L of 2008, decision dated: 15-08-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mehtab Chughtai for the Complainant AND Nadeem Ahsan, D.C.,s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHNAWAZ TEXTILE LTD., LAHORE through Director\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 86 = 2009 SLD 86 = 2009 PTD 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds Based on Value Addition Agreements\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether refunds could be denied for alleged violations of a value-addition agreement.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe complainant met the agreement’s value-addition requirements, and refunds were processed under applicable laws. The adjudicating officer’s failure to address these arguments constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nThe order was set aside, and a detailed review was recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,36(1),72 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1236-L of 2007, decision dated: 23rd January, 2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Mehtab Chughtai for the Complainant AND Malik Fazal-ur-Rehman, A.C., Sales Tax LTU, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MURIDKE REFINE OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., MURIDKE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 87 = 2009 SLD 87 = 2009 PTD 973 = (2009) 99 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax for Unregistered Supplies\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether input tax adjustments were admissible for supplies to unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAdjustments for such supplies were disallowed under the applicable S.R.Os. The complainant failed to provide evidence of supplies to registered persons.\nConclusion:\nThe order-in-appeal upheld the disallowance, advising the complainant to pursue the matter before the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No 1040-L of 2008, decision dated: 14-07-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer AND Rana Muhammad Ishaq for the Complainant AND Nadeem Ahmad ,A.C. Sales Tax, Multans", + "Party Name:": "YASRAB COTTON INDUSTRIES, MAILSI \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 88 = 2009 SLD 88 = 2009 PTD 1161 = (2009) 99 TAX 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Failure to Produce Records\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether a penalty for failing to produce tax records was justified.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant provided an Audit Completion Certificate, and the department failed to prove service of notice for record production.\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(9)(c),25 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.298/LB of 2006, decision dated: 5-06-2006, hearing DATE : 16-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farooq Sheikh AND Ashiq Hussain Duggal, Superintendent,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 89 = 2009 SLD 89 = 2009 PTD 1176 = (2009) 99 TAX 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalties Under Amnesty S.R.Os\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether additional tax and penalties could be waived under amnesty provisions.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant’s case qualified under the amnesty S.R.Os, justifying waiver of additional tax and penalties.\nConclusion:\nThe order was modified to grant relief under the amnesty provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,36,2(9),3,6,26 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.617/LB of 2000, decision dated: 10-12-2007, hearing DATE : 6-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Ishaq AND Akhlaq Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 90 = 2009 SLD 90 = 2009 PTD 1179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change of Business Address in Registration Certificate\nKey Issue:\n•\nDuty of registered persons and authorities regarding address changes.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRegistered persons must notify address changes, and authorities are required to update records promptly. Correct addresses must appear on tax invoices.\nConclusion:\nThe process was clarified as a mandatory obligation for both parties.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=20 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1663-K of 2003, decision dated: 24-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "S.M. Bibtain, Advisor (Dealing Officer) AND Iqbal Hussain for the Complainant AND Dr. Abdul Rehman Rind, D.C.", + "Party Name:": "OVAIS MOE\nvs\nC.B.R. (SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 91 = 2009 SLD 91 = (2009) 100 TAX 344 = 2010 PTCL 460 = 2009 PTD 1220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax Arrears\nKey Issue:\n•\nPremature recovery of tax dues pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Appellate Tribunal had granted interim relief, which lapsed after six months under S.46(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioner argued for protection against coercive recovery until the appeal was adjudicated. The High Court directed the petitioner to apply for the appeal’s final adjudication within a specific timeframe, during which coercive recovery actions were stayed.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court safeguarded the petitioner from premature recovery pending final adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nSunrise Bottling Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2006 PTD 535", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,48 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3932 of 2009, decision dated: 2-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner AND Miss Kausar Parveen", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD TEXTILE PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT). LTD., FAISALABAD through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, F.B.R. and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 92 = 2009 SLD 92 = 2009 PTD 1222 = (2009) 99 TAX 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Double Jeopardy\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether imposing a penalty alongside additional tax constitutes double jeopardy.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe court clarified that additional tax and penalties serve different purposes: additional tax addresses delayed payments, while penalties address statutory violations. As the appellant had paid the principal and additional tax, remission of the penalty was granted under an amnesty notification.\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was set aside, and the appeal was accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nS.R.O. 1349(I)/1999", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc),3,6,11(2),26 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=13 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.390/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-06-2006, hearing DATE : 27-2-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND CH. FARRUKH MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Sarfraz Hussain AND Ms. Zeba Hayee, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 93 = 2009 SLD 93 = 2009 PTD 1227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Post-Refund Audit and Adjudication\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of post-refund audits conducted by unauthorized officers.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Directorate-General could only conduct audits with Central Board of Revenue authorization. Maladministration was established where audits violated this rule. The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Collector (Adjudication) to appoint a Chartered Accountant for an independent audit and resolve the matter based on findings.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for adjudication based on a special audit by an authorized Chartered Accountant.\nCitations:\n•\nSales Tax General Order No.9 of 1999\n•\nSales Tax General Order No.3 of 2004", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,32A(2)&45A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.959/L of 2004, decision dated: 3rd February, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Rasheed Siddique, Mian Abdul Ghaffar along with Imtiaz Ali Shah, Advisor of the Company for the Complainant AND Ahmad Kamal, D.C., Customs, Sales Tax & Central Excise (Intelligence and Investigation)s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs H. SHEIKH NOOR-UDDIN AND SONS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE CANTT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 94 = 2009 SLD 94 = 2009 PTCL 150 = 2009 PTD 1263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Adjudication Orders\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether a delayed adjudication order is valid under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Act requires adjudication orders within 45 days, extendable for another 90 days with cogent reasons. An order passed four years after the show-cause notice violated these limits. The court ruled the delay was not attributable to the taxpayer and set aside the order.\nConclusion:\nThe adjudication order and subsequent appeals were quashed due to non-compliance with statutory limitations.\nCitations:\n•\nAssistant Collector v. Khyber Electric Lamps, 2001 SCMR 838", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,36(3),2(27),3,4,6,22,26,36(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 42/LB of 2007, decision dated: 4-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmad AND Sultan Mahmood", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 95 = 2009 SLD 95 = 2009 PTD 1353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Review Applications and Appeals\nKey Issue:\n•\nScope of review applications under S.57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\nS.57 permits correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, not substantive legal issues. The appellant’s review application addressing legal issues was dismissed as invalid. Appeals must adhere to specified formats and time limits.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was barred by limitation and dismissed for lack of justification for the delay.\nCitations:\n•\nGhulam Hussain v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan, PLD 1980 SC 198", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=57,46(1),46(2),45B,46 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLVII General Clauses Act, 1897=21,10 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.S.109/PB of 2006, decision dated: 25-03-2009. dates of hearing: 27-01-4th February and 17-02-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Barrister Syed Mudassir Ameer, Haroon Khattak, Sr. Auditor and Dost Muhammad, Sr. Auditors AND Isaac Ali Qazi and Niaz Muhammad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 96 = 2009 SLD 96 = 2009 PTD 1590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Verification\nKey Issue:\n•\nRejection of refund claims due to unverifiable or untraceable suppliers.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe refund sanctioning authority must verify claims under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Where invoices are unverifiable or suppliers untraceable, claims are inadmissible. However, the department must resolve discrepancies early to avoid penalizing honest taxpayers. The case was remanded for a fresh inquiry into supporting documents and verification reports.\nConclusion:\nThe refund claim was remanded for reconsideration, emphasizing departmental responsibility for proper verification.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Superior Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2001 PTD 2600", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2),8(1)(a),8(1)(d),8A,10(4),11(2),26(5),33(11),34(1),36(1),73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. 425/PB of 2008, decision dated: 1st June, 2009. dates of hearing: 11-03-9-04-14th and 26-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Zareen Proprietor AND Muhammad Haroon Khattak Sr. Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 97 = 2009 SLD 97 = 2009 PTD 1637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Supply of Locomotives without Sales Tax\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether Pakistan Locomotive Factory’s supply of locomotives to Pakistan Railways without sales tax violated the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellants claimed the locomotives were manufactured for internal use and were not marketable products. However, as Pakistan Railways and Pakistan Locomotive Factory are distinct registered entities, they were obligated to issue sales tax invoices for supplies under S.23 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Appellate Tribunal upheld that sales tax on these supplies was mandatory.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay sales tax along with additional tax and penalties.\nCitations:\n•\nSheikhoo Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, 2001 PTD 2097", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,22,23,26,33,34,46(4),66,7(2) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 7(1568)ST/IB of 2001(PB), decision dated: 7-05-2009. dates of hearing: 17th, 25th November 2nd December 2009, 12th January 2009, 10th, 12th, 19th and 26-02-2009 and 16-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din and Anwar Saeed Dawar, Managing Directors AND Abdul Latif Yousafzai; Muhammad Zubair Shah, A.C., Haroon Khattak and Dost Muhammads", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 183 = 2010 SLD 183 = (2010) 101 TAX 1 = 2009 PTD 1697 = 2010 PTCL 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Refund Claims\nKey Issue:\n•\nRejection of refund claims filed beyond the statutory period under R.28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe refund claim was rejected as it was filed beyond the two-month statutory period stipulated under R.28. The rules, enacted by a competent authority, were deemed valid and not ultra vires.\nConclusion:\nThe Collector of Sales Tax’s rejection of the refund claim was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2002 PTCL CL 115", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4099 of 2007, decision dated: 14-07-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner AND Muhammad Nawaz Waseer, Standing Counsel for Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LYALLPUR CHEMICALS LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 98 = 2009 SLD 98 = 2009 PTD 1724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability and Delayed Returns\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether Pakistan Locomotive Factory violated the Sales Tax Act by supplying locomotives to Pakistan Railways without payment of sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal clarified that both entities are separate registered persons obligated to issue invoices for taxable supplies. The appellants’ claim that locomotives were not taxable was rejected. Additional tax and penalties were imposed for non-compliance.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pay sales tax, additional tax, and penalties for delayed returns.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Engro Chemical Pakistan Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs, 2003 PTD 777", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=22,,6(1),22(1),23(1),26(1),33(2)(cc),34(1),36(1),13,33,34,3,6(1),22(1),23(1),26(1),33(2)(cc),34(1),36(1),46 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T. 80/PB of 2005, decision dated: 11-05-2009. dates of hearing: 17th and 25-11-2-12-2008, 12-01-10th, 12th, 19th, 26th February and 16-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din and Anwar Saeed Dawar, Managing Directors AND Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Zubiar Shah, A.C., Muhammad Haroon Khattak, Sr. Auditor and Dost Muhammad, Sr. Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 184 = 2010 SLD 184 = (2010) 101 TAX 33 = 2009 PTD 1785 = 2010 PTCL 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit and Record Access\nKey Issue:\n•\nAuthority of the Sales Tax Department to access and requisition records during an audit.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe registered person failed to provide records, citing loss. The department, authorized by the Federal Board of Revenue, requisitioned the records under S.38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The court upheld the department’s authority to demand records and conduct audits even more than once a year if evidence of tax fraud exists.\nConclusion:\nThe registered person was bound to cooperate, and the department’s actions were deemed lawful.\nCitations:\n•\nChairman, Central Board of Revenue v. Haq Cotton Mills, 2007 PTD 1351 (distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,25(2),40 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4094 of 2008, decision dated: 8-06-2009, hearing DATE : 5-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jameel Khan AND Ahmad Raza along with Gulsher Auditor", + "Party Name:": "MULTAN ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nDIRECTOR-GENERAL (INTELLIGENCE & INVESTIGATION) SALES TAX, MULTAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 99 = 2009 SLD 99 = 2009 PTD 1802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Taxable Supplies\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether Pakistan Locomotive Factory was entitled to claim sales tax exemption under various S.R.Os.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellants failed to meet the mandatory conditions for claiming exemptions under S.R.Os, including timely registration and intimation of production start dates. As such, exemptions were denied. The Tribunal affirmed that locomotives supplied to Pakistan Railways were taxable.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was held liable for sales tax on supplies made during the disputed period.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector of Customs v. Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd., PLD 2007 SC 517", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,,3,14,19,23,3,46(4),46,66,7(2) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(107)ST/Trf of 2001, decision dated: 4-05-2009. dates of hearing: 17th, 25-11-2nd December of 2008, 12-01-10th, 12th, 19th, 26th of February and 16-03-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din, Anwar Saeed Dawar, Managing Director of the Appellantss AND Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Muhammad Zubair Shah, A.C., Haroon Khattak, Senior Auditor and Dost Muhammad, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 100 = 2009 SLD 100 = 2009 PTD 1828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax Pending Appeal\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of recovery proceedings initiated due to the lapse of a six-month interim injunction period while the appeal was pending.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department began recovery proceedings under S.48 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as the interim stay granted by the Tribunal had expired. The High Court held that the petitioner must seek final adjudication of their pending appeal and directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter within three months. Meanwhile, the department was restrained from using coercive measures for recovery.\nConclusion:\nRecovery proceedings were stayed pending final adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nSunrise Bottling Co. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2006 PTD 535", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(4), Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4171 of 2006, decision dated: 5-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner AND Izharul Haq Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.S. TANNERIES through Proprietor \nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (AUDIT & ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONII), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 101 = 2009 SLD 101 = 2009 PTD 1854", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Order Expiry and Recovery Stay\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the High Court could stay recovery proceedings when the Appellate Tribunal could not extend an interim stay under S.46(4).\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe High Court ruled that the amounts disputed in the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal could not be recovered until the Tribunal's final decision, as per Art.199 of the Constitution.\nConclusion:\nRecovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7839 of 2002, heard on 17-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Jowahar A. Naqvi for Petitioner AND A. Karim Malik and Sohail Akhtar for the State", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GULZAR ENGINEERING CO. through Manager \nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 102 = 2009 SLD 102 = 2009 PTD 1865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decision and Opportunity to Plead\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the appellant was denied adequate opportunity to plead at the adjudication stage.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte without confirming the service of hearing notices. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without appreciating the procedural lapse. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,37,25 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 68/ST/IB of 2007, decision dated: 14-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Danish Ali Qazis AND Sajjad Ali, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 103 = 2009 SLD 103 = 2009 PTD 1894 = 2010 PTCL 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fake Invoices and Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issue:\n•\nLegality of demand for payment without adjudication in cases involving fake invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe High Court emphasized that no tax recovery could be enforced before adjudication proceedings were completed. It directed the department to complete the inquiry expeditiously without causing harassment.\nConclusion:\nRecovery demand was declared illegal without adjudication, and the inquiry was directed to proceed lawfully.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 8323 and 2049 of 2009, heard on 17-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Waqar Azeem AND Muhammad Nawaz Cheema", + "Party Name:": "Messrs G.M.H. TRADERS AND MANUFACTURERS through Proprietor/Chief Executive\nvs\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR/INVESTIGATING OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE/INVESTIGATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 104 = 2009 SLD 104 = 2009 PTD 1899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment and Tax Liability\nKey Issue:\n•\nDetermination of tax liability in light of value addition and compliance with S.7 and S.73.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department’s allegations of incorrect input-output tax reporting were found partially valid. However, the appellant presented evidence supporting compliance with S.73 and significant value addition. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after a detailed audit.\nConclusion:\nImpugned order set aside; case remanded for de novo consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,23,46,73 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.133/ST/IB of 2008, decision dated: 5-12-2008, hearing DATE : 4-12-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Danish Ali Qazi, Advocate along with Mr. Sikandar Nawaz,s AND Syed Mir Ghais Ali Shah, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 105 = 2009 SLD 105 = (2009) 100 TAX 32 = 2009 PTD 1978 = 2010 PTCL 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Assessment Orders\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether an order passed beyond the statutory period was barred by limitation.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe adjudicating authority failed to finalize the order within the 180-day limit prescribed by S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Tribunal declared the order time-barred and void.\nConclusion:\nOrder was barred by limitation and set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17416 of 2008 decided on 25-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Umar Ahmed Khan for Petitioner\nKausar Parveens", + "Party Name:": "LEO ENTERPRISES \nvs\nPRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 106 = 2009 SLD 106 = 2009 PTD 1993", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim Rejection\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of rejecting a refund claim due to departmental negligence.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department failed to process the refund claim as mandated under S.10(2) and related rules, despite it being complete. The Tribunal found the rejection baseless and directed the refund with interest.\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; refund directed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(14),3,4,7,8(1),10(2),25,26,29,46 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=28,29 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-479 of 2007, decision dated: 4-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name": "Afzal Awan AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 107 = 2009 SLD 107 = 2009 PTD 2004 = 2010 PTCL 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Recovery under S.36(3)\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the Tribunal erred in holding recovery orders issued beyond the prescribed period under S.36(3).\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal ruled that recovery orders must adhere to time limits under S.36(3), declaring those beyond the limit as void.\nConclusion:\nRecovery orders beyond the time limit were invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),472 ", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No. 42 of 2006, decision dated: 25-05-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND S. ALI HUSSAIN RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rao Tahir Shakeel for Petitioner AND Qaiser Javed Awan No. 2", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MERAJ DIN through Partner \nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 108 = 2009 SLD 108 = 2009 PTD 2011", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Refund Claims\nKey Issue:\n•\nAllegations of undue delays and misplacement of refund claim files by tax authorities.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found grave maladministration and directed disciplinary action, along with measures to streamline refund processing and resolve longstanding disputes.\nConclusion:\nRecommendations issued for addressing maladministration and refunding claimants.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,55 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1991-K of 2008, decision dated: 28-08-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, F.T.Os. (Dealing Officer). M. Aleem Khan, Authorized Rep. of the Complainant. Aamer Rashid, Dy. Collector of Customs (Exports), S. Hasan Askari, Assistant Collector of Customs (Exports) and Syed Mohsin Ali Shah, Asstt. Collector of Sales Tax, Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CONVENIENCE FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 109 = 2009 SLD 109 = 2009 PTD 2025 = 2010 PTCL 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Jeopardy and Value Addition\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether tax liabilities for prior settled periods constituted double jeopardy.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal found that taxing previously settled periods under ADR Committee recommendations amounted to double jeopardy. Further, arbitrary value addition applied by the department was revised to align with market practices.\nConclusion:\nDemand for settled periods annulled; tax liability recalculated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(46),3(1),6(2),7(1),11(2),22,23,26,33,34,36(1) ", + "Case #": "S.T. Nos.44/PB of 2007 (Old No.) and 102/ST/IB of 2008 (New No.) decided on 16-07-2009. dates of hearing: 16th, December, 2008, 8-04-7-05-9th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd June, 2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ishtiaq Ahmad AND Abdul Razzaq, D. R./Additional Collector, Fazal Hameed, Sr. Auditor, Muhammad Haroon Khattak, Sr. Auditor and Dost Muhammad, Sr. Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 110 = 2009 SLD 110 = 2009 PTD 2069", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Excessive Delay in Refund Processing\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether refund delays constituted maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Ombudsman identified delays as maladministration, directed process improvements, and recommended waiving time bars to allow claimants to seek remedies.\nConclusion:\nRefunds expedited; system improvements mandated.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 134 to 141 of 2009, decision dated: 11-09-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Yasin Tahir, Advisor (Dealing Officer) AND Rao Tasawur Ali, Authorized Representative AND Saleem Akhtar, A.C., Sales Tax, Departmental Representative", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUSAF \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 111 = 2009 SLD 111 = (2009) 100 TAX 243 = 2009 PTD 2074", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Recovery Cases\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether recovery orders issued beyond statutory limits were valid.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal deemed orders issued beyond the statutory period invalid. Vague and defective show-cause notices further weakened the department's position.\nConclusion:\nOrders annulled due to time-barred actions and procedural defects.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),3(1A),3(1),19,2(25),33,73,7,32,3(1A),2(25) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. H-26, H-27, H-29, H-101, H-134, H-84, H-132, H-133, H-83, H-275, H-276, H-277, H-278, H-272, H-181, H-193 of 2005, H-160, H-161, H-250, H-159, H-187, H-214 of 2004 and H-106 of 2006; decided on 30-11-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALIDA YASIN, MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBERS, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem, Ms. Danish Zubairi and S. Hammad Razas AND Nadeem Memon, Assistant Collectors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 306 = 2003 SLD 306 = 2003 PTCL 235 = 2003 PTD 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Flying Invoices and Tax Fraud\nKey Issue:\n•\nWidespread misuse of fake invoices (flying invoices) and their impact on government revenue.\nLegal Reasoning:\nFlying invoices, which are paper transactions unconnected to actual sales, have been extensively used in the textile sector to fraudulently claim input tax refunds. The appellants were found guilty of utilizing such invoices to claim undeserved tax benefits. The Tribunal upheld the tax demand and additional tax but reduced the penalty to 10%. It also recommended prosecuting accomplices, including Sales Tax officials who sanctioned fraudulent claims.\nConclusion:\nTax demand upheld; penalty reduced; accomplices to face prosecution under principles of natural justice.\nCitations:\n•\n1999 SCMR 1442 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,2(37),23,32A,33(4),34,46 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 14/LB of 2001, decision dated: 24-06-2002, hearing DATE : 4-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN, SAFDAR ALI AND ZAFAR IQBAL MEMBERS (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Maqsood Ahmad Butt and Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui AND Amen Ahmed, D.R. assisted by Saleem Akhtar, Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 218 = 2008 SLD 218 = 2008 PTCL 324 = 2008 PTD 1 = (2008) 97 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Injunctive Relief in Tax Recovery Cases\nKey Issue:\n•\nHigh Court's authority to grant a stay on recovery in appeals following the omission of S.45-B(4).\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe High Court ruled that an appellate authority, having the power to grant final relief, could also grant interim relief if a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience favored the appellant. The court granted a stay subject to a 25% deposit of the disputed tax.\nConclusion:\nStay granted subject to partial payment of the disputed tax.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner Khairpur Division v. Ali Sher Sarki, PLD 1971 SC 241", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5828 of 2007, decision dated: 15-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashtar Ausaf Ali for Petitioner AND Muhammad Nawaz Cheema", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HIGHNOON LABORATORIES LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 219 = 2008 SLD 219 = 2008 PTD 8 = (2007) 96 TAX 272 = (2008) 97 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Records and Tax Fraud\nKey Issue:\n•\nAllegations of maintaining double records and evading sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department’s failure to produce key evidence (private records purportedly seized) led the adjudicating officer to vacate the show-cause notice. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that allegations of tax fraud must be substantiated with cogent evidence.\nConclusion:\nCase dismissed due to insufficient evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(37),3,3A,6,22,23,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 6/LB of 2005, decision dated: 26-06-2007, hearing DATE : 18-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Mahmud, D.R. and Ali Ehsan, Auditor for-Appellant AND Waheed Shahzad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 220 = 2008 SLD 220 = 2008 PTD 10 = (2007) 96 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Duty and Tax\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of refund rejection due to unauthorized claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal remanded the case as the adjudicating authority failed to address the charge of unauthorized refund collection. Proper adjudication with a focus on compliance with the law was mandated.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,46,66 ", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 744/LB of 2003, decision dated: 20-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Arshad AND Dr. Akhtar Hussain, D.R. and Muhammad Omer, Appraiser", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 221 = 2008 SLD 221 = 2008 PTD 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deregistration of Manufacturer\nKey Issue:\n•\nRetrospective deregistration of a factory without due notice.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found the department’s unilateral deregistration without notifying the complainant to be an act of maladministration. Recommendations were issued to restore the factory’s registration and improve procedural compliance.\nConclusion:\nFactory’s registration to be restored; procedural reforms mandated.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14,26(5) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-533-K of 2007, decision dated: 4-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abbas Bhojani for the Complainant AND Dr. Ahsan Khan, Asstt. Collector of Sales Tax. Dr. Ali Raza, Asstt. Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LION BOX FACTORY, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 222 = 2008 SLD 222 = 2008 PTD 17 = (2007) 96 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Credit Claim\nKey Issue:\n•\nRejection of input tax credit due to mismatched registration categorization.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal held that the department's categorization of the appellant as a wholesaler, despite evidence of manufacturing activities, could not disqualify the appellant’s input tax claims. The claims were found valid under S.7 of the Act.\nConclusion:\nInput tax credit claims allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(25),7,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. No.425/LB of 2006, decision dated: 26-06-2007, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. M. Akram AND Khalid Mehmood, D.R. with Ashiq Hussain Duggal, Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 223 = 2008 SLD 223 = 2008 PTD 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Under-Valuation in Sales\nKey Issue:\n•\nDiscrepancies in declared value of supplies and stock.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal observed inconsistencies in valuation and remanded the case for a fresh determination of open market prices. Penalty impositions for valuation discrepancies were waived due to ongoing controversy over pricing.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for fresh valuation and tax liability determination.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(26),33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.450/LB of 2006, decision dated: 20-07-2007, hearing DATE ; 20-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, (MEMBER, JUDICIAL/CHAIRMAN) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Raza Qureshi AND Dr. Akhtar Hussain, D.R.. Irfan Ahmed, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 224 = 2008 SLD 224 = 2008 PTD 139 = (2007) 96 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Filing and Penalty\nKey Issue:\n•\nImposition of penalties for late filing and incorrect returns.\nLegal Reasoning:\nPenalties were remitted for late filing and incorrect entries due to reasonable explanations, but upheld for undisputed inadmissible tax adjustments.\nConclusion:\nSome penalties remitted; others upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(1),46,33(7),2(35),33(2)(cc) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1309/LB of 2005, decision dated: 3rd April, 2007, hearing DATE : 8-03-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan AND Khalid Mehmood, D.R and Faisal S.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 225 = 2008 SLD 225 = 2008 PTD 103 = (2008) 97 TAX 164 = 2008 PTR 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Tax and Special Procedure Rules\nKey Issue:\n•\nLegality of tax assessment based on electricity consumption under S.R.O. 678(I)/2007.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the impugned rules were ultra vires the Sales Tax Act, as they deviated from the statutory principles of taxable activity and supply. Past transactions under these rules were treated as closed.\nConclusion:\nRules declared ultra vires; statutory tax principles reinforced.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Usmani Associates v. CBR, 2001 PTD 2982", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(41)(46) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7781, 7823, 8155, 8176, 8397, 8563, 8790 to 8795, 8841 to 8844, decided on-23rd November, 2007. dates of hearing: 25th to 28-09-1st, 2nd, 8th, 11th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 25th, 26th, 29th to 31st October, 19th at 2001, and 20-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Akbar Bhindar, Mian Mahmood Rashid, M. Shahzad Shaukat, Mian Ashiq Hussain and Azhar Mahmood for Petitioners. \nIzhar ul Haq Sheikh, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Shahid Jamil Khan and Ms. Kaousar Parveen for the Revenue. Akhtar Ali and Shahnasha Shomail Piracha for Steel Melters Association. Khurshid Alam Ramay for Lessco.", + "Party Name:": "HAJI SULTAN AHMED\nVS\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 226 = 2008 SLD 226 = 2008 PTD 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Sales Tax\nKey Issue:\n•\nEligibility for exemption based on turnover below the threshold.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant's turnover was proven to be below the statutory threshold, qualifying them for exemption under the Sixth Schedule.\nConclusion:\nExemption granted; recovery set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 595/LB of 2006, decision dated: 19-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Rashid AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 227 = 2008 SLD 227 = 2008 PTD 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Payment and Penalty\nKey Issue:\n•\nJustification for penalties due to late payment amidst legal controversies.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal waived penalties and additional tax as the late payment stemmed from legal ambiguities over time of supply, which were later resolved.\nConclusion:\nPenalties and additional tax waived.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(44),23,34,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 173/LB of 2007, decision dated: 17-07-2007, hearing DATE : 16-07-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Waseem Ahmad AND Dr. Akhtar Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 228 = 2008 SLD 228 = 2008 PTD 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ombudsman Jurisdiction\nKey Issue:\n•\nScope of jurisdiction in maladministration complaints.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Ombudsman was deemed competent to investigate maladministration allegations even if the issue involved some legal interpretation, as long as maladministration was independently alleged.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman’s jurisdiction upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,9 Sales Tax Rules, 2006=19,23 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-675-K of 2007, decision dated: 1st August, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Farogh Naseem, Messrs Asif Haroon and Samiullah for Petitioners AND Chartered Accountants for the Complainant AND Badar-ud-Din Ahmed Qureshi, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GLAXO SMITH KLINE PAKISTAN LIMITED through Messrs Muhammad Naseem & Company\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 229 = 2008 SLD 229 = 2008 PTD 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Procedural Defects\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of delayed assessments and defective notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\nDespite delays, the Tribunal found the provisions directory, not mandatory. Procedural errors in notices were considered non-prejudicial if substantial compliance was ensured.\nConclusion:\nRecovery upheld; penalties waived due to procedural delays.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(4),32A,33,34,36,46 Central Excise Rules, 1944=10(2)(3) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1133/LB of 2002, decision dated: 20-08-2007, hearing DATE : 27-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Kazim Bukhari AND Dr. Akhtar Hussain, D.R., Israr Khan S.A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 230 = 2008 SLD 230 = 2008 PTD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Disallowance\nKey Issue:\n•\nDenial of input tax adjustment for non-eligible goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant's claim for input tax adjustment on spare parts for generators was disallowed because it could not be proven that the generators had a capacity of 250 KV or above, as required by law and Notification dated 12-6-1998. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, finding no error in the assessment.\nConclusion:\nInput tax disallowance upheld due to failure to prove eligibility under statutory conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,7,8(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 97/LB of 2007, decision dated: 20-08-2007, hearing DATE : 2-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik M. Arshad AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 231 = 2008 SLD 231 = 2008 PTCL 1 = (2008) 97 TAX 156 = 2008 PTD 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Recovery Proceedings\nKey Issue:\n•\nMandatory versus directory nature of time limits in recovery proceedings.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe prescribed time limits for completing adjudication (45 or 90 days, depending on the amendment) were found to be mandatory. Delays in creating liability against taxpayers were held to affect citizens' rights and could not render the statutory provision redundant or superfluous.\nConclusion:\nTime limits in recovery proceedings deemed mandatory, and cases initiated beyond these limits were invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nNagina Silk Mill, Lyallpur v. The Income Tax Officer, PLD 1963 SC 322 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.13331 of 2006; decided on 7-11-2007, hearing DATE : 18-09-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Waqar Azim for Petitioner AND Izharul Haqs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUPER ASIA MUHAMMAD DIN SONS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, GUJRANWALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 232 = 2008 SLD 232 = 2008 PTD 44 = (2007) 96 TAX 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise Duty and Stock Shortages\nKey Issue:\n•\nImposition of duty and penalties for stock shortages.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant admitted the stock shortage during inspection. The Tribunal upheld the duty imposition but remitted penalties since there was no evidence of un-cleared old stock, as fresh stock continually replaced it under bank pledge.\nConclusion:\nDuty upheld; penalties remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26,,33,34,46 Central Excise Rules, 1944=3,6,22,23,26,47,52,52A,210,226 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Ex. A. No. 1764/LB of 2001, decision dated: 23rd May, 2007, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar AND Khalid Mahmood, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 233 = 2008 SLD 233 = 2008 PTCL 244 = 2008 PTD 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment Entitlement\nKey Issue:\n•\nHigh Court reference challenging Tribunal's findings on input tax entitlement.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the Tribunal had adequately addressed the applicability of S.7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Tribunal's order, read holistically, clarified the issue.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; Tribunal's findings upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,7 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No. 239 of 2006, heard on 17-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mohsin Imam for Applicant AND Aziz A. Shaikhs", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX\nvs\nCYNAMID PAKISTAN LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 234 = 2008 SLD 234 = 2008 PTCL 261 = 2008 PTD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Notice Appeal\nKey Issue:\n•\nMaintainability of appeals against recovery notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal and High Court found that a recovery notice is a continuation of an order-in-original and cannot independently be challenged before appellate forums.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; recovery notices cannot be independently appealed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47,48 ", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No. 132 of 2007, decision dated: 17-01-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan for Petitioner AND Izharul Haq Sheikh for Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "J.D. W. SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Executive Director, Finance\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 235 = 2008 SLD 235 = 2008 PTD 283 = (2008) 97 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Disallowance and Procedural Lapses\nKey Issue:\n•\nDenial of input tax due to missing invoice serial numbers.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that procedural lapses by suppliers (e.g., missing serial numbers) should not result in denying input tax claims if the tax payment was undisputed and supported by invoices.\nConclusion:\nInput tax claims allowed; maladministration established.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,7(2)(i),23(1)(8),7, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(1),16,14 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 853 of 2006, decision dated: 14-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (R) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Ahmad, Adviser, Dealing Officer AND Syed Arshad Hussain, Advocate/A.R. for the Complainant AND Tahir Abbas, A.C.S.T./D.R.", + "Party Name:": "ASKARI ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 236 = 2008 SLD 236 = 2008 PTD 242 = (2008) 97 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Discrepancies in Audit Records\nKey Issue:\n•\nShortage of stock, suspicious invoices, and record violations.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal upheld findings on stock shortages and remanded issues of suspicious invoices and S.23 violations for reconciliation.\nConclusion:\nPartial remand for reconciliation; stock shortage findings upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 192/LB of 2006, decision dated: 20-08-2007, hearing DATE : 8-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Akram Nizami AND Ghulam Shabbir", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 307 = 2003 SLD 307 = 2003 PTD 50 = (2003) 87 TAX 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise and Sales Tax Assessment\nKey Issue:\n•\nLegality of amended show-cause notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that issues regarding the amended notices could be raised during subsequent adjudication or appeals.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; issues to be addressed during further proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),46,47 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36(c) Central Excise Rules, 1944=10,10(3) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 460 and 461 of 2002, decision dated: 19-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAK (PRIVATE) LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 237 = 2008 SLD 237 = 2008 PTD 224 = (2007) 96 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration and Tax Liability\nKey Issue:\n•\nCorrect classification of sales (retailer vs. wholesaler).\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal found the classification of the appellant as a retailer incorrect and remanded the case for reassessment based on wholesale operations.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for re-determination of tax liability.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3AA,11(4),14,36(3),38(3),46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 839/LB of 2006, decision dated: 4-05-2007, hearing DATE : 2-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Ghulam Rasool, A.R. AND Ahmad Din Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 238 = 2008 SLD 238 = 2008 PTD 221 = (2007) 96 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Under-Valuation\nKey Issue:\n•\nTax demands on exempt supplies and valuation discrepancies.\nLegal Reasoning:\nSupplies made post-exemption were found to be non-taxable. The Tribunal reduced demands and penalties for exempt periods but remitted penalties on small amounts.\nConclusion:\nTax demands reduced; penalties remitted for small claims.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,33,34,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.49/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd May, 2007, hearing DATE : 8-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFARUL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Najib AND Khalid Mahmood, D.R. with Pervaiz Alam, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 239 = 2008 SLD 239 = 2008 PTD 213 = (2007) 96 TAX 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment for Building Materials\nKey Issue:\n•\nEligibility of building materials for input tax adjustment.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal allowed adjustments as building materials were not on the negative list during the relevant period and were allowed in similar cases.\nConclusion:\nInput tax adjustment allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,8,33(7),46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 695/LB of 1999, decision dated: 3rd April, 2007, hearing DATE : 19-03-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MOHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Tariq Najib AND Khalid Mehmood, D.R. with Faisal, S.A.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 240 = 2008 SLD 240 = 2008 PTD 210 = (2007) 96 TAX 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability and Payment Methods\nKey Issue:\n•\nNon-compliance with S.73 payment requirements.\nLegal Reasoning:\nPayments made through bearer instruments did not qualify under S.73. However, penalties were remitted as sales tax liability was reduced.\nConclusion:\nReduced liability; penalties remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1),33(2),46,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1433/LB of 2005, decision dated: 23rd May, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Farooq Sh. for Applicant.AND Khalid Mehmood. D.R. with Abdul Qadoos Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 241 = 2008 SLD 241 = 2008 PTD 196 = (2007) 96 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Locally Manufactured Goods\nKey Issue:\n•\nEligibility for customs and tax exemptions on imports.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe case was remanded as relevant evidence (clarification from CBR) was not considered during ex parte proceedings.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,34 Customs Act, 1969=194A ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.1356/LB of 2000, decision dated: 11-06-2007, hearing DATE : 5-06-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Najib Ch. AND Dr. Akhtar Hussain, D.R. and Farrukh Ghulam Abbas, Inspector", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 242 = 2008 SLD 242 = 2008 PTD 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Suppression of Supplies\nKey Issue:\n•\nDiscrepancies in recovery ratios and sales invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal upheld the recovery ratio adjustment but denied relief for missing invoices due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; recovery ratio adjustment upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,7,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 273/LB of 2007, decision dated: 20-08-2007, hearing DATE : 13-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian M. Arif Amin.AND Safdar Bashir", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 243 = 2008 SLD 243 = 2008 PTD 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Refund and Filing Requirements\nKey Issue:\n•\nProcedural barriers to claiming input tax refunds.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended processing the refund as filing requirements under new rules were unreasonable and caused maladministration.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims to be processed; maladministration established.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C. 1069-K of 2007, decision dated: 3rd December, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Asad Arif, Advisor, Dealing Officer, Messrs Afzal Awan, Imran Javed and Imran Iqbal for the Complainant AND S.A. Sajjad Rizvi, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAUZIA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Messrs Awan Law Associates, Karachi\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 244 = 2008 SLD 244 = 2008 PTD 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retailer Registration Threshold\nKey Issue:\n•\nApplicability of registration requirements.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe appellant’s sales were below the statutory threshold in the preceding 12 months, making mandatory registration inapplicable.\nConclusion:\nImpugned orders set aside; registration not required.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 190/LB of 2007, decision dated: 20-08-2007, hearing DATE : 9-08-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Nizam ud Din A.R. AND Ghulam Shabir Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 245 = 2008 SLD 245 = 2008 PTD 1132 = (2007) 96 TAX 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Limitation Issues\nKey Issue:\n•\nDelayed proceedings and unjust penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\nExcess sales tax was adjusted due to a bona fide mistake. Delays in proceedings constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; maladministration established.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(2),36(3),45 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-108-K of 2004, decision dated: 23rd April, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, (Dealing Officer) AND A. Majeed Khan, Legal Officer, PMDC for the Complainant AND Aijaz Ahmed Khan, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax, (Adjudication)", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 246 = 2008 SLD 246 = 2008 PTD 1143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Refund of Sales Tax\nKey Issue:\n•\nEligibility for exemptions under an SRO.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the refund of customs duty and sales tax after finding the imported goods exempt under the relevant SRO.\nConclusion:\nRefund granted; maladministration identified.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Customs Act, 1969=18 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.229 of 2004, decision dated: 24-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Ahmad, Advisor, (Dealing Officer) AND Shaukat Ali for the Complainant AND Zamir Hassan Zaidi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AWAN CNG, REFILLING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 247 = 2008 SLD 247 = 2008 PTD 1153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "xMaladministration in Tax Proceedings\nKey Issue:\n•\nAllegations of bias in tax assessments.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended impartial inquiry and excluded biased auditors from adjudication.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for unbiased adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.282 of 2004, decision dated: 30-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Ahmad, Advisor, (Dealing Officer) AND Faqeer Gul Khan for the Complainant AND Imtiaz Sheikh, DC Sales Tax, Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "FAQIR GUL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 723 = 2001 SLD 723 = 2001 PTD 1188 = (2001) 84 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Abuse of Power and Judicial Review\nKey Issue:\n•\nHigh Court’s role in restraining governmental actions.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe High Court emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with lawful governmental actions unless bad faith or fraud was evident.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed for lack of substantial cause of action.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=SixthSched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1261 of 2000, decision dated: 28-08-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Akram and Nauman Akram Raja for Petitioners AND Tanveer Bashir Ansari, Dy. A. G.s No. 1 AND Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for the CBR. AND Raja Muhammad Bashir No. 4", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED through Director and 2 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 158 = 1985 SLD 158 = 1985 SCMR 1012", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-Emption\nKey Issue:\n•\nLeave to appeal in pre-emption cases.\nConclusion:\nLeave granted to examine if the transaction was a sale.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913=4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.345-R of 1984, decision dated: 23rd February, 1985. (From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 17-10-1984 ip Civil Revision No.218/D of 1984)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmed, Advocate and Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "SAWAR\nVs \nGULFAM HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 549 = 2002 SLD 549 = 2002 PTD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Sales Tax on Imports\nKey Issue:\n•\nApplicability of tax exemptions prior to a rate change.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Tribunal declared demands illegal as the goods were imported before the exemption was revoked.\nConclusion:\nDemand dismissed; exemption upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=5(b),SixthSched Customs Act, 1969=32(2),79(2)(4) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. K-30 of 2001, decision dated: 22-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJID HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ataullah Khan, Consultant AND Nihar Khan, Appraising Officer for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 550 = 2002 SLD 550 = 2002 PTD 311 = (2002) 86 TAX 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "xRefund on Exempt End-Products\nKey Issue:\n•\nEligibility for refunds on inputs used in exempt end-products.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRefunds were denied as tax incidence was passed to consumers through the price structure of exempt end-products.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(12),27(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1075 of 1990, heard on 10-07-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleem Zulfiqar Khan for Petitioner AND Iftikhar Javaid, Standing Counsel and Asif Jah", + "Party Name:": "INTERNATIONAL BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Central Board of Revenue), Karachi and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 308 = 2003 SLD 308 = 2003 PTD 63 = (2003) 88 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Refund Verification\nKey Issue:\n•\nReasonable time for refund verification and withholding.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Department could not indefinitely withhold refunds under the guise of investigations. If invoices were suspected, verification needed to be completed within a reasonable time. Refunds should not be withheld based on the non-deposit of tax by registered suppliers if payments were made through verifiable means (e.g., cross-cheques).\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended completing verification within 90 days and refunding the amount within 15 days if invoices were found genuine.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4) Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000=7(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 275 of 2002, decision dated: 11-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Saood Nasrullah Cheema and Naveed Suhail Malik for the Complainant AND Muhammad Ismail, Deputy Collector Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs J. K. BROS. (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 551 = 2002 SLD 551 = 2002 PTD 102 = (2002) 85 TAX 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notice and Jurisdiction\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of jurisdictional notice service.\nLegal Reasoning:\nService of a jurisdictional notice is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction. Any procedural failure in service invalidates proceedings. Findings on the issue must consider all material evidence; arbitrary conclusions are unsustainable.\nConclusion:\nTribunal directed to rehear the issue of notice service and issue a fresh finding.\nCitations:\n•\n1967 PTD 189 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=28 ", + "Case #": "S.T.Cs. Nos. 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37 and 38 of 1985, decision dated: 8-08-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Farogh Naseem for Applicant Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAMY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 159 = 1985 SLD 159 = 1985 SCMR 1032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Conviction for Kidnapping\nKey Issue:\n•\nReevaluation of evidence and sentencing.\nLegal Reasoning:\nLeave to appeal was granted to examine evidence regarding the accused's intention, the victim's age, and the appropriateness of the sentence, especially considering alleged prosecution lapses.\nConclusion:\nCase to be revisited for re-evaluating the conviction and sentence.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=5.364A ", + "Case #": "Jail Petition for Leave to Appeal No.7-R of 1983, decision dated: 11-03-1985.(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27-10-1981 in Cr. Appeal No.437/1979 and M.R.No.121/1979)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M. S. H QURAISHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Tariq Azam Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for the State.", + "Party Name:": "RAZA KHAN\nVs \nThe STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 552 = 2002 SLD 552 = 2002 PTD 495 = (2002) 86 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption on Vehicle Parts\nKey Issue:\n•\nClassification of tires and tubes as vehicle components.\nLegal Reasoning:\nTires and tubes were deemed essential parts of vehicles since they enable movement. The High Court declared a CBR Circular denying exemption as unlawful.\nConclusion:\nExemption upheld; CBR Circular declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 19201 of 1999, 22472, 7481, 9090 and 6454 of 1996, heard on 17-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "ATLAS TYRES (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 160 = 1985 SLD 160 = 1985 SCMR 1083", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-Emption and Void Sale\nKey Issue:\n•\nEffect of voided sale on pre-emption suits.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe trial court's cognizance of the matter after the sale was declared void was questioned. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether proceedings should continue after the sale's nullification.\nConclusion:\nLeave granted to resolve jurisdictional issues in pre-emption suits.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913=21 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1430 and 1431 of 1980, decision dated: 15-06-1983.(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-4-1980 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.No.547 of 1979)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M.S.H. QURAISHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nWajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "MUNIR HUSSAIN and others\nvs \nMUHAMMAD SHAFI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 248 = 2008 SLD 248 = 2008 PTD 7 = (2002) 85 TAX 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction in Sales Tax\nKey Issue:\n•\nScope and limitations of revisional powers.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRevisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised on matters under appellate review. Once an appellate tribunal has addressed an issue, revisional powers are ousted to ensure no conflict with appellate forums.\nConclusion:\nRevisional order declared without authority; constitutional petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45A,45,47 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Amended Writ Petition No. 5203 and Writ Petitions Nos. 5202, 5204 to 5206 of 1999, decision dated: 28-09-2001, hearing DATE : 13-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Irfan Qadir. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS, LAHORE CANTT.\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR-II, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, DIRECTORATE OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 249 = 2008 SLD 249 = 2008 PTD 1601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Based on Supplier Status\nKey Issue:\n•\nRejection of refund claims based on later supplier status.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRefund claims for purchases made in 2004 could not be rejected based on the supplier's status in 2006. The Tribunal remanded the case for reassessment, directing an investigation into the supplier’s status at the time of purchase.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for fresh inquiry into the supplier's 2004 status.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.S.T.A. No.11/LB of 2007, decision dated: 31st May, 2007, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan-ul Haq and Miss Samreen Tabassums AND Khalid Mehmood, D.R. and Mansoor Sadiq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 250 = 2008 SLD 250 = 2008 PTD 1607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Adjudication\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of ex parte orders due to procedural lapses.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAn ex parte order based solely on departmental documents, without considering the taxpayer’s reply or providing adequate hearing opportunities, is invalid. The Tribunal emphasized fair and unbiased adjudication.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; case remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),30 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.1131/LB of 2005, decided 17-01-2008, hearing DATE : 15-01-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Ahmad AND Atif Qureshi, S.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 161 = 1985 SLD 161 = 1985 SCMR 1104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Agricultural Land Sale\nKey Issue:\n•\nVendee's claims regarding appurtenant property.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe courts found no evidence to support that the claimed property was part of the sale deed. The application for leave to appeal was refused due to the lack of substantial errors in lower courts’ findings.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=,5.115 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.483 of 1878, decision dated: 17-02-1985.(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14-6-1978 in Civil Revision No.718 of 1978)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND SHAFIUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nCh. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Records Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others\nVs \nABDUL GHANI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 251 = 2008 SLD 251 = 2008 PTD 1644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim and Supplier Tax Profile\nKey Issue:\n•\nRejection of refund based on STARR objection.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAbnormalities in a supplier's tax profile alone cannot justify rejecting a refund. The Department must confirm whether tax was paid on disputed supplies before rejecting claims.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for verification of tax payments on disputed supplies.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. No. 349/LB of 2007, decision dated: 26-02-2008, hearing DATE : 4-02-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Ahmad Ch. AND Saud Imran Ahmad, D.R. assisted by Mr. Muhammad Naeem Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 252 = 2008 SLD 252 = 2008 PTCL 574 = 2008 PTD 1673 = (2008) 98 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment Awareness and Tax Liability\nKey Issue:\n•\nApplication of amendments to the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAmendments to the Sales Tax Act must be presumed known to adjudicating officers. Suppliers were deemed registered persons under S.2(25) before the omission of S.3(1-A), thus exempting them from further tax liabilities.\nConclusion:\nLiability under S.3(1-A) not applicable due to legislative amendment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(25),3(1A) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 59 of 2007, decision dated: 26-06-2008, hearing DATE : 8-05-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Danish Zuberi for Applicant AND Shaukat Ali Qureshis.", + "Party Name:": "DIGRI SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), HYDERABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 253 = 2008 SLD 253 = 2008 PTCL 532 = 2008 PTD 1693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Sales Tax and Transportation Charges\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether packing charges are subject to sales tax.\n2.\nChargeability of transportation and handling costs.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nPacking charges are part of the price of packaged goods, and sales tax cannot be levied on them.\n2.\nTransportation and handling are not considered “in furtherance of business” and thus are not taxable under sales tax provisions.\nConclusion:\nSales tax on transportation/handling charges was declared invalid. Packing charges are excluded from sales tax.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector Customs v. Novartis Pakistan Ltd. (2002 PTD 976).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(12),2(33),3(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No.109 of 2002, decision dated: 28-03-2008, hearing DATE : 17-03-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rizwan Akhtar Awan AND Saleem Zulifqar Khan.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs WAH NOBEL CHEMICAL LTD., WAH CANTT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 254 = 2008 SLD 254 = 2008 PTD 1719", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 9502\nConcurrent Complaints and Appeals\nKey Issue:\n•\nJurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman when an appeal is pending before the Tribunal.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman cannot entertain complaints if the matter is already sub judice before an appellate forum.\nConclusion:\nComplaint was dismissed, advising the complainant to pursue the pending appeal.\nCitation:\n•\n1997 SCMR 503 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1095-L of 2005, decision dated: 24-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer AND Muhammad Ashraf, Consultant, for the Complainant AND Munir Sarwar D.C. Sales Tax, Lahore,s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs M.N.H. EXPORTS\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 255 = 2008 SLD 255 = 2008 PTD 1726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Issuance of Registration Certificates\nKey Issue:\n•\nMaladministration in the registration process.\nLegal Reasoning:\nDelay in feeding and transferring data to central registries resulted in undue delay in issuing certificates. This constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nRecommendations were made to streamline the registration process and take disciplinary action against those responsible.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1209 of 2005, decision dated: 17-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer AND Nemo for the Complainant and Syed Faisal Bukhari, D.C., Gujranwala", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HYUNDAI GUJRANWALA MOTORS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION; ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 256 = 2008 SLD 256 = 2008 PTD 1744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defective Show-Cause Notice\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of an order-in-original based on a vague and defective show-cause notice.\nLegal Reasoning:\nFailure to invoke specific provisions of the law in the show-cause notice rendered the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid.\nConclusion:\nOrder-in-original was declared void. Recommendations were made to cancel the impugned order.\nCitations:\n•\n2001 SCMR 838 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),34,33(2)(cc),3,2(33),36(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1325-L of 2005, decision dated: 17-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer and Abdul Qaddus Mughal for the Complainant and Syed Mahmood Hassan D.C., Sales Tax, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "Messrs M.I. TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 257 = 2008 SLD 257 = 2008 PTD 1757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund on Knitting Machinery\nKey Issue:\n•\nDelay in processing refunds for sales tax paid at the import stage.\nLegal Reasoning:\nDelays of over three years in responding to refund requests were unjustified and constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the refund to be processed after verifying the absence of input tax adjustments.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1363-L of 2005, decision dated: 17-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer and Malik Tabbasum Maqsood Khan for Complainant and Muhammad Saeed Wattoo, D.C. Sales Tax, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MANS ENTERPRISES\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 258 = 2008 SLD 258 = 2008 PTD 1762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issuance of Corrigendum\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of corrigendum imposing additional tax and penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe corrigendum was issued to rectify errors in the original order but introduced substantial changes without proper legal foundation.\nConclusion:\nThe corrigendum was declared void and illegal. Recommendations were made to cancel the corrigendum.\nCitations:\n•\n2001 SCMR 838 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,36(1),33(2)(cc),57,34,36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1198 of 2005, decision dated: 17-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer AND Rana Muhammad Afzal for the Complainant AND Dr. Muhammad Nadeem Memon, D.C. Sales Tax, Hyderabads", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AZAM TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 553 = 2002 SLD 553 = 2002 PTD 506 = (2002) 85 TAX 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the delay in filing an appeal was justifiable.\nLegal Reasoning:\nDelays in filing appeals do not confer any benefit on the appellant and should not create rights for the Revenue.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court directed that the delay should be condoned, and the appeal heard on its merits.\nCitations:\n•\nC.A. No.323 of 2001 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos .284 and 285 of 2001, heard on 21st November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Jamil Khan and Abid Ali Sheikh. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive\nvs\nTHE COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 259 = 2008 SLD 259 = 2008 PTD 1800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Assessment\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of orders passed beyond statutory timelines.\nLegal Reasoning:\nOrders passed beyond the prescribed period of 180 days are null and void as they lack legal foundation.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended canceling the impugned order and closing proceedings.\nCitation:\n•\nPLD 1958 SC 104 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=Preamble ", + "Case #": "Review Application 23 of 2008 in Complaint No.386-K of 2008, decision dated: 9-07-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL. TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for the Complainant AND S.A. Sajjad Rizvi, Deputy Collector Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE \nvs\nSIDDIQSONS DENIM MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 260 = 2008 SLD 260 = 2008 PTD 1831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concurrent Appeals and Complaints\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether the Federal Tax Ombudsman can entertain a complaint when an appeal is pending.\nLegal Reasoning:\nIf an appeal is already filed and under adjudication, the Federal Tax Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the matter.\nConclusion:\nComplaint dismissed as the issue was sub judice before an appellate authority.\nCitations:\n•\nComplaint No.805 of 2003 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1184-L of 2005, decision dated: 23rd November, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer AND Akhtar Ali for the Complainant AND Saeed Akram, D.C. Sales Tax, Lahore", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD FIAZ KHALID\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 261 = 2008 SLD 261 = 2008 PTD 1835 = (2008) 98 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 3 & 33(2)---Scope of tax---Additional tax---Levy of tax on account of supply of empty P.P. bags and paper cones without charging sales tax; commission of fraud by claiming double refund; claim of excess refund on exported goods weight of which was found less than the weight declared in export documents and claim of inadmissible refund against invoices issued by fake units---Report of the committee, constituted on the direction of Collector, was submitted by the appellant, according to which the liability against the appellant worked out to Rs.18586 which was to be recovered---Appellant agreed for payment of the said amount but at the same time requested that additional tax and penalty may be remitted as the same was not wilful or deliberate---Validity---As per report submitted by the Collectorate duly signed by the representatives of both the sides, the charges levelled against the appellant were not based on facts---Only liability of Rs.18585 stood out against the appellant---Appellate Tribunal directed that the amount as agreed by the appellant should be recovered---Order of lower forum of adjudication was modified to that extent and appeal was disposed of accordingly. \n \n2005 PTD 1920 and 2006 SCMR 626=2006 PTD 1132 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.497/LB of 2006, decision dated: 24-07-2007, hearing DATE : 25-04-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Masood Ishaq AND Israr Khan, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 262 = 2008 SLD 262 = 2008 PTD 1841 = (2008) 98 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Payment Penalties\nKey Issue:\n•\nApplicability of SROs granting exemptions for additional tax and penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\nSince the principal tax was already paid, the exemptions provided under the relevant SROs were applicable.\nConclusion:\nThe penalties were waived, and the appeal was accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1264/LB of 2005, decision dated: 10-10-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Ishaq AND Irfan Ahmad, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 263 = 2008 SLD 263 = 2008 PTD 1844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Recovery Orders\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether recovery orders issued beyond statutory timelines are valid.\nLegal Reasoning:\nOrders passed after the expiry of the prescribed 90-day limit are barred by law and void.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended canceling the order and related appeals.\nCitations:\n•\nPTCL 1983 CL 209 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),73 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.34-L of 2006, decision dated: 20-03-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer AND Waseem Ahmad for the Complainant AND Azhar Iftikhar, Collector (Appeals) and Muneeza Majeed, D.C., Sales Taxs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BISMILLAH CARPETS (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 264 = 2008 SLD 264 = 2008 PTD 1851 = (2008) 98 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Recovery of Excess Duty\nKey Issues:\n1.\nBar of limitation under Art. 62 of the Limitation Act.\n2.\nApplicability of S.66 of the Sales Tax Act regarding refund claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nA suit was not barred under Art. 62 as no evidence was available to prove that taxes were recovered for the plaintiff's use.\n2.\nThe suit was filed within one year after the Appellate Tribunal’s decision, thus satisfying the limitation period under S.66.\nConclusion:\nPlaintiff was entitled to a refund of the excess sales tax recovered. The suit was decreed.\nCitation:\n•\nMunicipal Board of Ghazipur v. Deokinandan Prasad AIR 1914 All. 338 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 Limitation Act, 1908=62 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 131 of 1996, decision dated: 15-08-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Moin Azhar Siddiqui for Plaintiff AND Nemo for Defendants Nos.1 to 3 AND Muhammad Asif Mufti holding brief for M.G. Dastgir for Defendant No. 4", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAZZAK STEEL (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 265 = 2008 SLD 265 = 2008 PTD 1858 = (2008) 98 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Excise Duty Based on Variance in Description\nKey Issues:\n•\nRejection of refund claims due to variation in blend and description.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe refund claim for two shipping bills was rightly rejected due to excessive variation beyond permissible limits. However, for the third shipping bill, the variation was within allowable limits.\nConclusion:\nRefund for the third shipping bill was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1011/LB of 2004, decision dated: 22-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Yousaf, Accounts Manager AND Syed Azhar Abbas, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 162 = 1985 SLD 162 = 1985 SCMR 1131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Islamic Law of Gift (Hiba-bil-Ewaz) and Inheritance\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of Hiba-bil-Ewaz.\n2.\nClasses of heirs in Muhammadan Law.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nHiba-bil-Ewaz requires actual payment of consideration and intention to transfer ownership immediately.\n2.\nDaughters of a predeceased daughter do not fall within the three recognized classes of heirs.\nConclusion:\nThe transaction was a valid Hiba-bil-Ewaz, but predeceased daughters’ heirs were excluded from inheritance.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.136 of 1978, decision dated: 10-03-1985.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court 28-5-1974 in R.S.A.No.14 of 1963)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Records.\nSh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. WILLAYAT JAN and another\nVs \nMUHAMMAD SHARIF and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 266 = 2008 SLD 266 = 2008 PTD 1864 = (2008) 98 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalties for Supplies to Blacklisted Units\nKey Issues:\n•\nLevy of penalties for late payment of taxes by blacklisted units.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe late payment of tax by the blacklisted unit was condoned by the Central Board of Revenue. There was no evidence of deliberate misconduct by the appellant.\nConclusion:\nPenalties and additional tax levied on the appellant were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 328/LB of 2006, decision dated: 6-12-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Irfan AND Hassan Muhammad, D.S.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 267 = 2008 SLD 267 = 2008 PTD 1865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reward for Informants on Evaded Duty\nKey Issues:\n•\nAppropriateness of rewards given to informants.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRewards were distributed negligently, and the credibility of the department was questioned. The matter required better oversight and revised reward rules.\nConclusion:\nRecommendations were made to revise and enforce uniform reward rules.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(4),11,13 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 772 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd January, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer) AND Muhammad Khurshid and Amir Ahmad, the Complainants in person AND Zahid Hussain Bhayo, Additional Collector (Sales Tax).", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHURSHID and another, Islamabad\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 268 = 2008 SLD 268 = 2008 PTD 1869 = (2008) 98 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund on Suppressed Production and Sale of Wastage\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegitimacy of withholding refunds due to alleged suppression of production.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe department failed to provide evidence of suppressed production. Physical verification supported the appellant’s claims.\nConclusion:\nThe balance refund claim was accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 04/LB of 2007, decision dated: 27-11-2007, hearing DATE : 26-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Waseem, Manager AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 269 = 2008 SLD 269 = 2008 PTD 1872 = (2008) 98 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment and Penalty Reduction\nKey Issues:\n1.\nEligibility of input tax adjustment for administrative office electricity.\n2.\nReduction of penalty for non-maintenance of records.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nInput tax adjustment for electricity consumption in administrative offices was permissible.\n2.\nThe penalty was reduced in accordance with statutory limits.\nConclusion:\nPenalty reduced, and input tax adjustment objections dropped.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,33(3) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.23/LB of 2003, decision dated: 4-12-2007, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mudassar Shuja AND Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 724 = 2001 SLD 724 = 2001 PTCL 331 = 2001 PTD 2097 = (2001) 84 TAX 229 = 2001 SCMR 1376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Sales Tax on Bagasse\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether Bagasse is liable to sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nBagasse is an intermediary product with independent utility and marketability. It qualifies as taxable supply under the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nSales tax was applicable on Bagasse unless exempted by notification.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Hunza Central Asian Textile Mills Ltd. 1999 SCMR 526 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,,2(35)(41)(44),(46),),(16),(17),(35).(41),(44),(46),7,13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),FourthSched. ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1805 to 1811 of 1998, 1392, 1417, 1418 of 1999, 2, 22, 129, 488, 489 and Civil Petitions Nos.386 L, 526 L and 700 L of 2000, decision dated: 27-02-2001. dates of hearing: 8th, 9th and 10-01-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Alf Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court, Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Records (in C. As. Nos. 1805 of 1998, 2 and 22 of 2000, C. Ps. Nos.386L and 700L of 2000)\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record,s (in C. A. No. 1806 of 1998)\nHamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C. As. Nos. 1807, 1809 and 1810 of 1998)\nImtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (in C. A. No. 1808 of 1998)\nJawaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmadul Islam, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 1811 of 1998)\nM. A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 1392 of 1999)\nJawaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.1417, 1418 of 1999 and 129 of 2000)\nMahmadul Islam, Advocate-on-Records (C.As. Nos.488 and 489 of 2000)\nMuhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 526L of 2000)\nMuhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court, A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, K. M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "SHEIKHOO SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 725 = 2001 SLD 725 = 2001 PTD 2094 = (2001) 83 TAX 249 = 2001 SCMR 1398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax Levy Amendments\nKey Issue:\n•\nValidity of amendments imposing additional tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe earlier amendment imposing 1% tax was defective, while the 3% levy under the later amendment was legally valid.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was partly accepted, striking down the 1% levy.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1956 L to 1967 L, 2169 L, 2210 L to 2213 L, 2219 L of 1999, 114 L, 116 L to 119 L, 142 L, 148 L and 149 L of 2000 converted intO appeal and decided on 19-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIR A. SHEIKH, QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Ahmed Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions except C.Ps. Nos. 2169L and 2219L of 1999). A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and K. M Virk, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "TANDLIANWALA SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 554 = 2002 SLD 554 = 2002 PTD 508 = (2002) 85 TAX 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Adjustments Beyond Tax Period\nKey Issue:\n•\nWhether refunds can be carried forward beyond a single tax period.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRefunds are not confined to a single tax period and may be carried forward for six consecutive months.\nConclusion:\nThe appellant was entitled to adjustments across tax periods.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(1) ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 104 of 1998, heard on 2-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Zaheer Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 726 = 2001 SLD 726 = 2001 PTD 2079 = (1998) 78 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Goods in Transit\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax on goods transshipped through Pakistan.\nLegal Reasoning:\nGoods in transit are subject to sales tax unless specifically exempted by law. The territorial status of Azad Jammu and Kashmir does not exempt such goods from sales tax.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court refused exemption for sales tax on transshipped goods.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1555,. 1069, 2469 of 1997, 730 and 731 of 1998, heard on 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMJAD ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner AND Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Legal Advisors Nos. 1 to 3 AND Afrasiab Khan, Standing Counsel No A", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAHSEEN (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, RAWALPINDI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 727 = 2001 SLD 727 = 2001 PTD 2018 = (2001) 84 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Services Rendered by Dry Cleaners\nKey Issues:\n•\nConstitutionality of sales tax on dry cleaning services.\nLegal Reasoning:\nTax on services rendered is not covered under the Federal Legislative List. Provinces are competent to legislate on this subject.\nConclusion:\nThe levy was upheld as constitutional and non-discriminatory.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000)=3,Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSehed,25,142,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.23053, 23048, 23049, 23052, 23054, 23055, 23056, 23057, 24420 of 2000 and 1636 of 2001, heard on 21st March, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. S. Babar and M. M. Akram for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Asstt. A. G. No. 1. Khan Muhammad Virk No. 2. M. S. Babar and M. M. Akram for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Asstt. A. G. No. 1. Khan Muhammad Virk No. 2", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAFEES DRY CLEANS, WAHADAT ROAD, LAHORE\nvs\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 728 = 2001 SLD 728 = 2001 PTD 1658 = 2000 PTCL 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalty on Non-Payment of Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nJustifiability of penalties for procedural inconsistencies.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAssessees had made payments before delivery, and no deliberate default was proven.\nConclusion:\nPenalties were declared void and without legal effect.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 472/LB of 1999, decision dated: 4-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Sattar AND Shafqat Mahmood, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 729 = 2001 SLD 729 = 2001 PLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Discretionary Powers in Wheat Quota Allocation\nKey Issues:\n•\nVires of provisions under the NWFP Wheat Supply Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\nProvisions giving unfettered powers for wheat quota determination violated Arts. 18 and 25 of the Constitution.\nConclusion:\nProvisions of S.2(c) and S.3 were declared ultra vires.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=18,25 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 366-P, 372-P, 373-P, 374-P, 375-P, 376-P, 381-P, 382-P, 383-P, 384-P, 393-P, 394-P, 395-P, 396-P, 397-P, 398-P, 399-P, 400-P and 401-P of 2000, decision dated: 12-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J. AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "DIRECTOR FOOD, N.-W.F.P. and anothers\nvs\nMessrs MADINA FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and 18 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 730 = 2001 SLD 730 = 2001 PLD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of NAB Ordinance Amendments\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether S.9(a)(vi) of NAB Ordinance, 1999, as amended, could be applied retrospectively.\n2.\nPetition challenging dismissal of an acquittal application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nArt. 12 of the Constitution prohibits retrospective effect for new offenses unless expressly permitted. The Supreme Court deferred to its decision in Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf for pending cases.\n2.\nInterference by the Supreme Court at this stage (when final arguments were pending) was deemed inappropriate. Fragmentary resolution of cases was discouraged.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court declined to interfere at this stage, reserving remedies for post-judgment appeals.\nCitation:\n•\nSyed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf, PLD 2000 SC 869", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),12 National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)=9(a)(vi), ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2608-L of 2000, decision dated: 22-11-2000. (On appeal from the order dated 17-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.20242 of 2000)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "ANWAR SAIFULLAH KHAN\nvs\nTHE STATE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 270 = 2008 SLD 270 = 2008 PTD 1203 = (2008) 98 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Appeals under Sales Tax Act\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to appeals under S.47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe period prescribed by the Sales Tax Act for filing appeals is strict and cannot be extended by invoking S.5 of the Limitation Act. Any deviation must strictly follow statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nAppeals filed beyond the prescribed period were dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Limitation Act, 1908=29(2),5 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Act Nos.10 to 16, 18, 19 and 84 of 2006, decision dated: 7-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND MALIK SAEED EJAZ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Raza AND Mudassar Shuja ud Din", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs DATA STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., RAHIM YAR KHAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 731 = 2001 SLD 731 = 2001 PTD 2587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of Circulars on Sales Tax Authorities\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether circulars bind courts and assessees.\n2.\nSales through commission agents and their inclusion for exemptions.\nLegal Reasoning:\nCirculars bind tax authorities but not courts or taxpayers. Tax authorities cannot argue against their circulars’ interpretations.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal challenging reliance on the circular by the High Court was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Sales Tax Act, (46 of 1948)=3,3A,4A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 9330 to 9333 of 1994, decision dated: 12-01-2000. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated October 23, 1992, of the Allahabad High Court in S.T.R. Nos.766 to 769 of 1992).", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "R.C. Verma and R.B. Misra, Advocates and Dr. Meera Agarwal, Govind Sharan and Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nINDRA INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 732 = 2001 SLD 732 = 2001 PTCL 83 = 2001 PTD 2590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Sales Tax on Disposal of Assets\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax on the disposal of old plant, machinery, and furniture.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe disposal of assets unrelated to the main business does not constitute a taxable supply under the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nSales tax on disposed assets was deemed invalid and set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(41) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-193 of 2000, decision dated: 27-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK A. R. ARSHAD, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND KHALIL MASOOD, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Sattar Silat AND Khursheed Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 733 = 2001 SLD 733 = 2001 PTD 2167 = (2001) 83 TAX 388 = 2001 CLC 1445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Incorrect Notification References\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of exemption benefits due to incorrect notification references.\nLegal Reasoning:\nExemption cannot be denied if the importer is otherwise eligible. Promissory estoppel applies where decisive steps like opening letters of credit were taken before withdrawal of exemptions.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court upheld the importer’s exemption claims and directed authorities to provide relief.\nCitation:\n•\nGatron (Industries) Limited v. Government of Pakistan, 1999 SCMR 1072", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=19 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No, 17624 of 1998, decision dated: 22-03-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. K.M. Virks", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SYED BHAIS\nvs\nCHAIRMAN, C.B.R. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 734 = 2001 SLD 734 = 2001 PTD 2215 = (2001) 84 TAX 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Sales Tax on Blasting Powder\nKey Issues:\n•\nRetrospective effect of exemption notifications.\nLegal Reasoning:\nExemptions apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. Tax paid on inputs like sulfur could be adjusted against sales tax liability on the final product.\nConclusion:\nExemption denied for the retrospective period, but adjustment of input tax was allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition.No.628 of 1989, heard on 26-02-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saleem AND Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for C.B.R", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SALT MINES, KHEWRA, JHELUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 735 = 2001 SLD 735 = 2001 PTD 2234 = (2001) 84 TAX 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Sales Tax and Customs Duty\nKey Issues:\n1.\nJurisdiction of Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court.\n2.\nDiscretion of the government in granting exemptions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nThe Rawalpindi Bench had jurisdiction as the Federal Board of Revenue is seated in Islamabad.\n2.\nExemption is discretionary and subject to public policy.\nConclusion:\nThe petition was maintainable, and exemptions were allowed based on applicable notifications.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Customs Act, 1969=18 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1847, 2037, 2558, 2723, 2867 of 1997, 5, 503, 1559, 1714, 1951 of 1998 and 7 of 1999, decision dated: 8-04-1997. dates of hearing: 6th, 7th and 8-04-1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AMJAD ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Azid Nafees for Petitioners AND Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Standing Counsel AND Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Legal Advisor", + "Party Name:": "SAPHIRE ENERGY LIMITED and 10 others\nvs\nPAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 736 = 2001 SLD 736 = 2001 PTD 2349 = (2001) 247 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax as Arrears of Land Revenue\nKey Issues:\n•\nPriority of sales tax recovery over secured creditors.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe state’s right to recover sales tax as arrears of land revenue takes precedence over private debts.\nConclusion:\nSales tax arrears were prioritized over bank claims.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Partnership Act, 1932=25 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2853 of 1993, decision dated: 25-04-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Arun Agarwal, Advocate AND Shree Pal Singh, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "DENA BANK\nvs\nBHIKHABHAI PRABHUDAS PAREKH & CO. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 737 = 2001 SLD 737 = 2001 PTD 2383 = (2001) 84 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Input Tax Credit under Fixed Tax Rules\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRefund of input tax under Fixed Amount of (Processed Fabrics) Rules, 1995.\n2.\nConflict between statutory provisions and rules.\nLegal Reasoning:\nRules cannot override statutory provisions. Refunds are barred where fixed tax regimes are opted voluntarily.\nConclusion:\nThe importer’s claim for refund was invalid under S.8(5) of the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,3,8 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1005 of 1999, decision dated: 9-04-2001. dates of hearing: 8th, 31st January, 2000; 8th, 9th and 13-02-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme and Abul Aasim Jaffary, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s AND Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Haider Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, LAHORE and another\nvs\nRUPAFAB LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 738 = 2001 SLD 738 = 2001 PTD 2636 = (2001) 83 TAX 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax on Aerated Water\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of additional tax under S.3(1-A) of the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAerated water was explicitly covered under S.3(2-c), exempting it from additional tax under S.3(1-A).\nConclusion:\nThe High Court’s decision exempting additional tax was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1A)&Sched. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.474-P of 1999, decision dated: 30-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J., NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Tasleem Hussain, Advocate-on-Record AND Nemo", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR SALES TAX, PESHAWAR CANTT. and 2 others\nvs\nNORTHERN BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT, ) LTD. JAMRUD ROAD, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 740 = 2001 SLD 740 = 2001 PTD 2982 = 2003 PTCL 461 = (2001) 84 TAX 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Taxable Activity and Supply Under Sales Tax Act\nKey Issues:\n1.\nConnotation of taxable supplies and taxable activity under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n2.\nUse of private goods and self-consumption as taxable activities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\n Taxable supply requires a transaction involving the supply of goods to another person, and self-use of goods does not fall under this category unless expressly stated.\n2.\nThe amendment replacing business with taxable activity narrowed the scope of the charging provision.\n3.\nGoods must be marketable and movable to qualify as taxable.\nConclusion:\nSelf-consumption or in-house use for manufacturing non-taxable goods does not constitute taxable activity unless explicitly stated. Tax is applicable when supply involves another person.\nCitation:\n•\nHunza Central Asian Textile and Woollen Mills Ltd., 1999 SCMR 526", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,16(34)(33),2(16)(17)(41)(47),3,16(34),13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-646 of 1999 decided on 22-03-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Aziz Memon for Petitioner AND S. Zaki Muhammad, Dy.A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs USMANI ASSOCIATES SUB PROPRIETARY FIRM\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 216 = 2007 SLD 216 = 2007 PTCL 551 = 2007 PTD 171 = (2007) 95 TAX 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determining Value of Supply for Industrial Alcohol\nKey Issues:\n•\nInclusion of Provincial excise duty in the value of supply for calculating sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\nExcise duty, collected directly by Provincial authorities and not by the supplier, cannot be included in the value of the supply for sales tax purposes.\nConclusion:\nExcise duty on industrial alcohol is excluded from the value of supply when calculating sales tax.\nCitation:\n•\nCape Brandy Syndicate v. IR (1921) 1 KB 64", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),3 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.14 of 1999, decision dated: 13-10-2006, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed Nemos Mrs. Sofia Saeed Shah, Standing Counsel is present on Court notice", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Law Officer\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, SITE HYDERABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 217 = 2007 SLD 217 = 2007 PTD 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal of Appeal via Short Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of subordinate courts using short orders without reasons.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe use of short orders is an exclusive prerogative of superior courts. Subordinate courts must provide reasons in their judgments.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court set aside the impugned order and emphasized proper reasoning in subordinate court rulings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990= ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.14 of 1999, decision dated: 13-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid S. Zuebri AND Raja M. Iqbal No. 2", + "Party Name:": "Messrs POPULAR BOARDS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE, SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 218 = 2007 SLD 218 = 2007 PTCL 535 = 2007 PTD 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Further Sales Tax on Services Rendered\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance allows the levy of further tax on services provided to unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\nThe Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance restricts the levy to 15% on taxable services, with no provision for further tax.\nConclusion:\nFurther tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, does not apply to services under the Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1),(2),3A,3AA,47(1) ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Reference Application No.81 of 2006, decision dated: 27-09-2006, hearing DATE : 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE\nvs\nMessrs QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER, TERMINAL PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 219 = 2007 SLD 219 = 2007 PTD 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Natural Justice in Tax Adjudication\nKey Issues:\n•\nProcedural impropriety in adjudicating tax cases without providing necessary records to the appellant.\nLegal Reasoning:\nFair trial principles require that all evidence and accusations be made available to the accused before adjudication.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for de novo trial due to procedural impropriety.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.Q-251 of 2003, decision dated: 9-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND SULTAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam AND Tahir Zafar, Sr. Auditor/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 220 = 2007 SLD 220 = 2007 PTD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determining Value of Supply and Procedural Compliance\nKey Issues:\n•\nIncorrect valuation of supply due to exclusion of certain expenses.\nLegal Reasoning:\nAdjudicating officers must follow statutory procedures for valuation disputes, including open market price assessments or valuation committees.\nConclusion:\nThe order revising the value was set aside for non-compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),26,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-108 of 2000, decision dated: 17-10-2005, hearing DATE : 13-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Usman Sheikh AND Manzoor Hussain Memon, D.R. along with Zahid-ul-Baris", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 221 = 2007 SLD 221 = 2007 PTD 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Services Rendered in Manufacturing\nKey Issues:\n•\nDistinction between services and manufacturing for tax purposes.\nLegal Reasoning:\nServices involving the conversion of goods for principals do not equate to manufacturing taxable goods. Clarifications issued by the Central Board of Revenue must be followed.\nConclusion:\nThe appellate tribunal directed the department to reassess the case as per existing clarifications.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(16)(c),(31),(33),(46)(F),46,72 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-81 of 2001, decision dated: 1st October, 2005, hearing DATE : 20-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Usman Sheikh AND Habib Akhtar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 222 = 2007 SLD 222 = 2007 PTCL 281 = 2007 PTD 369 = (2007) 95 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions for Steel Re-rolling Units\nKey Issues:\n•\nPartial closure of production units and eligibility for exemption.\nLegal Reasoning:\nExemptions apply only to full factory closures, not partial unit closures. The term mill denotes an individual production unit, while factory includes the entire operation.\nConclusion:\nThe claim for exemption was denied as the factory never fully ceased operations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3(4),13(4),50 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-997 of 1996, decision dated: 24-11-2006, hearing DATE : 14-11-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner AND None presents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DADA STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 223 = 2007 SLD 223 = 2007 PTD 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Pre-cast Girders for Bridge Construction\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether pre-cast girders used in bridges qualify as taxable goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\nPre-cast girders specific to a bridge design are not marketable or movable goods, thus falling outside the scope of taxable supply.\nConclusion:\nThe department’s appeal for taxing pre-cast girders was dismissed.\nCitation:\n•\nSheikhu Sugar Mills v. Government of Pakistan, 2001 SCMR 1376", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(12),2(16),2(17)(e),2(33),13,SixthSched. ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 328/LB, 330/LB to 332/LB of 2000, decision dated: 8-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Mehmood-ul-Hassan, D.R. assisted by Pervaiz Alain, Auditors AND Syed Nasir Ali Shah Gilani", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 224 = 2007 SLD 224 = 2007 PTD 398 = (2007) 95 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Services Provided by Clubs\nKey Issues:\n•\nConstitutional validity of taxing club services.\nLegal Reasoning:\nProvincial legislatures can tax services under Art. 142(c) of the Constitution. Membership fees and subscriptions not tied to specific services are exempt.\nConclusion:\nThe levy of sales tax on club services was partially upheld, excluding non-service-related fees.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=246 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(20) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=70,199,142(c) Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=2(7) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1432, D-1433 of 2000, D-1861, D-1862 of 2001 and D-188 of 2002, decision dated: 7-10-2005, hearing DATE : 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Khalid Rahman and Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioners AND Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel, Raja Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Qasim Mirjat, A.A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "DEFENCE AUTHORITY CLUB, KARACHI and 5 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 304 = 2000 SLD 304 = 2000 PLC 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Premature Constitutional Petitions in Labor Disputes\nKey Issues:\n•\nFiling a constitutional petition before exhausting appellate remedies.\nLegal Reasoning:\nConstitutional petitions are inadmissible when alternate remedies, like appeals, are available.\nConclusion:\nThe petition was dismissed for bypassing statutory appeal procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=22D ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.27740 of 1997, heard on 15-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAYED NAJAM UL HASAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Riaz Ahmed for Petitioner. Muhammad Sahir Alis", + "Party Name:": "RAUF YOUSAF\nVs\nBAHADAR ALI, MEMBER, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATION COMMISSION, LAHORE BENCH, II EGERTON ROAD, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 305 = 2000 SLD 305 = 2000 PLC 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Labor Courts and Procedural Compliance\nKey Issues:\n•\nRaising jurisdictional objections and enforcing Standing Orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\nJurisdictional challenges and procedural compliance are critical at every stage of labor disputes. Oral dismissals without written orders violate Standing Orders.\nConclusion:\nThe labor court's decision was upheld, emphasizing procedural safeguards for employees.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=35,38,2(xxviii),25 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 808, 810, 812, 813 and 814 of 1995, decision dated: 19-11-1999, hearing DATE : 26-10-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED, JAMSHED ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Jaffar Hussain Jaffri for Petitioner. Munawar Ahmed Javeds", + "Party Name:": "MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GOJRA through Administrator\nVs\nMst. TASNEEM AKHTAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 225 = 2007 SLD 225 = 2007 PTD 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment for Machinery and Spare Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility of input tax adjustment for machinery and spare parts used in production.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGoods intended for production of taxable supplies, including spare parts adjunct to machinery, qualify for input tax adjustment under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nThe purpose of the goods, if aligned with producing taxable goods, makes input tax adjustment permissible.\nConclusion:\nTax paid on spare parts and machinery used for producing taxable supplies is deductible. Orders denying adjustment were overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(a),7(2)(i) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 1738 of 1999, decision dated: 14-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS.KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Jawaid Khurram AND Habib Akhter, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 226 = 2007 SLD 226 = 2007 PTD 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Recovery of Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nTime limitation and extension granted after expiry.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExtension of time after the expiry of limitation under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act is legally invalid.\n•\nExceptional circumstances for extension must be justified but were not in this case.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman annulled the Order-in-Original as time-barred and invalid due to maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(1),9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 541 of 2006, decision dated: 21st August, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (REID.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Manzoor Ahmad and A.R. for the Complainant AND Muhammad Azam, D.C. Sales Tax and D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SABIR DAUD EXPORTS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 227 = 2007 SLD 227 = 2007 PTD 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Export Refund Claims\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund rejection based on supplier’s non-availability.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-availability of a supplier alone does not justify rejection of refund claims.\n•\nInvestigation must specify the nature of non-availability. Arbitrary rejection violates due process.\nConclusion:\nOrder was set aside, and the refund claim was remanded for re-examination.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,10,33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T. 169/PB of 2006, decision dated: 31st October, 2006, hearing DATE : 9-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUMTAZ HAIDER RIZVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rauf Rohaila, Khalid Sultan; Managing Partner and Moeen-ud-Din, Accountant AND Syed Mir Gayas Ali Shah and Wasiullah, Senior Auditorss", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 228 = 2007 SLD 228 = 2007 PTD 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalty for Non-Payment of Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nWilful evasion and procedural compliance in show-cause notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAllegations of collusion or deliberate non-payment must be substantiated.\n•\nShow-cause notices must clearly articulate the grounds for additional tax and penalty.\nConclusion:\nPenalties were invalid due to lack of proof of wilful evasion or collusion. The order was modified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-171 of 2005, decision dated: 8-10-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Muhammad Alam AND Shafique Ahmed, Deputy Collectors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 229 = 2007 SLD 229 = 2007 PTD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Show-Cause Notices for Non-Payment of Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nDeficiencies in show-cause notices under S.36.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nShow-cause notices must specify the legal basis and reasons for allegations.\n•\nFailure to comply renders notices invalid and unlawful.\nConclusion:\nThe show-cause notice was declared invalid, and the order was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,14,22,23,36,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-267 of 2004, decision dated: 27-09-2005, hearing DATE : 13-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Lakhani AND Shakeel Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 230 = 2007 SLD 230 = 2007 PTD 459 = (2007) 95 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Abetment in Evasion of Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nGovernment agencies receiving supplies from unregistered vendors.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLack of knowledge about Cabinet Division directives absolved the appellant of deliberate intent to defraud.\n•\nExcessive penalties were deemed unnecessary given the circumstances.\nConclusion:\nPenalties were reduced to Rs. 50,000 per order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(5),46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos.2111, 2112, 2113/LB of 2002, decision dated: 10-05-2005, hearing DATE : 21st, April, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Hamad Aslam AND Zulqarnain, Deputy Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 231 = 2007 SLD 231 = 2007 PTD 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Proof of Tax Fraud\nKey Issues:\n•\nBurden of proof in cases of alleged tax fraud.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartment must establish fraud before shifting the burden to the taxpayer.\n•\nFailure to disclose evidence to the taxpayer invalidates the proceedings.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for a fresh trial after setting aside the impugned order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(37),40A,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-7 of 2005, decision dated: 1st October, 2005, hearing DATE : 20-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Sattar Silat AND Saeed Imam and Mujeeb Ahmed Nasir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 232 = 2007 SLD 232 = 2007 PTD 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Industrial Units under S.R.O. 561(I)/94\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of exemption claims post-1999.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnits qualifying under the SRO are entitled to exemption for five years from their operational start date.\n•\nNo evidence justified denial of exemption for the specified period.\nConclusion:\nExemption was upheld as valid for the contested period.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,13,23,26,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.Q-79 of 2001, decision dated: 4-10-2005, hearing DATE : 13-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Habib Akhtar, D.R. AND Memos", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 233 = 2007 SLD 233 = 2007 PTD 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Wrong Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nAuthority of CBR to prohibit input tax adjustment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCBR cannot prohibit adjustments unless explicitly notified under S.8.\n•\nActions against the appellant were baseless and ab initio wrong.\nConclusion:\nImpugned order was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(1),8(1)(b),33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-443 of 2000, decision dated: 30-09-2005, hearing DATE : 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Saleemul Haq Siddiqui, Consultant AND Manzoor Memon, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 234 = 2007 SLD 234 = 2007 PTD 550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Claim for Exemption on Supplies of Spare Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of exemptions under SROs.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemptions apply only to parts used as original equipment in manufacturing specified capital goods.\n•\nSupplies for maintenance purposes do not qualify.\nConclusion:\nThe appellant was not entitled to exemption for spare parts used for maintenance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 591 of 1998, decision dated: 7-06-2005, hearing DATE : 31st March, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER (JUDICIAL AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Pervez Iqbal Kansi, Consultant AND Sanaullah Suharwarthi, Dy. Supdt.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 235 = 2007 SLD 235 = 2007 PTD 1023 = (2005) 91 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Refunds Due to Blacklisted Suppliers\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund claims linked to transactions with blacklisted suppliers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHarassment of taxpayers for departmental failures in monitoring suppliers is unjust.\n•\nRefund claims backed by valid documentation must be processed.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended processing the refund claim and addressing maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,21(4) Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=9(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 499-K of 2004, decision dated: 2-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shoaib A. Faridi and Muhammad Aslam Shaikh for the Complainant AND S.M. Shoaib, Deputy Collector.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALLIED IMPEX\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 236 = 2007 SLD 236 = 2007 PTD 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Value of Supply under Promotion Schemes\nKey Issues:\n•\nQuantitative discounts not reflected in invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDiscounts must be explicitly stated in invoices to qualify for exemption from value of supply.\n•\nUnstated discounts in promotional schemes are taxable.\nConclusion:\nClaim for discount was denied, and sales tax liability was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46),3,7,33,34,47 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2002, decision dated: 16-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Sultan Tanvir AND A. Karim Malik for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TREAT CORPORATION\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 237 = 2007 SLD 237 = 2007 PTD 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Gas Bills\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-adherence to Board instructions on adjustments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax authorities must follow instructions under S.72 of the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nDeviations from binding instructions render demands void.\nConclusion:\nDemand for adjustments was invalid and set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,36,46,72 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. H-163 of 2005, decision dated: 7-10-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Riaz-ud-Din Shaikh AND Mumtaz Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 238 = 2007 SLD 238 = 2007 PTD 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Scrap Items\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of non-serviceable items like scrap.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nScrap generated during production is not a taxable supply.\n•\nTax liability arises only if items are intended for business activity.\nConclusion:\nSales tax on scrap was disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,2(33),3,34,36 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Old 7(310)AT/IB of 1999, New 101/ST/IB of 2005, decision dated: 26-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Zaheer Ahmed AND Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, Addl. Collector/D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 239 = 2007 SLD 239 = 2007 PTD 620", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Leased Goods and Insurance Proceeds\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether leased goods and insurance claims are taxable.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLeased goods do not constitute a sale and are not taxable.\n•\nInsurance proceeds do not qualify as taxable supplies.\nConclusion:\nTax demands on leased goods and insurance proceeds were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(12),(32),(33),(35),3,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-153 of 2000, decision dated: 16-09-2005, hearing DATE : 12-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghaffar AND Azam Nafees", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 240 = 2007 SLD 240 = 2007 PTD 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Refunds and Compensation\nKey Issues:\n•\nFailure to process compensation for delayed refunds.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnjustified delays in processing refund claims constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed resolution within 30 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-641-K of 2006, decision dated: 28-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Afral Awan for the Complainant AND Sajjad Rizvi Deputy Collector Sales Tax presents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SIDDIQSONS DENIM MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENNUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 241 = 2007 SLD 241 = 2007 PTD 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment for Raw Materials\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustment rights for raw materials under a changed tax regime.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPast transactions remain unaffected by changes in tax law.\n•\nAdjustments for raw materials purchased during the taxable period were valid.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment claims were allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(3),7,8,10,11,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-163 of 2004, decision dated: 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Adnan Ahmad Mufti, A.C.A. AND Manzoor Memon and Shafique Ahmad, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 555 = 2002 SLD 555 = 2002 PTD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration as Wholesaler for Maintaining Godown\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether manufacturers distributing goods qualify as wholesalers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSales by manufacturers do not constitute wholesale unless buying and selling are involved.\nConclusion:\nRegistration order was declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(31;A),19 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1169 of 1992, heard on 30-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasar Ahmad for Petitioner.. Khan Muhammad Virks", + "Party Name:": "OLYMPIA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & SALES TAX; SHEIKHUPURA DIVISION, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 242 = 2007 SLD 242 = 2007 PTCL 448 = 2007 PTD 663 = (2007) 95 TAX 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Genuineness of Tax Invoices for Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nDisputed invoices and High Court jurisdiction.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGenuineness of invoices is a factual issue, not a legal one.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as it did not raise a legal question.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.22 of 2006, decision dated: 18-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ITTEHAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 243 = 2007 SLD 243 = 2007 PTCL 650 = 2007 PTD 749 = (2007) 95 TAX 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Wires and Cables\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether wires and cables qualify as stock-in-trade.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nItems not directly used in manufacturing taxable goods do not qualify as stock-in-trade.\nConclusion:\nInput tax adjustment was disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,7,8 ", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No.7 of 2002, decision dated: 30-11-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): EJAZ AFZAL KHAN AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Isacc Ali Qazi AND Behlol Khattak.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SYNTRONICS LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HATTAR\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJ) CUSTOMS, CE & SALES TAX PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 244 = 2007 SLD 244 = 2007 PTD 763", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Sales Tax Violations and Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nLimitation, trade discounts, and input claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nViolations of S.73 were absolute and non-condonable.\n•\nTrade discounts not explicitly stated in invoices are taxable.\n•\nInput claims for items not used in production are invalid.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld penalties for violations while providing limited relief.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,73,2(46),8(I)(b),8,3 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.1207/LB of 2003, decision dated: 6-03-2006, hearing DATE : 14-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mudassar Shuja AND Khalid Mehmood D.R. assisted by Abdul Khaliq, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 245 = 2007 SLD 245 = 2007 PTD 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Supply of Food and Statutory Interpretation\nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification of food supply as goods or services.\n•\nApplicability of sales tax under statutory and procedural provisions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSupply of food by restaurants is treated as goods under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and is taxable.\n•\nExemptions under S.13 do not extend to food items prepared and supplied by restaurants.\n•\nAdjudicating Officers' jurisdiction is valid as per S.30 and S.45, despite procedural challenges.\n•\nPrinciples of statutory interpretation distinguish mandatory and directory provisions.\nConclusion:\nFood supplies are taxable goods, and procedural objections to Adjudicating Officers' authority were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),2(12)(16),13,2(41),3,,6,11(2),26,33,34,36 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=254,FourthSched.,SerialNos.44,49 ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 1541ST/IB of 2005 and 155/ST/IB of 2005, decision dated: 28-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Ahmad Ali AND Dr. Naeem Ijaz Qureshi, Additional Collector/Departmental Representative (D.R.)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 246 = 2007 SLD 246 = 2007 PTD 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability on Imported Goods and Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nPost-exemption taxation on imported goods.\n•\nRights of registered persons to input tax adjustments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGoods imported before 1-1-1998 are exempt, but sales tax is payable for supplies after the exemption period ends.\n•\nRegistered persons can deduct input tax paid on goods used for taxable supplies under S.7 and S.8.\nConclusion:\nSales tax liability was recalculated to reflect proper input tax adjustments. Appeal was partially allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,.6,26,36(3),45,7(1),8(1)(a),7,8 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 231/STAB of 2005, decision dated: 5-01-2006, hearing DATE : 15-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PIR MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Riffat Hussain Malik AND Dr. Naeem Khan, Addl. Collector/D.R. and Zahid-ur-Rehman, Sr. Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 247 = 2007 SLD 247 = 2007 PTD 921 = (2007) 95 TAX 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Claims on Food Products\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption under Sixth Schedule of Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nImpact of Central Board of Revenue’s clarifications.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption granted based on CBR’s clarification was valid until explicitly revoked or modified by statutory amendments.\n•\nRetrospective reopening of cases based on auditor opinions was deemed improper.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision to uphold exemptions based on CBR’s clarification was affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,SixthSched.VI,(3)(iv),32(2),36(2),47,55,65,72 ", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 260 to 263 of 2002, decision dated: 10-01-2007, hearing DATE : 4-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik AND Nasar Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE\nvs\nNESTLE MILK PACK LIMITED, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 248 = 2007 SLD 248 = 2007 PTD 979", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Review of Sales Estimation Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegitimacy of sales estimates in show-cause notices.\n•\nRole of Federal Tax Ombudsman in reviewing adjudication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman cannot enforce estimation methods but ensures fairness in adjudication.\n•\nDiscrepancies in estimation methods are for Assessing Officers to address during assessment.\nConclusion:\nReview application rejected; complainant directed to present rebuttals during assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=11 ", + "Case #": "Review No. 30 of 2004 in Review No. 195 of 2003 in Complaint No.1013-L of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Shahid Umar Khan for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAROOQ FURNITURE, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 249 = 2007 SLD 249 = 2007 PTD 1037", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Refund Claims\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery of refunds based on fake invoices.\n•\nBurden of proof in tax fraud cases.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds based on fake invoices are impermissible regardless of amendments under Finance Act, 2004.\n•\nClaimants failed to prove genuine transactions, justifying recovery actions.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld recovery of refunds and penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(37),4,7(2)(i),8(1)(b)(d),10,33(4),34,36 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos.470-473/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-02-2006, hearing DATE : 4-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli AND Saleem Akhtar, Superintendents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 250 = 2007 SLD 250 = 2007 PTD 1065", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting of Units Without Due Process\nKey Issues:\n•\nArbitrary blacklisting of registered units.\n•\nViolation of procedural fairness under S.21(4) of Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBlacklisting without notice or hearing constitutes maladministration.\n•\nDue process and opportunity to contest allegations are mandatory.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed cancellation of blacklisting and remedial actions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-295-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mr. Zakari Hussain, Proprietor, S.M. Imran Saleem, Authorized Representative of Osmani and Afzal Associates for the Complainant AND. Shahab Imam, Assistant Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WEAVING AND WEAVING, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 251 = 2007 SLD 251 = 2007 PTD 1069", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Exchange Rate Differences and Fixed Assets\nKey Issues:\n•\nInclusion of exchange rate fluctuations in taxable value.\n•\nTaxation of fixed assets without proof of input tax adjustments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExchange rate differences are part of supply value if realized after supply date.\n•\nTax on fixed assets without proper adjustment claims amounts to double taxation.\nConclusion:\nTax on fixed assets was annulled; exchange rate tax liability remanded for determination.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=32,2(46)(a),3,6,32A ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.120/ST/IB of 2004, decision dated: 30-01-2006, hearing DATE : 12-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Farukh Jawad Panni AND Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, Additional Collector/D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 252 = 2007 SLD 252 = 2007 PTD 1099", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjudication and Show-Cause Notice Limitations\nKey Issues:\n•\nProcedural deficiencies in adjudication.\n•\nTime-barred show-cause notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSummary dismissal of evidence and procedural lapses indicate maladministration.\n•\nCases require proper adjudication with opportunities for defense.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended re-adjudication by a competent officer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=36,36(3),38,40A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1607 of 2003, decision dated: 27-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Ahmed for the Complainants AND Javed Sarwar, Assistant Collector of Sales Tax AND Mamoon Muazzam Khuhawar, Deputy Collector (Adjudication) AND Noor-ud-Din Ahmad, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "Messrs A.G. WORKS\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 253 = 2007 SLD 253 = 2007 PTD 1141 = (2004) 90 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disposal of Fixed Assets and Tax Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nLiability for sales tax on disposal of fixed assets.\n•\nCompetence and procedural fairness in tax administration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDisposals not in furtherance of business are not taxable supplies.\n•\nIncompetent handling of audits and maladministration were evident.\nConclusion:\nAdjudication proceedings were directed for proper conclusion, and auditors were recommended for remedial training.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,33,36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),2(3)(ii),2(3)(i)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 329-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Danish Zuberi and Ms. Umera Ali Barristers for the Complainant AND Abdul Hameed Memon", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 345 = 1997 SLD 345 = (1996) 76 TAX 242 = 2007 PTD 1161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Sales Tax Interpretation\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplication of the doctrine of exhaustion in invoking High Court jurisdiction under Article 199.\n•\nInterpretation of fiscal statutes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe doctrine of exhaustion regulates but does not bar High Court jurisdiction. If an order is unjust or beyond jurisdiction, the court can intervene.\n•\nFiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly; exemptions and obligations under Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) require precision.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court jurisdiction is applicable even when statutory remedies are available if an act is deemed wholly unjust or unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3,2(41) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.15851 of 1996, decision dated: 16-09-1997. dates of hearing: 18th, 23rd June and 1st July, 1997", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner AND Sheikh Izhar-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "DAWOOD HERCULES\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 254 = 2007 SLD 254 = 2007 PTD 1271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deferred Refund and Administrative Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDeferment of tax refunds without show-cause notice.\n•\nAdjustment of refunds against unrelated liabilities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds cannot be arbitrarily deferred or adjusted without due process.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended a resolution within specified timelines, ensuring procedural fairness.\nConclusion:\nArbitrary actions in refund adjustments were deemed maladministration, and corrective measures were directed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),22 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-815-K of 2006, decision dated: 27-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Iqbal for the Complainant AND Amin Dangra, Manager AND Shafique Ahmad, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LATIF FIBERS, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 255 = 2007 SLD 255 = 2007 PTD 1274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Refunds Without Adjudication\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of adjusting sanctioned refunds against audit findings without proper adjudication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAudit findings alone cannot justify adjustments; a show-cause notice and adjudication are mandatory.\n•\nActions by tax authorities were held arbitrary and constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nRefund adjustments were voided, and due process was recommended for determining liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=48,36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1570 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd January, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi for the Complainant AND Jawwad Zafar Malik, A.C., Sales Tax, Gujranwalas", + "Party Name:": "Messrs A.N. TRADERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 256 = 2007 SLD 256 = 2007 PTD 1282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Adjudication\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjudication orders passed beyond statutory time limits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders passed after statutory deadlines are void.\n•\nMaladministration includes delays and neglect in the discharge of duties.\nConclusion:\nOrders found time-barred were annulled, and fresh proceedings were recommended under applicable laws.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),36(3),45A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.645-L of 2006, decision dated: 2-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi for the Complainant AND Muteen Alam, A.C. Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S. J. INDUSTRIES, CHICHAWATNI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 257 = 2007 SLD 257 = 2007 PTD 1317 = (2008) 98 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Extension for Recovery of Taxes\nKey Issues:\n•\nInvalid extension of time for adjudication beyond the statutory limit.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExtensions require justification under exceptional circumstances. Arbitrary extensions are unlawful.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman confirmed maladministration and directed annulment of void orders.\nConclusion:\nExtensions granted without valid reasons were void, and corrective steps were directed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36(3),73 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=254 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.612 of 2006, decision dated: 15-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Ishaq Khan for the Complainant AND Muteen Alam A.C. Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs A.K. INTERNATIONAL, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 258 = 2007 SLD 258 = 2007 PTD 1329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misclassification in Registration and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nErroneous registration of a taxpayer as a wholesaler instead of a retailer.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAuthorities must reexamine the classification and ensure consistency in treatment across similar cases.\n•\nDenial of procedural fairness was classified as maladministration.\nConclusion:\nCase was remanded for reclassification and fair adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19,73,66,7,Preamble Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1622-L of 2003, decision dated: 31st January, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Aslam Babar and Iqtidar Alam for the Complainant AND Shafqat Hayat, D.C. (Adjudication)s.", + "Party Name:": "NEW HOME AND LIFE, HUSSAIN AGHA ROAD, MULTAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 259 = 2007 SLD 259 = 2007 PTD 1337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Taxes and Extension of Limitation\nKey Issues:\n•\nInvalid recovery of taxes due to time-barred adjudication orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nArbitrary extensions of time by tax authorities were unlawful.\n•\nProcedural delays and inefficiencies constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nTime-barred orders were voided, and proceedings were directed under statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36(3),73 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=254 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.558 of 2006, decision dated: 27-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Saqib Siddeeq I.T.P. and A.R. for Complainant AND Zulfiqar Hussain Khan D.C. Sales Tax and D.R..", + "Party Name:": "Messrs A.K. INTERNATIONAL, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 260 = 2007 SLD 260 = 2007 PTD 1351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Searches Without Warrants\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of searches conducted without obtaining warrants under S.40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSearches require reasonable cause and warrants. Actions taken without meeting these requirements are unlawful.\n•\nHigh Court and Supreme Court affirmed that such actions violated established law.\nConclusion:\nSearches were deemed unlawful, and appeals were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,38A,40&40A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.As. Nos. 535 and 536 of 2006, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Chaudhry Saghir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners AND Nemos", + "Party Name:": "CAHIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others\nvs\nMessrs HAQ COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD., BUREWALA\nC.P.L.A. NO.536 OF 2006\nCAHIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others\nvs\nMessrs ALFAZAL COTTON INDUSTRIES, BUREWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 261 = 2007 SLD 261 = 2007 PTD 1356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cancellation of Survey Certificates Without Notice\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of procedural fairness in canceling survey certificates.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdverse actions without notice or opportunity to respond violate principles of natural justice.\n•\nMaladministration was evident in arbitrary cancellations.\nConclusion:\nOrders were voided, and reexamination with due process was recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-741-K of 2006, decision dated: 17-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Afzal Awan, Advocate. Imran Javed, Consultant AND Imran Iqbal AND Muhammad Irfan, Importer, Wahid Bux Shaikh, Assistant Collector of Sales Tax AND Rizwan Ali Khan, Deputy Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW SOURCE ELECTRONICS COMPANY through Messrs Awan Law Associates\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 262 = 2007 SLD 262 = 2007 PTD 1361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Wastage and Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nDisallowance of claimed wastage and penalties for input tax adjustments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjudication on wastage and input tax must align with established rulings and documentation.\n•\nPenalties were upheld where procedural violations were clear.\nConclusion:\nCase was partially resolved, and adjustments were recalculated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,3(1),33(2)(cc),34,10,13,SixthSched ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 23/ST/IB of 2004, decision dated: 31st January, 2006, hearing DATE : 15-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SYED SULTAN AHMAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Ali AND Dr. Naeem Khan, Additional Collector/D.R. along with Zahid-ur-Rehman, Sr. Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 263 = 2007 SLD 263 = 2007 PTD 1394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Sales Tax on Supplies\nKey Issues:\n•\nSales to government agencies versus contractors for tax liabilities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSupply records must establish whether sales were to non-taxable government agencies or taxable contractors.\n•\nAmbiguities led to remand for further investigation.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for de novo adjudication after fact verification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1A),2(44),33,34,7(1),66,25,38,32A(3),32A ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 121/ST/IB of 2004, decision dated: 13-02-2006, hearing DATE : 12-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Farukh Jawad Pannl AND Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, Addl. Collector/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 264 = 2007 SLD 264 = 2007 PTD 1418 = 2008 PTCL 173 = (2007) 96 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Filing Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nAppeals filed beyond prescribed time limits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelays caused by administrative inefficiencies cannot penalize the opposing party.\n•\nAppeals hopelessly barred by time cannot be entertained.\nConclusion:\nAppeals were dismissed due to time-bar violations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "S. Sales Tax A. No. 620 of 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shakeel Ahmed AND Moula Bux Khoso.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE\nvs\nEVIAN FATS AND OIL (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 265 = 2007 SLD 265 = 2007 PTD 1420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund rejection due to alleged fake invoices and ex parte adjudication.\n•\nNon-service of show-cause notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nClaims cannot be rejected solely on suspicion; the validity of invoices and transactions must be examined.\n•\nMaladministration established in rejecting claims without due process.\nConclusion:\nRefund adjudication was directed to be re-examined with procedural fairness, including verification of transactions and hearing the complainants.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)7,9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-88-K of 2004, decision dated: 15-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaq Khan, FCA, for the Complainant. AND Dr. S.M. Shoaib, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.F. TRADERS\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 266 = 2007 SLD 266 = 2007 PTD 1433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Delay in Issuing Certificates\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelay in issuing installation-cum-production certificates.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNeglect and inefficiency by the tax department in issuing the required certificates constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended issuing an unconditional certificate to address delays and inefficiency.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=13 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-130-K of 2004, decision dated: 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Noor Badshah for the Complainants AND Mumtaz Ali, Manager Finance AND Dr. Sarmad Qureshi, Deputy Collector of Customs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEHRAN OIL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 267 = 2007 SLD 267 = 2007 PTD 1447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Extension of Time Limits\nKey Issues:\n•\nInvalid extension of time for adjudication beyond statutory limits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExtensions require justification under exceptional circumstances. Arbitrary extensions are void.\n•\nMaladministration was evident in the lack of valid reasoning.\nConclusion:\nTime-barred orders were annulled, and cases were directed for resolution per statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,secondproviso,36(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=254 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 561 of 2006, decision dated: 21st, August, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Pervez A.R. for the Complainant AND Muhammad Azam D.C. Sales Tax and D.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs STAR TEXTILE MILLS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 268 = 2007 SLD 268 = 2007 PTD 1490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Supply Value\nKey Issues:\n•\nArbitrary fixing of value addition percentages.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo provision in the Sales Tax Act allows the department to impose arbitrary value addition percentages.\n•\nTaxpayer’s claims were upheld in the absence of evidence to justify higher value additions.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was accepted, and arbitrary assessments were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,2(46)(d),33(2)(cc),33(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. STA 255/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st, December, 2006, hearing DATE : 11-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFARUL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Iyaz Ahmad, C.A. AND Khalid Mehmood, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 269 = 2007 SLD 269 = 2007 PTD 1495 = 2008 PTCL 13 = (2007) 96 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplication of ADR to cases involving tax liabilities and criminal charges.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nADR is applicable to civil tax disputes but not to cases involving criminal charges.\nConclusion:\nReferences to ADR committees for cases involving criminal liability were declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36D Customs Act, 1969=195 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 867 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J (ON APPEAL FROM THE, JUDGMENT, DATED 19-7-2006 PASSED BY LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH IN WRIT PETITION NO.3559 OF . 2004)", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court, Mehr Khali Malik, Advocate-on-Record and Mumtaz Ahmad, Member Legal, C.B.R. for Petitioners AND Tariq Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nvs\nATTOCK PETROLEUM LTD., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 270 = 2007 SLD 270 = 2007 PTD 1524 = 2008 PTCL 166 = (2007) 96 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Use of Materials in Production\nKey Issues:\n•\nLiability to pay sales tax on materials used for in-house production.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nMaterials like limestone, gypsum, and clay used in manufacturing are taxable supplies under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nConclusion:\nTax liability was upheld for materials used in production, even when consumed in-house.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,22,23,26,SixthSched.,2(33)(a)(35)(39)(41),3,13 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-544 of 1999 and 566 of 2000, 6-04-2007, hearing DATE : 24-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J. AND RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFRI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Farogh Naseem assisted by Sardar Aijaz, Danish Shah, Miss Puja Kalapna and Miss Farkhanda Jabeen for Petitioners AND Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Syed Khalid Shah, Raja Muhammad Iqbal and Faisal Arab, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK LAND CEMENT LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD through Chairman, Karachi and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 271 = 2007 SLD 271 = 2007 PTD 1574 = (2007) 95 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax and Amnesty\nKey Issues:\n•\nAmnesty applicability for unpaid taxes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe department’s objection to amnesty application was invalid since the case did not involve intentional evasion.\nConclusion:\nAmnesty benefits were allowed, and penalties were dropped.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,22,3A ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1430/LB of 2005, decision dated: 23rd December, 2006, hearing DATE : 11-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik M. Arshad AND Khalid Mehmood, D.R. and M. Asif, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 272 = 2007 SLD 272 = 2007 PTD 1605 = 2007 SCMR 1131 = 2008 PTCL 40 = (2007) 96 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Taxation\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of withdrawn exemptions to imports made under open Letters of Credit.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax liabilities are determined based on the date of Bill of Entry submission, even if exemptions were withdrawn later.\nConclusion:\nSales tax liability on imported goods was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.13 of 2004, decision dated: 9-02-2007. dates of hearing: 7th and 9-02-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja M. Irshad, D.A.G. and Mumtaz Ahmad Sheikh, Member (Legal) C.B.R.s AND Nemos", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and another\nvs\nDEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 105 = 1982 SLD 105 = 1982 SCMR 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Evidence Reappraisal in Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of evidence reappraisal during leave to appeal proceedings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nReappraisal of evidence is not permissible in leave to appeal proceedings unless there is a violation of legal principles.\nConclusion:\nAppeal was dismissed, affirming the original findings of fact.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No. 481 of 1980, decision dated: 19-10-1981. (Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9-7-1980 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1979 and Murder Reference No. 87 of 1979)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND M. S. H. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "LIAQUAT ALI\nVs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 273 = 2007 SLD 273 = 2007 PTD 1751 = (2007) 95 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Penalty Waivers\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption applicability to distributors versus retailers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDistributors cannot claim exemptions meant for retailers.\n•\nAdditional tax and penalties were waived in cases of legal interpretation disputes.\nConclusion:\nPenalties were remitted, and liability assessments were modified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1)&SixthSched.,3(1A),33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 653/LB to 678/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd December, 2006, hearing DATE : 20-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Raza Qureshi and Hassan Naveeds AND Khalid Mahmood, D.R. and Dr. Faisal Bukhari D.C.S.T.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 274 = 2007 SLD 274 = 2007 PTD 1775 = (2007) 95 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nDemand for sales tax on disposal of fixed assets.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax liability does not arise on assets where no input tax adjustment was claimed.\nConclusion:\nTax and penalties on fixed asset disposal were remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(41),34A,34,33,8 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 527/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd December, 2006, hearing DATE : 12-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Ayaz, C.A./A.R. AND Khalid Mahmud, D.R. and Pervez Alam, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 275 = 2007 SLD 275 = 2007 PTD 1853 = (2007) 95 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Evasion and Production Profiles\nKey Issues:\n•\nAssessment based on production profile formulas.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUse of production profiles is permissible if assessments are logical and evidence-based.\nConclusion:\nAppeals against tax assessments were rejected due to sound reasoning and methodology.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 467/LB, 468/LB, 481/LB to 484/LB, 728/LB and 729/LB of 2003, decision dated: 29-08-2005. dates of hearing: 11th and 13-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizamis AND Abdul Nasir, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 276 = 2007 SLD 276 = 2007 PTCL 498 = 2007 PTD 1895 = (2007) 96 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nSeparation of executive and adjudication powers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRevisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by executive authorities over adjudicative decisions.\nConclusion:\nImpugned orders were declared unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=195 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6846 of 2006, heard on 14-03-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioners AND Ms. Munaza Shaheens", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW AMMAUR INDUSTRIES through Proprietor\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman C.B.R./Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 277 = 2007 SLD 277 = 2007 PTD 1969 = (2007) 96 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petitions and Tax Refunds\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction of High Court in revenue matters.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction is limited to cases of lack of jurisdiction or violation of law.\nConclusion:\nPetition was dismissed as statutory remedies were available.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=72,46(5),47,11,36,46(5),47,66 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=4,11 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13050 of 2006, decision dated: 9-05-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner AND A. Karim Malik and Izharul Haque for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GOBAL TELECOM (PVT.) LTD. through Duly Authorized Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 278 = 2007 SLD 278 = 2007 PTD 1982", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deferred Refund Claims\nKey Issues:\n•\nWithholding refunds due to blacklisted suppliers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds cannot be withheld without valid reasons or procedural fairness.\nConclusion:\nRefunds were directed to be processed with compensation for delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10.21(4),73 Customs Act, 1969=25(15) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-526-K of 2004, decision dated: 3rd January, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Ahmad Mirza Consultant for Petitioner AND S.M. Shoaib Deputy Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INNOVATIVE IMPEX through Nadeem & Co., Karachi\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 279 = 2007 SLD 279 = 2007 PTD 2014 = (2005) 91 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Superior Court Precedents\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefunds based on judicial precedents.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSuperior court rulings must be followed unless overturned.\n•\nRefund claims were subject to adjudication and final orders.\nConclusion:\nProceedings were expedited, and refunds were directed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,66,34A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1610 of 2003, decision dated: 12-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser AND Saeed N. Cheema for the Complainant AND Muhammad Tahir, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax, Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs J.K. BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 280 = 2007 SLD 280 = 2007 PTD 2098 = (2007) 95 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Further Tax and Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nFurther tax on supplies to unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFurther tax is distinct from general exemptions and must be levied accordingly.\nConclusion:\nTax liabilities and penalties were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1A),13,8(1)(a),7 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.30/LB of 2003, decision dated: 3rd September, 2005, hearing DATE : 20-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Ahsan AND Jamshed Yousaf, S.T.O.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 281 = 2007 SLD 281 = 2007 PTD 2162 = (2007) 96 TAX 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal and Judgment Requirements\nKey Issues:\n•\nProcedural irregularities in judgment dating.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFailure to date a judgment can prejudice appeal timelines.\nConclusion:\nJudgment was set aside, and the appeal was deemed pending.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XX,R.3,OXLI,R.31,OXX,R.3, ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.21-S of 2000, decision dated: 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munawar Iqbal Duggal AND Amna Warsis.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LION STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD, through Chief Executive\nvs\nCHAIRMAN , LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 282 = 2007 SLD 282 = 2007 PTD 2218 = (2007) 95 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud and Fake Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nInput tax claims based on fake invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjustments against fake invoices constitute tax fraud.\n•\nNotices and adjudication must meet statutory requirements.\nConclusion:\nAppeals against recovery were dismissed, confirming fraudulence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.646/LB of 2004, decision dated: 20-11-2006, hearing DATE : 14-11-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo AND Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, D.R. and Saleem Akhtar Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 312 = 2006 SLD 312 = 2006 PTCL 389 = 2007 PTD 728", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Refund and Additional Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdditional tax and penalties imposed for incorrect refund adjustment.\n•\nShow-cause notice issued without proper statutory basis.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment is a substantive taxpayer right.\n•\nWithholding refunds or issuing demands without referencing the relevant sections (10 & 36) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 renders the notices void.\nConclusion:\nThe appellate tribunal declared the show-cause notice and subsequent orders illegal, accepting the appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=67,4,33(2)(cc),10(3),3(3)(a),36,10 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(153)ST/IB/2003 and Old No.7(88)ST/IB/2002, decision dated: 31st May, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SYED SULTAN AHMAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi AND Irfan-ur-Rehman, Deputy Collector/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 313 = 2006 SLD 313 = 2006 PTD 98 = (2005) 92 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Weight Loss in Cotton Seed\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax imposed due to weight loss from moisture evaporation.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nWeight loss due to environmental factors was accepted by the tribunal as natural and inevitable.\n•\nAppellant's declared yield exceeded the permissible range, demonstrating compliance.\nConclusion:\nThe appellate tribunal set aside the tax demand and penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,11,11(4),33,34,36,46 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=Preamble ", + "Case #": "Appeal S.T.A. No. 676/LB of 2004, decision dated: 28-05-2005, hearing DATE : 22-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Mirza Waheed and Miss Sidra Khalid\nRespondent(s) by: Ahmad Raza Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 314 = 2006 SLD 314 = 2006 PTCL 20 = 2006 PTD 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concessionary Payments and Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nConcession under SRO 1349(1)/99 and right to appeal.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAvailing concession does not preclude adjudication of merits in appeals.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court remanded the case for merit-based adjudication by the tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1) ", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No. 27 of 2004, decision dated: 17-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J. AND IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaac Ali Qazi AND Syed Muhammad Attique Shahs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUHAIL JUTE MILLS LTD., NOWSHERA\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 315 = 2006 SLD 315 = 2006 PTD 146 = (2006) 93 TAX 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Orders and Reasoning\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal order lacked reasoning, violating General Clauses Act, 1897.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nJudicial orders must provide reasoning for sustainability.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded to the tribunal for a speaking order with adequate reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Appeal No. 205 of 2003, decision dated: 29-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal\nRespondent(s) by: Abdul Raheem Lakhani", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KARACHIIII\nVS\nMUDASSIR TRADERS KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 316 = 2006 SLD 316 = 2006 PTCL 1 = 2006 PTD 162 = (2006) 93 TAX 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Supply and Specific Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of custom-made girders used in bridge construction.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGoods not marketable and used exclusively for a project are not taxable supplies.\nConclusion:\nTax demand was annulled as the girders did not qualify as goods under the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(12),(14),(33),(34),(41),3(3),2(35),2(41) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 477 of 2002, heard on 21st July, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar AND Ch. Sagir Ahmad, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARWAR & CO. (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 317 = 2006 SLD 317 = 2006 PTD 310 = (2006) 94 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advisory Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of High Court's advisory jurisdiction in sales tax matters.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nIssues not raised before the appellate tribunal cannot be entertained by the High Court.\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed due to non-raising of issues before the tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47,47(1) ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 23 of 1994, decision dated: 22-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Aziz A. Shaikh and Khurram Aziz Shaikh\nRespondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "TOWELLERS LTD. through Chief Operating Officer\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Represented by Member Sales Tax Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 318 = 2006 SLD 318 = 2006 PTD 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation Committee\nKey Issues:\n•\nRetrospective application of valuation procedures.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nProcedural amendments apply to pending cases without prejudice to substantive rights.\nConclusion:\nTribunal's directions for valuation committee assessment were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(e),46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.6-S of 1999, decision dated: 4-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX-II, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs B.O.C. PAKISTAN LIMITED, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 319 = 2006 SLD 319 = 2006 PTD 336 = (2006) 93 TAX 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty for Delayed Tax Payments\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility for amnesty under SRO 575(I)/98.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTaxpayer having paid principal tax qualifies for amnesty, exempting additional tax and penalties.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court accepted the appeal, granting amnesty.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,22,23,26,33,33(4),34 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 164-S of 1999, decision dated: 9-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE \nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Altaf-ur-Rehman Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Sultan Mahmood with Izhar-ul-Haq", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHEIKH WAHIDUDDIN INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SALE TAX II and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 222 = 2005 SLD 222 = 2005 PTCL 836 = 2005 PTD 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Assessment Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nAssessment order passed beyond statutory time limits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders passed after statutory timelines are void.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended cancellation of the order-in-original.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,22 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.805 of 2003, decision dated: 2-08-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Faraz Fazal Sheikh, ITP AND Amir Rasheed, D.C.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PACE INTERNATIONAL, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 320 = 2006 SLD 320 = 2006 PTD 397 = (2006) 93 TAX 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalty\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal failed to address penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenalties depend on whether default was willful or unintentional.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court remanded the case to the tribunal for adjudication on penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(44),33,34,46,47 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 12 of 2004, decision dated: 27-10-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nYASMEEN ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Respondent(s) by: Ms. Danish Zuberi\nPetitioner(s) by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED\nVS\nCOLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION) CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 556 = 2002 SLD 556 = 2002 PTD 2077 = (2002) 85 TAX 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Self-Consumption\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of goods used internally by WAPDA.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInternal consumption not linked to business activity is not taxable.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court annulled the tax demand on self-consumption.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=Preamble,2(22)(41),3,6,14,15,22,23,26,34,35,39,41 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,FourthSched ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6147 of 1994, decision dated: 4-02-2002, hearing DATE : 14-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioners. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and another\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 321 = 2006 SLD 321 = 2006 PTD 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Further Tax on Sales to Unregistered Persons\nKey Issues:\n•\nImposition of further tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLegal provisions allowing further tax were valid.\nConclusion:\nChallenge to the further tax imposition was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=5,3 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3 ", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.275 in W. P. No.8329 of 1999, heard on 14-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND SH. HAKIM ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana AND Ch. Sagheer Ahmad, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Revenue & Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 322 = 2006 SLD 322 = 2006 PTD 494 = (2006) 94 TAX 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Seizures and Audits\nKey Issues:\n•\nSeizure of records without due process.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nActions without statutory compliance are unlawful.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court struck down illegal actions and directed the return of seized records.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,37,37A,38,40,40A Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=96,97,98,99,100,101,102 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.10909 of 2005, decision dated: 29-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Saleem for Petitioner AND Sarfraz Ahmad Cheemas", + "Party Name:": "A.R.K. TEXTILES through Proprietor\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 677 = 1999 SLD 677 = 1999 PTD 4126 = 2000 PTCL 356 = (2000) 81 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Set-Up Industries\nKey Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of set-up for sales tax exemption.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTrial production constitutes set-up, making petitioner ineligible for exemption.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court upheld the denial of exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)=2(2),9 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions No.s 1122 and 1189 of 1995 decided on 18-02-1999, hearing DATE : 16-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND MRS. KHALIDA RASHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.M.A. Samdani for Petitioner. Shahzad Akbar Khan, Dy. A.G. assisted by Abdur Rauf Rohailas", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FRONTIER CERAMICS\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 271 = 2008 SLD 271 = 2008 PTD 2025 = 2009 PTCL 35 = (2009) 99 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Recovery of Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery orders issued after statutory limitation periods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders violating limitation provisions are void.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court nullified the recovery orders.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34(1),36(3),3,41,35,33,47,37 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Application No.5 of 2008, decision dated: 28-07-2008, hearing DATE : 24-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND DR. SAJID QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Petitioners Zahid Idrees Muftis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ABBASI ENTERPRISES through Proprietor and another\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, PESHAWAR through Collector and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 323 = 2006 SLD 323 = 2006 PTD 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Dismissed Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelay in restoration applications.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnjustified delays in restoration applications cannot be condoned.\nConclusion:\nRestoration request was dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.19 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 40 of 2004, decision dated: 22-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Atiq-ur-Rehman and Ahmed Khan Bugti AND Raja Muhammad Iqbals.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ADNAN TRADING CO., KARACHI\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, BENCHI, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 324 = 2006 SLD 324 = 2006 PTD 515 = (2006) 93 TAX 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ambiguity in Fiscal Laws\nKey Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of additional tax rates.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAmbiguities in fiscal statutes must favor taxpayers.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court declared recovery notices void.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,34(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 658 of 2005, decision dated: 15-12-2005, hearing DATE : 6-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Salman Akram Raja\nRespondent(s) by: Dr. Sohail Akhtar", + "Party Name:": "M/S SARGODHA JUTE MILLS LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-II, (ADJUDICATION), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 557 = 2002 SLD 557 = 2002 PTD 2346 = (2003) 87 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration Delays\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaladministration in issuing sales tax registration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nMinor deficiencies should not delay registrations.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman recommended expeditious registration reforms.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=15,17 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 149-K of 2001, decision dated: 8-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAISAL ENGINEERING, F. B. AREA. KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 325 = 2006 SLD 325 = 2006 PTCL 359 = 2006 PTD 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty Scheme for Tax Evasion\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility for amnesty benefits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-compliance with amnesty conditions forfeits benefits.\nConclusion:\nAppellant's liability was recalculated at lower rates; penalties were remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal S.T.A. No. 1038/LB of 2000, decision dated: 24-12-2004, hearing DATE : 7-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Jamil Hussain AND Ahmad Raza Khan, D.R. assisted by Naseer Iqbal and Waqas Qureshi, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 326 = 2006 SLD 326 = 2006 PTD 535 = (2006) 94 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Expiry of Injunctions\nKey Issues:\n•\nExpiration of tribunal injunctions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAccess to justice ensures grievances are addressed without undue coercion.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court stayed recovery during appeal adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.19173 of 2005, decision dated: 20-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Kamal Qazi for Petitioner AND Kausar Akhter.", + "Party Name:": "SUNRISE BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 327 = 2006 SLD 327 = 2006 PTCL 373 = 2006 PTD 537 = (2006) 93 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery orders issued after statutory deadlines.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRecovery outside limitation period is void.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court annulled the recovery demands.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.387-K of 2004, decision dated: 12-07-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner AND Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs K & A INDUSTRIES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 264 = 2004 SLD 264 = 2004 PTD 1829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Refunds and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nUnjustified delays in processing refunds.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelays in refunds without valid justification constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended expeditious processing and compensation for delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(1),67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 86 of 2003, decision dated: 13-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Amanullah Khan, F.C.A. G.M. Finance and Tahir Razaq Khan, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, Deputy Collector Sales Tax and Muhammad Ishtiaq, Law Officer for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAH NOBEL ACETATES LTD., WAH CANTT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 328 = 2006 SLD 328 = 2006 PTCL 209 = 2006 PTD 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Additional Tax and Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustments of input tax against exempt supplies, deductions for inadmissible items, and personal penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjustments made inadvertently without intent to evade tax justify remission of additional tax and penalties.\n•\nSales tax on fixed assets was unjustified as established by prior High Court and Appellate Tribunal decisions.\n•\nDeduction of input tax on electricity consumption in designated factory areas was admissible.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax and penalties were remitted, and the adjudicating officer's decision was partially set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(14),2(44),3(1),6(8),7(1),11(2),33,34,36,46 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T. 285/PB of 2003. decided on 27-05-2005, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD WALL KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaac Ali Qazi AND Qurban Ali Khan, D.R. and Fazal Hameed, Sr. Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 329 = 2006 SLD 329 = 2006 PTCL 332 = (2006) 93 TAX 211 = 2006 PTD 245 = 2006 SCMR 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Input Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of input tax deduction for non-integral goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court validated deductions based on earlier notification for specific goods.\n•\nPetitioners should have initially approached forums under the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nAppeal converted and decided in line with prior similar cases.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 304-L of 1999, decision dated: 13-04-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch. Advocate-on-Record \nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 330 = 2006 SLD 330 = 2006 PTD 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Propriety\nKey Issues:\n•\nConflict of interest where a Tribunal member previously issued a show-cause notice.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nJudicial propriety prohibits the same officer from adjudicating a case at different stages.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside, and the case was remanded for hearing by a different Tribunal bench.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,47 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Appeal No. 545 of 2004, decision dated: 29-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal. Abdul Rahim Lakhani", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CENTRAL FIBRE INDUSTRIES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 331 = 2006 SLD 331 = 2006 PTD 558 = (2005) 92 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Audit and Presumptive Assessments\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction and methodology of audits relying on presumptions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPresumptive calculations for tax assessments are not permissible under the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nLaboratory tests and unverified data cannot form the basis for adverse findings.\nConclusion:\nAudit findings based on presumptions were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(41),3,11,22,30,32,32A,33,34,Sixth Schedule Central Excise Rules, 1944=Preamble ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 714/PB of 2002, decision dated: 7-01-2005, hearing DATE : 2-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Aamer Amin, F.C.A.\nRespondent(s) by: Qurban Ali Khan, D.R., Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer, Syed Phool Badshah, Najeeb Qadir, Cost Accountants, Shuaib Sultan and Inamul Haq, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 332 = 2006 SLD 332 = 2006 PTD 622 = (2006) 94 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Debit and Credit Notes for Unsold Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nRequirement of physical return of goods for issuing debit and credit notes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nIssuance of debit and credit notes without physical return of goods does not satisfy legal conditions.\nConclusion:\nClaim for adjustment under Section 9 was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=9 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 91 of 2004, decision dated: 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Athar Saeed\nRespondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "M/S MERCK MARKER (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH SENIOR MANAGER, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI, EXCISE (ADJUDICATIONIII), KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 333 = 2006 SLD 333 = 2006 PTD 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decisions and Show-Cause Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nLack of proper service of show-cause notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nEx parte decisions imposing liabilities without proper notice violate principles of natural justice.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for de novo consideration with proper opportunity for defense.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,3,6,23,33,34,37(a)(b),2(9) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. 1495/LB of 2000, decision dated: 15-12-2004, hearing DATE : 14-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal AND Ahmad Raza, D.R. assisted by M. Amin, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 334 = 2006 SLD 334 = 2006 PTD 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing of Returns\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of penalties to non-registered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOnly registered persons are required to file returns under Section 26.\nConclusion:\nPenalty was annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33(1),26 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 2265/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11-11-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Jamil Hussain AND Malik Shabbir, Dy. Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 335 = 2006 SLD 335 = 2006 PTD 645 = (2006) 94 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax Outside Tax Period\nKey Issues:\n•\nImposition of additional tax and penalties for procedural lapses.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nProcedural ambiguities in earlier provisions justify remission of penalties.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court dismissed the appeal, favoring the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,47,66 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 558 of 2002, heard on 16-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Waqar Azim\nRespondent(s) by: Mian Sultan Tanvir", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE\nVS\nM/S TREET CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 336 = 2006 SLD 336 = 2006 PTD 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Oil Cake and Oil Dirt Supplies\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdditional tax recalculated under beneficial amendments to Section 34.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBeneficial amendments must be applied to ongoing assessments.\nConclusion:\nCase modified, directing recalculation of additional tax at the simplified rate.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,23,33,34,37(a)(b),2(9) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. No. 1587/LB of 2001, decision dated: 29-12-2004, hearing DATE : 12-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Munawar Warraich AND Khalid Bashir, D.R. with Safdar Bashir, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 337 = 2006 SLD 337 = 2006 PTD 1033", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Additional Tax on Late Payment\nKey Issues:\n•\nRemission of penalties due to inadvertent delays.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenalties cannot be imposed when the omission is unintentional and promptly corrected.\nConclusion:\nPenalties were remitted, and adjustments directed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. No. 586/LB of 2002, decision dated: 18-12-2004, hearing DATE : 17-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana M. Afzal AND Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 338 = 2006 SLD 338 = 2006 PTD 816 = (2006) 93 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Sales Tax via Ministry Letters\nKey Issues:\n•\nSales tax cannot be levied without an Act of Parliament.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nMinistry letters are not a valid substitute for legislative acts.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax demand was annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3B,34 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. 477 of 2000, heard on 2-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND ALI SAIN DINO METLO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kazi Anwar Kabul for Petitioner AND Raja Muhammad Iqbal along with Azam Nafees, Sr. Auditor No. 3. AND Muhammad Aleem No. 4 AND Mehmood Alam Rizvi Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALI GOHAR PHARMACEUTICAL (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 339 = 2006 SLD 339 = 2006 PTD 821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Short Payment\nKey Issues:\n•\nGenuine mistakes in tax calculation.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenalty provisions are not applicable for first-time errors.\nConclusion:\nPenalty was remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(d) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. 983/LB of 2000, decision dated: 30-12-2004, hearing DATE : 23rd September, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaukat Amin, F.C.A. AND Khalid Bashir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 340 = 2006 SLD 340 = 2006 PTD 832", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Speaking Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nLack of detailed reasoning in adjudication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders must address each contention with adequate reasoning.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for detailed adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1),34,33(2)(cc) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 138/LB of 2004, decision dated: 30-12-2004, hearing DATE : 27-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahab Qutab AND Babar Iqbal, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 241 = 2006 SLD 241 = 2006 PTD 836 = (2006) 93 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ambiguity in Tribunal Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nLack of clarity on additional tax liability.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal must expressly decide on all issues.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for specific findings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 328 of 2002, decision dated: 1st February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan AND A. Karim Malik for Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "J.D.W. SUGAR MILLS LTD. Through Manager Finance\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 242 = 2006 SLD 242 = 2006 PTD 849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss in Bagasse Weight\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax assessments on production must account for environmental losses.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nA reasonable allowance (10%) for losses is justified.\nConclusion:\nTax liability recalculated, reducing production figures by 10%.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=22,23,26,3,7 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 691/LB of 2002, decision dated: 29-12-2004, hearing DATE : 25-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Akram AND Muhammad Anwar and Hamyun Sarfraz, Auditorss", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 243 = 2006 SLD 243 = 2006 PTD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Agricultural Tractors\nKey Issues:\n•\nPresumptive use of tractors for non-agricultural purposes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBurden of proof lies on the department to establish non-agricultural use.\nConclusion:\nOrders imposing liabilities were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,7&SixthSched ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 551 to 554/LB of 2002, decision dated: 9-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHER ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana AND M.B. Tahir, S.D.R. assisted by Akhlaq Ahmad, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 244 = 2006 SLD 244 = 2006 PTD 1004", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Additional Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nDefault not wilful or intentional.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdditional tax and penalties waived when defaults are unintentional.\nConclusion:\nAppellate Tribunal remitted additional tax and penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. 1622/LB of 2003, decision dated: 29-10-2004, hearing DATE : 31st August, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Falak Sher, Consultant AND Khalid Bashir, D.R. assisted by Asim Ahmad Khan, S.A.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 245 = 2006 SLD 245 = 2006 PTD 1054 = (2006) 93 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery During Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nHigh Court's jurisdiction in granting interim relief.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction allows interim relief when statutory remedies lapse.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court granted stay of recovery during appeal pendency.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(7) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.60 of 2002, heard on 29-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Waqar Ahmed for Petitioner AND Ch. Sagheer Ahmed, Standing Counsels.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs YASIR BOARD INDUSTRY through Proprietor\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 246 = 2006 SLD 246 = 2006 PTD 1096", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Tax Regime for Aluminum Utensils\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of fixed tax facility.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTaxpayers meeting conditions of fixed tax regimes are entitled to its benefits.\nConclusion:\nTaxpayer's entitlement to fixed tax scheme was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,7,8 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Nos. S.T. 58/Remand/PB of 2005, Old No. 7(1633)ST/IB of 2001(PB) and S.T. 76/PB of 2004, decision dated: 3rd June, 2005, hearing DATE : 13-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Issac Ali Qazi AND Qurban Ali Khan, D.R. and Fazal Hameed, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 247 = 2006 SLD 247 = 2006 PTD 1116 = (2006) 93 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Activity in Yarn Processing\nKey Issues:\n•\nTreatment of goods sent for processing.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSending goods for processing does not constitute a taxable supply.\nConclusion:\nActivity deemed non-taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(35)(33),(25),47 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 319 of 2000, heard on 13-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Ali Jaffri AND Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE through Law Officer of the Collectorate\nvs\nMessrs KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 248 = 2006 SLD 248 = 2006 PTD 1132 = (2006) 93 TAX 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Automatic Imposition of Additional Tax and Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermination of wilfulness in tax defaults.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdditional tax and penalties require assessment of wilfulness or mala fide intent.\nConclusion:\nLevy of additional tax and penalties was annulled in the absence of wilful default.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34 Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=4(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 3068-L of 2001, decision dated: 7-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Atta-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner AND Shahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court No. 1", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs ICI, PAKISTAN LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 249 = 2006 SLD 249 = 2006 PTD 1137 = (2006) 93 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Utility Bills\nKey Issues:\n•\nBills not in the name of the taxpayer.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment requires bills to be in the taxpayer's name with their sales tax number.\nConclusion:\nClaim for input tax adjustment was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(33),3,7 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2004, decision dated: 27-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MRS. YASMEEN ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aminullah Siddiqui AND Raja Muhammad Iqbals.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. PAKISTAN LTD. through Managing Director, Karachi\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 250 = 2006 SLD 250 = 2006 PTD 1147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Delays and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelayed refunds due to incomplete audits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelays in refunds constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nAudit completion was directed within one month; refund claims were to be processed on merit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(a),7,13,33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2261/LB of 2001, decision dated: 4-05-2004, hearing DATE : 4-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Rafique Rajwana AND Khalid Bashir, D.R. assisted by Ikhlaq Ahmad, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 251 = 2006 SLD 251 = 2006 PTD 1220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 73 & 23---Certain transactions not admissible---Tax invoices---Payment through crossed traveller cheques from business account instead of bank account---Validity---Appellant failed to produce the requisite invoices issued in terms of S.23 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in spite of providing sufficient opportunity to produce the same---In absence of such invoices input tax adjustment claimed was illegal---Appellant was bound to meet the requirements of S.73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by making payment exceeding Rs.50,000 from business account in the form of banking instruments---Appellant failed to produce bank statement to substantiate that payments were made in terms of S.73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Appellant also failed to produce evidence to the effect that the traveller cheques were issued from the business account of the buyer and these were crossed in the name of seller---Crossed traveller cheques made from the sources other than business account were not acceptable for the purposes of S.73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Contention of appellant that crossed traveller cheques were issued from the business account instead of bank account, did not meet the requirements of S.73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---In absence of valid evidence that the crossed traveller cheques were issued from the business i.e. bank account of the buyer, the requirement of law was not fulfilled.\n \nMessrs Pfizer Laboratories v. Federation of Pakistan; Messrs Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan and Messrs Trade Link International v. Collector of Sales Tax, Lahore ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,73 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. 328/LB of 2004, decision dated: 18-12-2004, hearing DATE : 1st September, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Shakoor Priacha AND Ashiq Ali, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 252 = 2006 SLD 252 = 2006 PTD 1287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 11 ---S.R.O. 1361(I)/98, dated 9-12-1998---Assessment of tax---Evasion of sales tax by way of suppression of yield and value of cotton seed---Recovery ratio of cotton seed was declared @ 54.9% against the normal recovery ratio of 58.62%---Value of seed, suppressed/supplied without issuance of sales tax invoices---Supplies of cotton seed were made at the value which was lower than the minimum value of Rs.245 per maund fixed by the Central Board of Revenue vide Notification S.R.O. 1361(I)/98, dated 9-12-1998---Appellant was directed to deposit the adjudged amount of sales tax along with additional tax---Validity--Recovery of cotton seed ranging between 58 to 59 per cent was determined by the Central Board of Revenue---Appellant declared recovery of 54.9% while the auditors calculated the recovery of cotton seed at the minimum yield percentage of 58% for which the appellant was charged for sales tax---Appellant also supplied cotton seed at the value which was lower than the minimum value of supply fixed by the Central Board of Revenue---Evasion of sales tax against suppression of value of supply was correctly pointed out---Findings of Adjudicating Officer for recovery of principal amount were confirmed and appeal in this regard was dismissed by the Appellate. Tribunal---Tribunal directed the additional tax should be calculated at the rate which was presently applicable because of beneficial amendment made in S.34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Order was modified accordingly and appeal was partly accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36(1),34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. 2011/LB of 2001, decision dated: 22-10-2004, hearing DATE : 5-10-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal AND Pervaze Alam, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 253 = 2006 SLD 253 = 2006 PTD 1328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 11, 33 & 34---Assessment of tax---Supply of cotton seed---Decrease in weight due to evaporation of moisture---Order passed for recovery of sales tax along with additional tax was. upheld by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that sales tax was not deposited on the supply of cotton seed weighing 71,988 kgs.---Registered person claimed that quantity of cotton seed mentioned in the ginning register was the quantity produced at the time of manufacturing while sales tax had been paid on the quantity of cotton seed supplied, which decreased in weight due to evaporation of moisture---Validity---Central Board of Revenue in Textile Industry allowed yield of cotton seed within the range of 58% to 59% for the purposes of levy of sales tax---Declared yield of cotton seed at the time of production was 63.17% while sales tax was paid at the percentage of 61.70%---Loss of weight of 1.47% was due to loss of moisture as the cotton seed, at the time of production, was always in wet condition, which loses weight with the passage of time due to environmental factors---Appellant deposited sales tax on the yield ratio, which was much above the ratio fixed by the Central Board of Revenue and yield ratio allowed in different cases by the Appellate Tribunal---Cotton seed was produced in wet condition which loses weight due to long storage and other environmental factors---Appeal was accepted and the order in appeal as well as order-in-original were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n1993 PTD 206 and 2004 SCMR 456 ref.\n \n2003 PCTLR 671 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,33,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal S.T.A. No. 676/LB of 2004, decision dated: 28-05-2005, hearing DATE : 22-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Waheed and Ms. Sidra Khalid AND Ahmad Raza Khan, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 254 = 2006 SLD 254 = 2006 PTCL 169 = 2006 PTD 1428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Words and phrases-\n \n-Service-Meaning.\n \nBlack's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edn. and Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1972 Edn. ref.\n \n(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 7, 8, 66 & Sr.3 (vii) of Sixth Sched.---Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000), S. 3 & Sched. Sr. 1 (a) of ---Notification S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated, 12-6-1998---Sales tax, recovery of---Adjustment of input tax in providing taxable services---Appellants being a five star hotel were providing different services to its guests and Adjudicating Officer found that the appellants had claimed wrong input tax on different items which were not used/consumed in their taxable supply and the same was in violation of Ss. 7 and 8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Contention of the authorities was that most of items in question were covered by notification S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated 12-6-.1998, therefore, adjustment of input tax paid thereon could not, be allowed---Validity---Appellants were entitled to deduct input tax paid during a tax period from the output tax due from them on taxable services provided or to be provided by them during such period to' determine their output tax liabilities---Since sales tax was a value-added tax charged, levied and paid at the stage of each value addition, the tax burden was ultimately to be passed on to consumers---Inbuilt mechanism of input tax deduction from output tax liability of a taxpayer in terms of S.7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, or its refund in terms of S.66 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, was 'provided in law to guard against fraudulent input tax deduction and to avoid double taxation---To check misuse of facility of input tax deduction and to ensure value addition safeguards had been provided under Ss.7 (2) and 8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Items in question were nothing but inputs for providing services by the appellants---Section 7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, nowhere provided that in respect of hotels input tax adjustment was restricted to food items only---There was nothing on record to show that adjustment of input tax in respect of items in question was made without adhering to the provisions of S.7 (2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, or were used for any purpose other than taxable services rendered or provided by appellants within the meaning of S.8 (1)(a) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, or the adjusted tax was paid under S. 3 (5)(1A) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Goods referred to in S.8 (1)(a) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, were not hit by notification S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998, even if some or all the goods used for taxable services were listed in the S.R.O.---Contention of the authorities was that since most of items in question were covered by notification S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998, adjustment of input tax paid thereon could not be allowed as it would give overriding effect to clause (b) of the notification issued thereunder over S.8(1)(a) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, which if accepted, would render clause (a) redundant and no redundancy could be attributed to legislation---Adjustment of input tax paid on the items in question by the appellants was justified---Charge of wrong input tax adjustment could not be established by the Authorities and demand of such amount along with additional tax and penalty from the appellants was not justified---Order of Adjudicating Officer was set aside in circumstances.\n \n1999 SCMR 1422; 1999 PTD 1892; PTCL 2002 CL 115; 2002 PTD 976; GST 2002 CL 18 and 2002 PTD 2077 ref.\n \n2004 SCMR 456 and Princples of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edn., 2004 by G.P. Singh at pp. 131 & 32 rel.\n \n(c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---\n \n----Ss. 7, 8, 66 & Sr.3 (vii) of Sixth Sched.---Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000), S. 3 & Sr. 1 (a) of Schedule---Notification S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated, 12-6-1998---Sales tax, recovery of---Adjustment of input tax in providing taxable services---Appellants being five star hotel were providing different services to its guests and adjudicating officer found that the appellants had claimed wrong input tax on electricity during the month of April, 2000 to June, 2001, which was in violation of Ss.7 and 8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Appellants did not put forth any cogent reasons justifying deduction of input sales tax paid on electricity for the relevant months from their output tax liabilities to such months---No legal justification existed with the appellants for the deduction of the tax paid on electricity in the relevant months as input tax, while determining their output tax liabilities for the months---Such being the factual and legal position, Appellate Tribunal did not find any illegality in the decision of Adjudicating Officer in holding the appellants liable to pay the amount of sales tax along with additional tax and penalty---Order of Adjudicating Officer was maintained in circumstances.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Where there is doubt in the matter, interpretation favourable to the subject should be preferred.\n \nAIR 1963 AU 153; PLD 1972 Kar. 210; PLD 1975 Lah. 158; PLD 1976 Kar. 673; PLD 1979 Kar. 545; 1990 PTD 62; 1990 PTD 385 and 1990 PTD 886 rel.\n \n(e) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Taxing provisions should be strictly interpreted and benefit or ambiguity, if any, should go to the subject.\n \n(1994) 50 Tax 79 rel.\n \n(f) Interpretation of statutes-\n \n----Fiscal statutes---Imposing of charge---Principles---Charge upon the subject are to be imposed by clear and unambiguous words---No room for any intendment nor there is any equity or presumption as to a tax---Fiscal provision of a statute is to be construed liberally in favour of taxpayer and in case of any substantial doubt, the same is to be resolved in favour of the citizen.\n \n1992 SC 980 (sic) and (1992) 55 Tax 246 (SC Pak) rel.\n \n(g) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Doubt---Resolution---Adding of explanation---Scope---Doubt has to be resolved in favour of the citizen---Lawmaker can clarify its intention by adding an explanation, which cannot be legitimately objected to.\n \n1996 PTD 489 rel.\n \n(h) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---\n \n----Ss. 3 (1), 6. (2), 7, 8, 66 & Sixth Sched., Sr.3 (vii)---Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000), S. 3 & Sched: Sr. 1 (a)---Apportionment of Input Tax Rules, 1996, R.3 (3)---Notification S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated, 12-6-1998---Sales tax, recovery of---Supply of food to employees---Adjudicating Officer imposed sales tax on the appellants, a five star hotel, on the food supplied to their employees on job during working hours, on the ground that such supply was violation of Ss.3 (1) and 6 (2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Plea raised by the appellants was that the food consumed by employees on job during working hours at canteen was an exempt supply in terms of serial No.3, clause (vii) of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Employees of appellants who were provided food from employees kitchen were workers of a particular class for the purpose of item No.(vii) of S.No.3 of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990---Food supplied to employees of appellants from a separate kitchen/canteen meant for employees was exempt from sales tax in terms of Entry No (viii) of Serial No.3 of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990, as such kitchen/canteen was an industrial canteen for supply of food to the employees of the hotel---Appellants had made adjustment of input tax paid on supplies of goods received by them and some of such goods were used for preparation of food in separate kitchen/canteen for serving to the employees---Service of food to the employees was not a taxable supply since it was exempt from sales tax---Adjustment of input tax paid on items used in supply of exempt goods/services was not justified within the meaning of S.8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Appellants would pay the amount of input tax which they adjusted against exempt supplies in accordance with R. 3 (3) of Apportionment of Input Tax Rules, 1996---Main allegation against appellants having not been established, therefore, Appellate Tribunal, remitted additional tax and penalty imposed on appellants in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,3(1),6(2),36,33,33(2)(cc),34,9,3,3A,3AA,66 Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000)=3,Sched. ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 3/ST/IB of 2003, decision dated: 25-02-2006, hearing DATE : 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Bari Rashids AND Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, Additional Collector/Departmental Representative (D.R.)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 255 = 2006 SLD 255 = 2006 PTD 1453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 7, 7-A, 8, 46. & 66---S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998---Refund of input tax---Application for---Dismissal of application---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Appellants filed an application under S.66 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 for refund of input tax paid on purchase of High Speed Diesel, left unadjusted in the relevant tax period---Since adjustment of input tax paid on purchase of High Speed Diesel was held not admissible in terms of Sr. No.(11) of S.R.O. 578(I)/98 dated 12-6-1998, a show-cause notice was issued to appellants and after hearing parties, Adjudicating Officer; rejected refund---Appeal filed against rejection order having been dismissed by Collector, appellants had filed appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Claim of appellant was \"\"that they had purchased High Speed Diesel .for consumption in their \"\"Power-House\"\" for generation of electricity which was used in manufacturing and production of taxable goods---Intention of appellants at the time of. purchase of diesel was nothing, but to generate power through which appellants could operate their machines for production of taxable goods---Purpose for which supplies were received as also the amount of input tax paid, having never been doubted\"\" at least by \"\"Departmental Authorities, their refusal to allow either refund or adjustment, could not be supported on any premise---Once a registered person established that the goods in question on which input tax had been paid were used or to be used for the purpose of manufacture or production of taxable goods or for taxable supplies made or to be made by him, then subject to terms of S.7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, he would become entitled to the deduction of said input tax paid by him for the said purpose from output tax that was due from him in respect of particular tax period---Appellate Tribunal directed that input tax refund/adjustment be allowed on High Speed Diesel which had been used or to be used for, manufacture or production of taxable goods or for taxable supplies made or to be made by appellants.\n \nMessrs Sheikh Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 PTD 2959 and Central Board of Revenue,, Islamabad v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Limited, Lahore and others 1999 SCMR 1442 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7A,8,46,66 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T. 185/PB of 2005, decision dated: 7-03-2005, hearing DATE : 23rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUMTAZ HAIDER RIZVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, Sr. Manager AND Sharifullah, Sr. Auditor and Aziz-ur-Rehman, Sr. Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 256 = 2006 SLD 256 = 2006 PTD 1459 = (2006) 93 TAX 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 2(16)(33)(41) & 3(1)---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 148---Assessee engaged in business of receiving ship plates from principal, then converting same into M.S. twisted bars and returning such bars to principal on payment of conversion charges---Charging of sales tax at standard rate on value of supplies instead of on conversion charges received by assessee---Validity---Sales tax would be payable on value of supplies---Transaction between assessee and its principal could not be termed as sale or lease---Returning of such bars by assessee after processing ship plates would not amount to \"\"disposition of goods\"\"--- Processing of ships plates by assessee was surely a manufacturing process---Pre-condition to include goods acquired, produced or manufactured in the course of business was the \"\"use\"\" of goods by the person, who acquired, produced or manufactured goods---Assessee did not use goods to attract consequence of \"\"supply\"\"---Goods in the present case were delivered by bailor (principal) to bailee (assessee) for specific purpose and bailee (assessee) was bound to return goods to bailor after accomplishment of purpose for which goods were delivered---Returning of goods by assessee, in such circumstances, could not be termed as supply to attract charging provisions---If such goods were disposed of by bailee (assessee) at bailor/principal's instructions, then such disposition of goods would amount to supply, but in such case, supplier would be bailor and not bailee and purchaser would be to whom goods were disposed of at bailor's instructions---Manufacturing in course of business could not be termed as supply as manufacturing would not attract charging provision, but its sale, lease, disposition or use---Such transaction between assessee and its principal could be termed as a contract of bailment and not \"\"supply\"\"' as envisaged in S.3 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---No sales tax would be payable by assessee either on value of goods returned to principal or on charges received for conversion, which was in the nature of consideration for providing services---Amount of sales tax received by revenue on conversion charges was refundable to assessee.\n \nAmbar Tobacco Co. (Pvt.) Limited v. Additional Collector Sales Tax 2003 PTD 800 and General Tyre & Rubber Co., Pakistan Limited v. Deputy Collector and others (Spl. Sales Tax A. No. 38/2008) rel.\n \n(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)\n \n-- S. 2(33)---Expression \"\"disposition of goods\"\" as used in S.2(33) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Meaning.\n \n Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition); Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Edition) and Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax AIR 1970 SC 1722 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,(16)(33)(41),3(1) Contract Act, 1872=148 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Appeal No. 64 of 1998, heard on 18-03-2006, hearing DATE : 7-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Munshi and Muhammad Saleem Mangrio AND Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMIE INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD. through Director\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-II and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 558 = 2002 SLD 558 = 2002 PTD 2388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Utility Bills\nKey Issues:\n•\nBills not in the name of the taxpayer.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment requires bills to be in the taxpayer's name with their sales tax number.\nConclusion:\nClaim for input tax adjustment was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2),47 ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.384 of 2001, decision dated: 21st, May, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nisar A. Mujahid. A. Karim Malik for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JUBLIE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE), LIMITED through Chief Executive\nvs\nCOLLECTOR SALE TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 257 = 2006 SLD 257 = 2006 PTD 1528 = (2006) 93 TAX 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Delays and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelayed refunds due to incomplete audits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelays in refunds constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nAudit completion was directed within one month; refund claims were to be processed on merit.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2) Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=7(1)(2),5(3)(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 904-L of 2004, decision dated: 19-01-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abbas Raza Rizvi CMA for the Complainant Dr. Mirza Mubashir Baig, D.C. Sales Tax and Muhammad Ismail, Auditor, Sales Taxs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FORTUNE HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 258 = 2006 SLD 258 = 2006 PTCL 609 = 2006 PTD 1542 = (2006) 93 TAX 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Independence\nKey Issues:\n•\nIndependence of judicial powers from administrative directions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunals act independently and are not bound by Central Board of Revenue directives.\nConclusion:\nTribunal independence was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990= ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 391 of 2002, decision dated: 1st December, 2005, hearing DATE : 24-11-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Naveed A. Andrabi. A. Karim Maliks.", + "Party Name:": "LAS PRAXIS DEPILEX CLINIC\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION), COLLECTORATE OF SALES AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 259 = 2006 SLD 259 = 2006 PTD 1546 = (2006) 93 TAX 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compliance with Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommendations\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-compliance with recommendations regarding production and wastage assessments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nArbitrary decisions without considering taxpayer input constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nOrder was set aside; case was reopened for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,33,34 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 741-L of 2004, decision dated: 16-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arif Amin for the Complainant Shafqat Hayat D.C. (Adjudication) for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PRINCE AND SONS, QUALITY MART, MULTAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 260 = 2006 SLD 260 = 2006 PTD 1798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of notices served via telephone.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTelephone communication is not a valid method of serving notices.\nConclusion:\nOrders passed without proper notice were declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=56 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 115 of 2004, decision dated: 6-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaq Khan, C.A. for the Complainant Muhammad Nasir Khan, Additional Collector of Customs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AWT NIAZAMPUR CEMENT PLANT, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 261 = 2006 SLD 261 = 2006 PTD 1749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of Appellate Officers\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegal validity of officer appointments for hearing appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAppointment must align with statutory requirements under Section 30.\nConclusion:\nCollector (Appeals) appointments were validated based on relevant notifications.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,45B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1289 and 1290 of 2003, decision dated: 20-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mir Ahmed Ali for the Complainants Tariq Ahad Nawaz, Addl. Collector (Adjudication) and Muhammad Nasir Khan, Addl. Collector", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUFI SAJJAD, Proprietor, Islamabad and another\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 262 = 2006 SLD 262 = 2006 PTD 1735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Processing\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelays and inaction in processing refunds.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-responsiveness and lack of proper communication constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nAuthorities were directed to resolve refund claims promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=4,9 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-28 of 2004, decision dated: 26-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Lakhany for the Complainant. S.M. Shoaib, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (Refund) Enforcement Collectorate", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAFF TRADE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 263 = 2006 SLD 263 = 2006 PTD 1724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax on Exempt Stock\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund eligibility for stock acquired during exemption period.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOne-year limitation under Section 66 applies to specific scenarios.\nConclusion:\nClarification from the Central Board of Revenue was recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66,7,8,13 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1619 of 2003, decision dated: 28-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaac Ali Qazi for the Complainant. Imtiaz Shaikh, Deputy Collector", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHERAT CEMENT CO., NOWSHERA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 264 = 2006 SLD 264 = 2006 PTD 1695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Consequential Sales Tax Liability\nKey Issues:\n•\nAutomatic liability based on Central Excise Duty orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSales tax liability requires a separate show-cause notice under the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nDemand for sales tax was declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11 Central Excise Rules, 1944=10,210 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),29,211 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3(b),4(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1498-K of 2003, decision dated: 13-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SATEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamshad Younas, AR for the Complainant Dr. Nasir Khan (Assistant Collector, Sales Tax)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SIMPSON WIRES (PVT.) LTD through Director, Karachi\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 265 = 2006 SLD 265 = 2006 PTD 1705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims Based on Fake Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nVerification of physical transactions for refund claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefund claims must be substantiated with genuine transactions and valid evidence.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims were reopened for re-examination.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,7,8 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a),(b),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.911 of 2003, decision dated: 28-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Saghir Tirmizey and Syed Hasan Askari, A.Rs. for the Complainant. Dr. Moeen-ud-Din Ahmad Wani and Nisar Ahmad, Assistant Collector", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARAFATEX INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 266 = 2006 SLD 266 = 2006 PTD 1688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Encashment of Bank Guarantees\nKey Issues:\n•\nMisplacement of court file causing delays.\n•\nRefund claim for sales tax encashed through bank guarantees.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCertified copy of High Court decision was provided.\n•\nDepartment’s contention about missing documents was invalid, as refund-related forms were the authority’s responsibility.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed prompt refund issuance without further delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,7 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1575 of 2003, decision dated: 20-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Safdar Amin Khawaja, Chief Executive for Complainant. Amjad-ur-Rehman, Dy. Collector (Customs)", + "Party Name:": "AMIN SOAP AND OIL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., SWABI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 559 = 2002 SLD 559 = 2002 PTD 2407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit on Non-Production Items\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund claims for air-conditioners and heavy-duty cables.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAir-conditioners not used directly in production were ineligible for refund.\n•\nCables eligible if used for transmitting power for production and verified as high voltage.\nConclusion:\nRefund for air-conditioners denied; case for cables remanded for verification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66,8 ", + "Case #": "S. Tax. A-325/PB of 2001. decided on 1st June, 2002, hearing DATE : 28-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Usman Gul, Manager (Accounts). Alam Zaib Khan; Senior Auditor and Al-Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 267 = 2006 SLD 267 = 2006 PTD 1644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction on Erroneous Refunds\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund granted based on invoices from suspected suppliers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCollector lacked jurisdiction under Section 45 post-2000 amendments.\n•\nOrders by an unauthorized officer constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nOrder-in-original vacated and case referred to the competent authority.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A(1)(4),36(1),11(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1455 of 2003, decision dated: 22-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi for the Complainant. Javed Zafar Malik, AC (Sales Tax, Faisalabad)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK DUTCH CORPN., SIALKOT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 268 = 2006 SLD 268 = 2006 PTD 1630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting without Due Process\nKey Issues:\n•\nInclusion of a company in the list of suspected units.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo due process followed; delay in auditing submitted records.\n•\nRetention of name without evidence was oppressive and inefficient.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended prompt verification and removal from the list if justified.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,37 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1550-K of 2003, decision dated: 26-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Ghani for the Complainant. Shafqat M. Sagar Shahab Imam, Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, Karachi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs POLY FLEX SERVICES, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 269 = 2006 SLD 269 = 2006 PTCL 611 = (2006) 94 TAX 177 = 2006 PTD 1599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Payment of Sales Tax by Supplier\nKey Issues:\n•\nFinancial stringency cited for late payment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSales tax collected is a trust; withholding is not excusable under Sections 33 and 34.\n•\nFinancial stringency is not a valid defense in VAT systems.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court upheld penalties and additional tax.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc),34 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 9-S, 10 and 11 of 1999, decision dated: 8-12-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: A. Kasim Malik\nRespondent(s) by: Shahbaz Butt", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, LAHORE\nvs\nREHMAN BEVERAGES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 86 = 1983 SLD 86 = 1983 SCMR 69 = (1982) 45 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether prior assessments can be reopened.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLeave to appeal granted to assess the authority of Sales Tax Officers to revisit exempted items.\nConclusion:\nMatter left for further deliberation in the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=5,7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 277 of 1977, decision dated: 18-10-1981", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Mehdih Anwar, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner Iflikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS CHAUDHRI WIRE ROPE INDUSTRIES LTD.\nvs\nTHE SALES TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 87 = 1983 SLD 87 = 1983 SCMR 522 = 1983 PTCL 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "This case involves an appeal seeking leave to challenge the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which arose from a case under the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner contested the levy of customs duty and sales tax on a Mercedes Benz car that was in its possession. The car had been smuggled into Pakistan, violating import and customs laws. Although the petitioner was exonerated from the act of smuggling, it was held liable for the customs duty and sales tax due to its possession of the vehicle.\nThe Lahore High Court ruled that the liability for customs duty and sales tax falls on the goods themselves, and the person who holds possession of the goods (in this case, the car) is responsible for paying the duties and taxes if they wish to retain possession of the goods.\nThe petitioner’s counsel argued that section 156(11) of the Customs Act, which was relied upon by the Customs authorities, was not applicable because it only pertains to goods imported with the intention of re-exporting them. The court disagreed, stating that the provision's language is broad enough to apply to the petitioner’s case.\nThe court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the liability of the petitioner for the customs duty and sales tax on the smuggled vehicle.\nKey Points:\nThe petitioner challenged the customs duty and sales tax on a smuggled car, even though they were exonerated from the act of smuggling.\nThe Lahore High Court ruled that customs duties and taxes are applicable to the goods and the person in possession of the goods, who must pay if they wish to retain possession.\nThe court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the argument that section 156(11) of the Customs Act did not apply.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Customs Act, 1969=156,156(11) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 941/1982, decision dated: 7-02-1983", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SHAFFIUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shaikh Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS VULCAN COMPANY LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 223 = 2005 SLD 223 = 2005 PTCL 821 = 2006 PTD 1839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Set Up \nKey Issues:\n•\nTrial production and commencement of operations under SRO.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nReview limited to apparent errors.\n•\nTerm trial production not clearly defined in SRO.\nConclusion:\nReview petition rejected; no apparent error found.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,46 General Clauses Act, 1897=21 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLVII ", + "Case #": "Review Petition No. 7/PB of 2005 in Appeal No. 7(295)ST/IB of 2000 (PB), decision dated: 10-09-2005, hearing DATE : 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUMTAZ HAIDER RIZVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ishtiaq Ahmad, A.C. (Legal Division) Collectorate of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Peshawar, Jehanzeb Mahmood, D.R. and Sharifullah, Senior Auditor for Petitioner Qazi Waheed-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 270 = 2006 SLD 270 = 2006 PTCL 558 = 2006 PTD 1884 = (2006) 93 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 40-A & 40---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Search without warrant---Requirements---No warrants were obtained for the search conducted and recovery ,of the records effected by the Collectorate---Assistant Collector had not prepared a statement in writing of the grounds of belief that there was a danger that the records or the goods might be removed before the search could be effected under S.40-A of the Act---Validity---Held, no doubt S.40-A of the Act did cater for a situation where the requirement of law could be dispensed with, however, this was subject to the conditions laid down in S.40-A, Sales Tax Act, 1990 itself---Impugned action of the Collectorate in raiding the premises of the petitioners and consequent proceedings taken thereto by the authorities were declared to be illegal, void and without lawful authority by the High Court.\n \nFederation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad v. Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., and 4 others 2003 PTD 1034; Collector of Customs (Preventive) and 2 others v. Muhammad Mahfooz PLD 1991 SC 630; N.P. Water Proof Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., through Director, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another 2004 PTD (DB) 2952; Messrs Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore and others v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore and 2 others 2004 PTD 1731 and Messrs Ahsan Yousaf Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others 2003 PTD 2037 and Collector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another 2005 SCMR 37 ref.\n \nCollector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another 2005 SCMR 37 classified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,40A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 6711 and 6712 of 2004, heard on 8-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAQ COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Proprietor\nvs\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 271 = 2006 SLD 271 = 2006 PTD 1902 = (2006) 93 TAX 244 = 2007 PTR 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Beneficial Provisions of Law\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplication of subsequent provisions overriding earlier ones.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSubsequent provisions do not override earlier provisions unless explicitly stated.\n•\nCourts must grant benefit unless specific conditions are unmet.\nConclusion:\nMatter remanded for fresh decision; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,59,71,73 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Appeal No. 534 of 2004, decision dated: 5-04-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Shaikh. Javed Farooqui.", + "Party Name:": "CYNAMID PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 241 = 2011 SLD 241 = (2011) 104 TAX 6 = 2011 PTCL 809 = 2011 PTD 1232 = 2011 SCMR 977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-examining Accepted ADR Recommendations\nKey Issues:\n•\nBoard’s authority to re-open ADR Committee recommendations.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBoard cannot review its own quasi-judicial decisions.\n•\nSection 21 of the General Clauses Act does not permit such actions.\nConclusion:\nImpugned show-cause notice set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(18),30,45A,47A General Clauses Act, 1897=21 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 869 of 2009, decision dated: 30-03-2011", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR-UL-MULK AND MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Asif Wardag, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts.", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE (now F.B.R.) and anothers\nvs\nMessrs RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 242 = 2011 SLD 242 = 2011 SCMR 1414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Cases Post-Amendments\nKey Issues:\n•\nCollector’s authority under amended Section 45-A.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAmendments to Section 45-A were prospective.\n•\nCollector lacked jurisdiction to reopen earlier orders.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal refused; High Court order upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 514 of 2007, decision dated: 11-06-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. JAVED BUTTAR, MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD AND SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Itaat Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court along with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court.", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and OTHERS\nvs\nMessrs NEW AMMUR INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 243 = 2011 SLD 243 = 2011 SCMR 1446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Outsourced Activities\nKey Issues:\n•\nMixing of raw materials by another factory.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment valid only for goods supplied by the vendor.\n•\nNo provision allowed adjustment for outsourced activities.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; authorities’ decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1)(a),3(3),33(2)(cc),34,36,45 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1577 of 2006, decision dated: 30-09-2009", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court. Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Courts", + "Party Name:": "GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. PAK LTD.\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 7 = 2014 SLD 7 = 2014 SCMR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Verification of Educational Qualifications\nKey Issues:\n•\nGenuineness of educational credentials of a parliamentarian.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCourt directed Higher Education Commission to verify the documents for clarity.\nConclusion:\nVerification ordered; matter to proceed after findings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=(1)(f) ", + "Case #": "C.M.A. No.3470 of 2013 in C.M.A. No.1536 of 2013 in Civil Appeals Nos.191-L and 409 of 2010, decision dated: 18-07-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rehman Khan, DG (Law) for ECP on Court Notice. Mian Muhammad Hanif, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for HEC on Court Notice", + "Party Name:": "ACTION TAKEN ON NEWS CLIPPING DATED 4-6-2013, PUBLISHED IN DAILY JANG, AGAINST THE PARLIAMENTARIANS HAVING FAKE/BOGUS DEGREEIn the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 139 = 1995 SLD 139 = 1995 PTD 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Partly Manufactured Goods \nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification of shoe lasts as partly manufactured goods. \nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nShoe lasts are not integral to the final product and do not qualify for exemption.\nConclusion:\nExemption denied under Section 4 of the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(12),4 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.25 of 1961-62, decision dated: 8-04-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NUR ILAHI PRESIDENT, H. U. SIDDIQI AND K. SALAHUDDIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Amin Butt. Malik Asrar Ahmad Khan, PTS", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 248 = 1994 SLD 248 = (1994) 70 TAX 207 = 1995 PTD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Sales Tax for Wrong Account Payments\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether wrong account payments constitute default.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDefault requires deliberate evasion.\n•\nPayments made to the government under the wrong account cannot be penalized.\nConclusion:\nAdditional sales tax and penalties were waived.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 251 of 1993, heard on 10-05-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Nasira Iqbal for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MAMY BEVERAGE\nvs\nNASEEM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 560 = 2002 SLD 560 = 2002 PTD 2440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Advances\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdvances received without a transaction of sale.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSales tax applicable only after a contract of sale or agreement to sell.\n•\nAdvances not linked to a sale transaction are non-taxable.\nConclusion:\nMatter remanded to tax officials for factual determination.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(33)(44) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 1348, 1526 of 1995 and 1776 of 1998, heard on 27-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi, Muhammad Athar Saeed and Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioners. Farid-ud-Din, Muhammad Akram Zuberi and Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "PAK SUZUKI MOTOR COMPANY LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 140 = 1995 SLD 140 = (1995) 72 TAX 131 = 1996 PTD 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Incidental Charges in Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nInclusion of freight and other charges in taxable value.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOnly ex-factory prices qualify as taxable value.\n•\nFreight and incidental charges borne by purchasers are excluded.\nConclusion:\nAuthorities’ demand for sales tax on incidental charges was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1046 to 1048 of 1991, decision dated: 26-01-1995, hearing DATE : 25-05-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 155 = 1996 SLD 155 = 1996 PTD 268 = (1995) 72 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Carriers for Taxable Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether carriers can be held liable for tax without proceedings against registered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLiability primarily lies with registered persons.\n•\nIsolated proceedings against carriers are unlawful.\nConclusion:\nActions against carriers declared illegal; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6,2(19),35,35A,39,41 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 4851 to 4854, 4866, 5109, 5173 to 5175, 5238 to 5240, 5351, 5359, 5442, 5489, 5586, 5604, 5622 to 5627, 5791, 5949 to 5954, 6030, 6133, 6188, 6306, 6387, 6388 and 7351 of .1995, decision dated: 25-09-1995. dates of hearing: 17th and 20-07-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): CH. KHURSHID AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Aslam Zar, Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Kazim Khan for Petitioner. Zahid Farani and Izhar ul Haqs.", + "Party Name:": "BASHARAT ALI and another\nvs\nDEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MANANWALA CIRCLE, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 249 = 1994 SLD 249 = 1995 PTD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Sales Tax and Discretion of Adjudicating Officer\nKey Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of shall be liable under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nImposition of additional tax for inadvertent errors.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\n Shall be liable vests discretion to impose additional tax based on circumstances.\n•\nInadvertent errors not constituting deliberate evasion absolve liability.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax imposed declared without lawful authority and set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition. 251 of 1993, decision dated: 10-05-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasira Iqbal for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "MALT-79 MANUFACTURERS\nvs\nCOLLECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 250 = 1994 SLD 250 = 1994 PTD 391 = (1995) 71 TAX 1 = 1994 SCMR 2316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Sales Tax on Medicinal Products\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption claim for Dybenal Lozenges. \n•\nConflict of opinion among authorities and High Courts.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nQuestions of law regarding exemption warranted Supreme Court review.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal granted.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Central Excise Rules, 1944=10,210 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 197-K of 1991, decision dated: 12-06-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemos\nV.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate (Anil Kr. Sangal and K.K. Gogna, Advocates with him). V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor-General (A.P. Dhamija, Sushil Kr. Jain and S. Attreya, Advocates with him)s", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES OF PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 156 = 1996 SLD 156 = 1996 PTD 516 = (1995) 212 ITR 428 = (1995) 73 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory First Charge on Dealer’s Property\nKey Issues:\n•\nPriority of statutory charge over mortgage for tax recovery.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nStatutory first charge under Section 11-AAAA covers entire property, including the mortgagee’s interest.\n•\nFirst charge takes precedence over existing mortgages.\nConclusion:\nSales tax department’s claim on proceeds from the sale of property upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=58,100 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 9161 of 1994, decision dated: 14-12-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. C. AGRAWAL, FAIZAN UDDIN AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "STATE BANK OF BIKAN AND JAIPUR\nvs\nNATIONAL IRON AND STEEL ROLLING CORPORATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 157 = 1996 SLD 157 = 1996 PTD 576 = (1995) 73 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Industries under S.R.O. 580(1)/91\nKey Issues:\n•\nEntitlement to exemption after purchasing auctioned assets.\n•\nWhether set up includes conversion for new production.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDefinition and scope of set up necessitated interpretation of the notification.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal granted for interpretation of relevant notification.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 125 of 1996, decision dated: 18-03-1996", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SALEEM AKHTAR, SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Irfan Qadir, Advocate and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner K.G. Sabir, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 251 = 1994 SLD 251 = 1994 PTD 716 = (1994) 69 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption on Ice Cream\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether ice cream qualifies as exempt goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nIce cream, as a processed product, does not fall under exemptions listed in the notification.\nConclusion:\nExemption denied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7 ", + "Case #": "C. Reference T.R. No. 11 of 1987, decision dated: 26-01-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. MID MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ELLAHI BROTHERS LTD\nvs\nTHE C.I.T., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 252 = 1994 SLD 252 = 1994 PTD 865 = (1994) 70 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Certificate for Pesticides\nKey Issues:\n•\nRight to exemption certificate for imported pesticides.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCourt allowed the petitioner to seek adjudication from the relevant official.\n•\nInterim orders for maintaining bank guarantees were upheld.\nConclusion:\nPetition disposed of with directions for adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-953 to 955 of 1992, decision dated: 8-04-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Dy. A.G.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs R.B. AVARI ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Cooperatives, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 141 = 1995 SLD 141 = 1995 PTD 874 = (1995) 72 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction on Exemption from Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaintainability of petition bypassing alternate remedies.\n•\nNotification exempting industries set up in specific areas.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption claims can directly invoke constitutional jurisdiction for fiscal disputes.\n•\nExemption once granted excludes goods from the taxing statute.\nConclusion:\nShow-cause notice for sales tax was declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.494 of 1994, decision dated: 15-01-1995, hearing DATE : 12-12-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL KARIM KHAN KUNDI, C.J. AND MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Farrukh Jawad Pani assisted by Muhammad Sardar Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Latif Yousafzais.", + "Party Name:": "F.S. TOBACCO COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, NOWSHERA and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 253 = 1994 SLD 253 = 1994 PTD 1031", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Manufactured Goods under Customs Tariff\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether telephone poles/tubes are exempt from sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInterpretation of notifications and tariff items required.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal granted.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 488 and 489-K of 1993, decision dated: 22-02-1994", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. A. Aziz Khan, Deputy Attorney-Generals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUNNY IMPEX and another\nvs\nDIRECTOR, TELEGRAPH STORES AND WORKSHOP and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 142 = 1995 SLD 142 = 1995 PTD 1252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Sales Tax on Caustic Soda\nKey Issues:\n•\nUse of caustic soda for cleaning bottles and its tax refund eligibility.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCaustic soda qualified as partly manufactured goods, eligible for refund.\n•\nAuthorities acted illegally by rejecting the claim.\nConclusion:\nRefund claim upheld; rejection declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,2(12),27(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 651 of 1986, heard on 17-04-1995", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. JAVED BUTTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Tariq Mehmood for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad, Standing Counsels", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MURREE BREWERY CO. LTD., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 465 = 1992 SLD 465 = (1992) 65 TAX 68 = (1991) 192 ITR 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment of Investment in Cold Storage Construction\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of reassessment notice for unexplained investment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSections 69 and 69B mandate reassessment for unexplained investments in the relevant year.\nConclusion:\nWrit petition dismissed; reassessment proceedings allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148,138(2),143(3),147,69 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 152 of 1989. decided 4-3-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): E.P., JEEVAN REDDY C, J. AND R.A. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "RAM SWARUP COLD STORAGE AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 272 = 2008 SLD 272 = 2008 PTD 1993 = (2009) 99 TAX 55 = 2009 PTCL 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Quasi-Judicial Functions and FBR Instructions\nKey Issues:\n•\nIndependence of quasi-judicial officers from FBR instructions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFunctionaries must act impartially and are not bound to follow FBR directives.\nConclusion:\nFBR instructions do not bind quasi-judicial officers.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3B,30,47,72 ", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.3 of 2008, decision dated: 2-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASIA GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Manager (Accounts)\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (AUDIT), SALES TAX & FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 283 = 2007 SLD 283 = 2007 PTD 47 = (2007) 95 TAX 261 = 2007 PTR 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Tax Regime for Steel Mills\nKey Issues:\n•\nEnforcement of fixed tax regime through agreements.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax imposition must align with statutory provisions, not private agreements.\nConclusion:\nFixed tax levy declared unlawful; Tribunal’s decision set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1),33(4)(c),34,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 309 of 2002, decision dated: 25-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Mian Mehmood Rashid-Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAUQIR ASHRAF & CO., LAHORE through Managing Partner\nvs\n, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 284 = 2007 SLD 284 = 2007 PTD 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Residential Utilities\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustment of sales tax paid on electricity for residential colonies.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment allowed for utilities indirectly supporting production.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment for electricity bills upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(35),7,8,36,45,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.239/ST/IB of 2005., decision dated: 28-01-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Rafiq, Consultant, Senior Auditor. Umar Sadiq, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 265 = 2004 SLD 265 = 2004 PTD 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Supplies to Registered and Unregistered Persons\nKey Issues:\n•\nLack of evidence on whether supplies were made to registered or unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nIndividual assessment of cases required to determine liability.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s order set aside; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(25),3(1A) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 108 of 2002, heard on 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BILAL & CO., TANDLIANWALA\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 285 = 2007 SLD 285 = 2007 PTD 1557 = (2007) 95 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Bank Account Credit Balances\nKey Issues:\n•\nDifference between declared sales and bank account credits.\n•\nDepartment treated differential as sales to unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCredit entries in books cannot be treated as taxable without proving linkage to taxable supplies.\n•\nTaxation based on assumptions or presumptions is invalid.\nConclusion:\nTax demand was declared invalid due to lack of evidence linking credits to taxable supplies.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(41),3 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 86/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd December, 2006, hearing DATE : 21st December, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Farooq Sh.. Khalid Mahmud, D.R. and Gulzar A. Bhatti, Inspector, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 286 = 2007 SLD 286 = 2007 PTD 664", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Incompetent Filing of Appeal\nKey Issues:\n•\nAppeal dismissed for lack of proper authorization and representation.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdvocate appearing without legal authorization invalidates the appeal.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed for procedural non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990= ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.131 of 2003, decision dated: 31st January, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo. Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 287 = 2007 SLD 287 = 2007 PTD 2208 = (2007) 95 TAX 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Audit and Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of double special audits.\n•\nDispute over adjustment of input tax outside the tax period.\n•\nDelegation of valuation tasks to committees.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDouble audits are not barred by law.\n•\nInput tax adjustments require adherence to procedural conditions.\n•\nAdjudicating Officer cannot delegate statutory functions to committees.\nConclusion:\nCases remanded for re-evaluation by the Collector, except for unrecorded sales, which were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=32,2(46)(e),66,3 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.619/LB of 2002, decision dated: 26-09-2005, hearing DATE : 14-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahid Pervaiz Jami. Sajid Raza Mirza Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 288 = 2007 SLD 288 = 2007 PTD 948", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Assessment Formula\nKey Issues:\n•\nFormula for electricity-based production assessment applied retrospectively.\n•\nConsent from industry association versus individual members.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRetrospective executive measures must be justified by law.\n•\nConsent of an association does not bind individual members retrospectively.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to verify agreement terms regarding retrospective application.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,3,7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17114 of 2002, decision dated: 13-12-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Abdur Razzaq for Petitioner. Waqar Azeems", + "Party Name:": "Messrs REHMAT STEEL MILLS through Chief Executive, Lahore\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 224 = 2005 SLD 224 = 2005 PTCL 652 = 2005 PTD 1933 = (2005) 91 TAX 59 = 2005 SCMR 1166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search Without Warrant and Reasonable Belief\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of search conducted without obtaining a Magistrate's warrant.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSearch under Section 40-A requires credible information and reasonable belief.\n•\nSearch conducted without adhering to statutory safeguards was declared illegal.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court's decision invalidating the search upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40A ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.243-K of 2005, decision dated: 7-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Irshad, Deputy Attorney General and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Dr. Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT) and another\nvs\nMessrs MEGA TECH (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 117 = 1981 SLD 117 = 1981 SCMR 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Appeal Based on New Material\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaterial not placed before the High Court cited as grounds for leave to appeal.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nProper course is to seek review in the High Court rather than direct appeal.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal refused; petitioners advised to seek review.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 55 to 58-P of 1980, decision dated: 7-04-1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 8-3-1980 in W. P. Nos. 17, 25, 26 and in 24/1977 respectively)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL AND G. SAFDAR SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nNemos.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD QASIM AND 3 others\nvs \nHaji FAZAL SHAH AND others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 225 = 2005 SLD 225 = 2005 PTD 53 = (2005) 91 TAX 277 = (2005) 91 TAX 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "S.R.O. Interpretation and Legal Authority\nKey Issues:\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue's authority in interpreting S.R.Os.\n•\nTax exemption for electric accumulators.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nS.R.Os have statutory force; interpretations by the CBR lack legal binding unless backed by law.\n•\nTax exemptions require strict interpretation.\nConclusion:\nExemption denied due to lack of coverage under the relevant S.R.O.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(4),13 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 68, 69 and 164 of 2001, decision dated: 12-05-2003, hearing DATE : 5-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. A. SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shakeel Ahmed\nQadirdad Khan No. 1 (in Spl. S.T.As. Nos. 68 and 69 of 2001)\nFazale Ghani Khan along with Abdul Ghaffar Khan No. 2 (in Spl. S.T.A. Nos.68 and 69 of 2001)\nFazale Ghani Khan along with Abdul Ghaffar Khan (in Spl. S. T. A. No. 164 of 2001)\nQadirdad Khan No. 1 (in Spl. S.T.A. No. 164 of 2001)\nShakeel Ahmad No. 2 (in Spl. S.T.A. No. 164 of 2001)", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (WEST), KARACHI and others\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI BENCH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 118 = 1981 SLD 118 = 1981 SCMR 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction Over Evacuee Property\nKey Issues:\n•\nSuccession disputes involving evacuee property.\n•\nJurisdiction of rehabilitation authorities versus civil courts.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSuccession related to evacuee property falls under rehabilitation authorities.\nConclusion:\nCivil courts lack jurisdiction over such disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958=25 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1977, decision dated: 2-04-1980.(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-12-1976 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. 994-R/75)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C.J. AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s.\nNemos.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. MARYAM BIBI AND 13 others\nvs \nMst. MUMTAZ BEGUM AND 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 119 = 1981 SLD 119 = 1981 SCMR 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case\nKey Issues:\n•\nWeight of disinterested witness testimony.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTestimony from an impartial witness was sufficient for conviction.\nConclusion:\nAppeal accepted with lesser penalty imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=417 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. K-25 of 1974, decision dated: 30-01-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., G. SAFDAR SHAH AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court.\nM. Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. A. Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record No. 1.\nUsman-i-Ghani, Advocate-General (Sind) instructed by S. M. Abbas Advocate- on-Record for the State.", + "Party Name:": "ILLAHI BAKHSH DAHRI.\nVs \nMUHAMMAD SIDDIK AND another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 273 = 2006 SLD 273 = 2006 PTD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Relief in Pending Appeal\nKey Issues:\n•\nEnforcement of recovery while appeal awaited decision.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTaxpayer entitled to interim relief during pendency of appeal.\nConclusion:\nInterim relief granted; Tribunal directed to decide appeal within 15 days.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,48 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17797 of 2005, decision dated: 31st October, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Dr. Sohail Akhtar for the Revenue. Malik Pervaiz Akhtar, Dy. A.G. for the State", + "Party Name:": "Writ No.17797 of 2005, decided on 31st October, 2005\nMessrs WAK LIMITED through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 274 = 2006 SLD 274 = 2006 PTD 2429 = (2007) 95 TAX 89 = 2007 PTCL 634 = 2007 PTR 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Paperboard and Manufacturer Liability\nKey Issues:\n•\nManufacturer’s liability for omissions in tax invoices.\n•\nApplicability of purchaser’s liability to manufacturers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax liability cannot shift from purchaser to manufacturer without express statutory authority.\n•\nRetrospective effect of notification is invalid.\nConclusion:\nTax demand declared unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(12),2(31A),3(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14544 of 1994, heard on 9-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Kamal for Petitioner. \nIzhar-ul-Haq Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MANDIALI PAPER MILLS LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 120 = 1981 SLD 120 = 1981 SCMR 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Procedural Fairness in Service Tribunals\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of tribunal orders and notice of penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal decisions made under the applicable rules were valid.\n•\nProcedural lapses in penalty notice did not prejudice the appellant.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Service Tribunals Act, 1973=3 Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules=63,64,66,59 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-91 of 1980, heard on 10-02-1981.(On appeal from the judgment of Sind Service Tribunal Camp, Karachi dated 23-8-1978 in Appeal No. 157(x) of 1976)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record.\nSyed Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Records.", + "Party Name:": "Syed NASIR HUSSAIN ZAIDI\nVs \nSERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD AND others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 275 = 2006 SLD 275 = 2006 PTD 2407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption and Discrimination\nKey Issues:\n•\nLiability of sales tax imposed on imported nutritional products after withdrawal of exemption notification.\n•\nAppellant argued discrimination as competitors were exempted.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGovernment had previously allowed exemptions to similar products under Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nDiscrimination existed as appellant's competitors were rescued under similar circumstances.\n•\nContracts finalized before withdrawal notification could not retroactively impose liabilities.\nConclusion:\nPenalty and additional tax remitted; exemption granted for the disputed period. The department was directed to recalculate the refundable amount.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=SixthSched,65,33,34&36(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Part-II,Chap.1,25 Customs Act, 1969=31A ", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeal No. 1208 of 1999, decision dated: 24-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK A.R. ARSHAD, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND KHALIL MASOOD, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Aziz A. Sheikh. Shad Mohi-ud-Din, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 121 = 1981 SLD 121 = 1981 SCMR 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Mitigation of Murder Sentences\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of penalties for murder committed before the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLaw Reforms Ordinance, 1972 introduced amendments to sentencing laws, which cannot be applied retrospectively.\n•\nArticle 12 of the Constitution prohibits retrospective punishment.\nConclusion:\nDeath sentence reduced to life imprisonment equivalent to 20 years as per pre-1972 law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302,57 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd March, 1981.(Against the judgment and order dated 2-5-1974 of the Lahore High Court in Cr. A. 694 of 1972)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "S.Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record.\nM. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) No. 1.\nEjaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Wahid-ud-Din Virk, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YUNUS-\nVs \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 561 = 2002 SLD 561 = 2002 PTD 2451 = (2002) 86 TAX 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax on Fake Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax erroneously refunded based on fake invoices.\n•\nSupplier's failure to deposit sales tax collected from the complainant.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nComplainant fulfilled their duty by paying sales tax.\n•\nSuppliers were responsible for depositing the tax with the government.\n•\nProcedural gaps in tax administration contributed to evasion.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended pursuing recovery from suppliers and rectifying procedural lacunae.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,11,3,7,33,34,45,3 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1345 of 2001, decision dated: 14-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaque, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Abdul Rasheed Sheikh, Additional Collector Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARZOO TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 266 = 2004 SLD 266 = 2004 PTD 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nChallenge to the jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO).\n•\nMaladministration in withholding tax refunds.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAppeal pending after the complaint does not bar FTO’s jurisdiction.\n•\nAllegations of maladministration justified investigation.\nConclusion:\nFTO recommended refund processing and criticized attempts to obstruct justice by Revenue officers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,67 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),2(3),22 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-92 of 2003, decision dated: 16-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Arif, Assistant Manager. Sanaullah Abro, Assistant Collector (Collection and Enforcement), Hyderabad. M.R.K. Warsi, Superintendent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TREET CORPORATION LIMITED \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 273 = 2008 SLD 273 = 2008 PTD 356 = 2008 PTCL 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeal Filed by Unauthorized Officer\nKey Issues:\n•\nAppeal filed by an unauthorized person, subsequently signed by the Collector after the limitation period.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAppeals must be filed by authorized officers within the limitation period.\n•\nLate authorization renders the appeal invalid.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 537 of 2004, heard on 29-08-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Salim Thepdawala", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD\nvs\nMessrs BAWANY SUGAR MILLS BADIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 563 = 2002 SLD 563 = 2002 PTD 2457 = 2003 PTCL 345 = (2003) 87 TAX 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermination of tax liability under enabling provisions.\n•\nImportance of adhering to statutory language.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly as written.\n•\nAmbiguities resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims rejected due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for tax invoices.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,23,2(40) ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 103 of 2000, decision dated: 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shakeel Ahmed. Syed Mohsin Imam", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTER EXCISE (WEST), KARACHI \nvs\nMessrs ALHADI INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 267 = 2004 SLD 267 = 2004 PTD 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Tax Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nDefiance of Tribunal’s decisions in tax assessments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPassing invalid orders in defiance of higher authority constitutes maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFTO recommended the Central Board of Revenue rectify illegal orders and take disciplinary action.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2),2(3) Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,3,6,18,22,26,33(2)(CC),36,59 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1117 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd November, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Tahir Razzaq Khan, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Amar Rashid, DCIT.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASKARI CEMENT LTD., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 268 = 2004 SLD 268 = 2004 PTD 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Invoices and Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nInvalid tax invoices used to claim refunds.\n•\nLimitation in recovery of erroneously refunded tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax invoices must comply with Section 23 of the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nDeliberate acts causing loss to the exchequer are not time-barred.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims based on invalid invoices disallowed; remissions granted for penalties under specific conditions.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,36(2),3,2(44),33,33(2),34,SixthSched. ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. 7(1114)ST/IB/Transfer of 2000(PB) and 7(1563)ST/IB/Transfer of 2001, decision dated: 24-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din No. 1 and Issac Ali Qazi No. 2. Al-Haj Gul, D.R. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer and Hussain Muhammad, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 306 = 2000 SLD 306 = 2000 PLC 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unfair Labor Practices\nKey Issues:\n•\nAllegations of unfair labor practices against employers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartmental inquiries into employee misconduct fall under employer's domain unless proven to be unfair practices.\nConclusion:\nPetitions dismissed due to lack of evidence for victimization or unfair labor practices.", + "Court Name:": "National Industrial Relations Commission", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=15,22A(8)(g) ", + "Case #": "Case No. 4 A(230), 4 A(233), 4 A(235) of 1999 L, decision dated: 30-06-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NABI BAKHSH BHATTI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasir Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioners Sultan Tanveers", + "Party Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD LATIF and others\nVs\nMANAGING DIRECTOR, PASSCO and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 307 = 2000 SLD 307 = 2000 PLC 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Grievance Redressal for Dismissed Bank Officer\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermination of whether an Officer Grade III qualifies as a workman under labor laws.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nJurisdiction depends on the employee’s role and nature of duties.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to Labor Court for further evidence and determination.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections": "West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)=2(i),12(3),15(3) ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. KAR 335 and 426 of 1997, decision dated: 8-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Respondent/Appellant with Sayed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi AND Mahmood A. Ghani/Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and another\nVs\nSALAHUDDIN ANJUM and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 269 = 2004 SLD 269 = 2004 PTD 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty Drawback and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDeductions from duty drawback based on erroneous instructions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFailure to address refund claims promptly constitutes maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFTO recommended inquiry and disciplinary action against responsible officials.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Customs Act, 1969=35 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-786 of 2003, decision dated: 14-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAYAT INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 274 = 2008 SLD 274 = 2008 PTD 1079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion in Suspected List and Fake Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nUnilateral inclusion of complainant in the suspected list.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo person can be penalized without proper notice and proof.\n•\nBurden of proof lies with the department.\nConclusion:\nFTO recommended a fair hearing and reassessment based on evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117,118,119 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.845 of 2003, decision dated: 22-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Pervez for the Complainant. Jamil Nasir Khan, DC Sales Tax, Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DATA COTTON WASTE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 275 = 2008 SLD 275 = 2008 PTD 1106 = (2004) 90 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Suspected Suppliers\nKey Issues:\n•\nRejection of refund claims due to supplier's suspected status.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefund should be allowed if the buyer proves genuine transactions.\n•\nSupplier’s failure to deposit tax does not bar refund to buyers.\nConclusion:\nFTO recommended processing valid claims and verifying transactions independently.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000=4,5,6 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1441-K of 2003, decision dated: 12-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Ameer Hamza, Proprietor. Dr. Mubashir Baig, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMEER-EHAMZA IMPEX, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 122 = 1981 SLD 122 = 1981 SCMR 542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Employee Grievances and Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nAcceptance of grievances not guaranteed under law.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGrievances must fall within the legal framework for labor courts to address.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for reconsideration of maintainability.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=25A(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 226 of 1979, decision dated: 13th November 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14--1-1979, in W. P. 3553/77)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL, KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Altaf Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nRespondent No. 1 in person.", + "Party Name:": "SENIOR VICEPRESIDENT (G. M.), NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, ZONAL OFFICE, LAHORE\nVs \nMUHAMMAD JAVED KHAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 270 = 2004 SLD 270 = 2004 PTD 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Conditions for Pharmaceutical Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nFailure to meet conditions of exemption notifications.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCompliance with conditions in exemption notifications is mandatory.\nConclusion:\nExemption denied; no maladministration found.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=SixthSched Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Customs Act, 1969=179,195,205 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.707-L of 2003, decision dated: 15-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahzad Wazir, Consultant for the Complainant. Ms. Ambreen Tarar, A.C., Customs and Muhammad Arshad, Superintendent Customs, Dryport, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "STAND PHARM (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 276 = 2008 SLD 276 = 2008 PTD 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "De-registration, Blacklisting, and Loss of Business\nKey Issues:\n•\nInclusion of complainant in suspect units list without legal provision at the time.\n•\nClaim for compensation for business loss due to blacklisting.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAt the time of blacklisting, the Sales Tax Act, 1990 lacked provisions authorizing such actions.\n•\nNo show-cause notice or proper procedure was followed, making the blacklisting unlawful.\n•\nCompensation for business loss cannot be awarded under the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended removing the complainant’s name from the suspect list and advised adherence to legal procedures for any future actions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(4),25(3),38 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 914-L of 2005, decision dated: 30-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Saleem Iqbal Rathore, for the Complainant. Muhammad Saeed Wattoo, D.C. Sales Tax, Lahores", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ABDUL JALIL AND BROTHERS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 277 = 2008 SLD 277 = 2008 PTD 1019", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misclassification of Registration as Distributor \nKey Issues:\n•\nAlleged tampering with complainant’s registration application.\n•\nImproper classification of complainant as a Distributor. \nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPrima facie evidence suggested tampering as alterations were not signed by the complainant.\n•\nThe classification lacked verification and concrete evidence.\n•\nAction by the department was arbitrary and amounted to maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended reprocessing the complainant’s registration and conducting an independent investigation into the tampering allegations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14,2(7)(47) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.59 of 2004, decision dated: 7-04-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Malik Z.H. Khawar for the Complainant. Ms. Sameera Sheikh, A.C., Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 564 = 2002 SLD 564 = 2002 PTD 2496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Incorrect Show-Cause Notice\nKey Issues:\n•\nTime-barred issuance of show-cause notice.\n•\nShow-cause notice based on incorrect facts.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe notice was issued three years after the statutory time limit, making it unenforceable.\n•\nIncorrect facts in the notice rendered it legally invalid.\nConclusion:\nShow-cause notice and demand for arrears declared invalid and unenforceable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2754/LB of 2001, decision dated: 1st March, 2002, hearing DATE : 26-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFARUL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Naeem Akhtar Sheikh. Tariq Imran, D.R, with Riasat Ali, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 271 = 2004 SLD 271 = 2004 PTCL 114 = 2004 PTD 681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Spare Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nDisallowance of input tax adjustment on spare parts and maintenance materials.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment was allowed for spares used in production machinery but disallowed for goods specified in Section 8(1) or relevant notifications.\n•\nNotifications and rules were harmonized with statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nInput tax adjustments partially allowed; demand for disallowed portions confirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1),8(I),13,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. STA-276/PB of 2003, decision dated: 11-10-2003. dates of hearing: 17th September and 8-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar, A.C.A. and Khurram Akbar Khan, A.C.A.. Bakht-e-Dauran, Senior Auditor, Ismail Bangash, Auditor and Al-Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 278 = 2008 SLD 278 = 2008 PTD 1032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Collusion vs. Inadvertence in Tax Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of Sections 36(1) and 36(2) based on deliberate actions or errors.\n•\nIssuance of defective notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNotices under Section 36(1) must specify whether non-payment was due to collusion or error.\n•\nVague notices hinder proper defense and are deemed invalid.\nConclusion:\nNotice and corresponding demand declared defective and void.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1269 of 2003, decision dated: 30-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Zafar Iqbal for the Complainant. Yousaf Haider Orakzai, Deputy Collector (Adjudication)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TOPS FOOD & BEVERAGES, HATTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 409 = 2004 SLD 409 = 2004 PTD 2345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Audit Observations\nKey Issues:\n•\nAudit findings challenged based on subsequent audits’ silence.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLapses in subsequent audits do not invalidate earlier lawful detections.\n•\nTax due from suppressed production cannot be extinguished due to oversight.\nConclusion:\nDemand for suppressed production confirmed; penalties partially reduced.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=15,22,30,34,61,88,92,Clause(86B) ofPartI oftheSecond Schedule ", + "Case #": "Complaint.No.1159-K of 2003, dated 19/12/2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE-(RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 272 = 2004 SLD 272 = 2004 PTD 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability for Excess Tax Collection\nKey Issues:\n•\nCollection of excess tax and its subsequent treatment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAny excess tax collected must be deposited with the government.\n•\nManipulation of invoices to reduce tax liability is prohibited.\nConclusion:\nDemand for excess tax upheld; penalties reduced subject to compliance.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=32,3,33,34,32A ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. S.T.A.-385/PB/TRF of 2001, decision dated: 29-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi. Hussain Muhammad, Senior Auditor, Bakth-e-Dauran, Senior Auditor, Inamul Haq, Senior Auditor and Al-Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 565 = 2002 SLD 565 = 2002 PTD 2500", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Input Tax under SRO 1307\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of input tax adjustment contrary to SRO 1307.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSRO 1307 was validly issued and aligned with Sections 7 and 8(i)(b) of the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment disallowed; notification deemed lawful.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8(i)(b) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.S.T.A. 2201/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2002, hearing DATE : 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL MAJEED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFARUL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nasar. Imran Tahir, D. R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 566 = 2002 SLD 566 = 2002 PTD 2504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Excess Tax Collection\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of refund and handling of excess tax collected.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExcess tax must be paid to the government under Section 3-B.\n•\nRefund claims are limited and require compliance with statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nExcess tax demands upheld; refunds disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=9,7,8,66,3B(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. 7(718)ST/IB of 2001(PB), decision dated: 1st June, 2002, hearing DATE : 28-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din. Alam Zaib Khan, Senior Auditor and Al-Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 279 = 2008 SLD 279 = 2008 PTD 1289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Benefits of Fixed Sugar Value\nKey Issues:\n•\nRetrospective application of a notification providing fixed sugar value.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLawful exercise of delegated legislative power conferred vested rights.\nConclusion:\nRetrospective benefits upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),47 ", + "Case #": "C. A. No.343 of 2001, decision dated: 21st September, 2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan. Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq for Respond2(46) & 47--S.R.O. 751(I) 2ent", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 123 = 1981 SLD 123 = 1981 SCMR 613", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Acquittal in Murder Case\nKey Issues:\n•\nEvidence inconsistencies and reliability of witnesses.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court's view based on evidence inconsistencies was reasonable.\n•\nCorroborative evidence was unreliable and could not substantiate the prosecution’s case.\nConclusion:\nAcquittal upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 30-R of 1980, decision dated: 8-03-1981. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-5-1980 in Cr. A. 1097 of 1978)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL, MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate and M. Afzal siddiqj, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Tariq Azam, Advocate and Ch. Akhar Ali, Advocate-on-Records.\nM. Kawkab Iqbal, Advocate for the State.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. AMINA BIBI\nVs \nPEHLWAN SHAH AND others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 567 = 2002 SLD 567 = 2002 PTD 2526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Pre-Registration Tax Liability\nKey Issues:\n•\nEntitlement to adjust tax for a period prior to registration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court cannot entertain factual controversies under Section 47.\n•\nAssessee advised to approach the Tribunal for reconsideration.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; remedy suggested at the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,8(3) Customs Act, 1969=194B(2) ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.391 of 2001, decision dated: 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Munawar Ahmad Warraich. A. Karim Malik for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RANA BROTHERS OIL MILLS, RAHIMYAR KHAN\nvs\nA.C. SALES TAX, RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 273 = 2004 SLD 273 = 2004 PTD 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Zero-Rated Supply and Input Tax Credit\nKey Issues:\n•\nAllowability of input tax credit for zero-rated supplies.\n•\nDocumentation requirements for claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nZero-rated supplies are treated as taxable supplies, allowing input tax credit under Section 8(1)(a).\n•\nFull input tax credit is admissible for goods used in zero-rated supplies.\n•\nAssessees must establish claims through documented proof, including international tender details and tax invoices.\nConclusion:\nClaim for refund remanded to the Deputy/Assistant Collector for de novo consideration based on proper documentation.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(41)(48),8(1)(a),4(a),13,22,SixthSched,4,10,22 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(248)ATIB of 1999 (PB), decision dated: 29-08-2003. dates of hearing: 3rd July; 26-11-2002 and 20-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Jamal, Deputy G.M. (Commercial) and Nazir Lodhi, Deputy Manager (Commercial). Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer and Bakht-e-Dauran, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 124 = 1981 SLD 124 = 1981 SCMR 642", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sudden Fight in Murder Case\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of Exception IV to Section 300, PPC.\n•\nLiability of participants in sudden fights.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nEvidence of grappling and injuries indicated a sudden fight without premeditation.\n•\nParticipants are liable only for their own actions, not as part of a common intention.\nConclusion:\nBenefit of Exception IV applied; High Court's decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302/34,300 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No. K-28 of 1979, decision dated: 1st May, 1980.(On appeal from the judgment dated 22-4-1979 of the High Court of Sind at Karachi in Criminal Appeal No. 26/1977)", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DORAB PATEL, ACTG. C.J., MUHAMMAD HALEEM NASIM HASAN SHAH AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nAbdus Sattar, Advocate-General (Sind) and S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for the State.", + "Party Name:": "ALLAUDDIN\nVs \nMUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 228 = 2005 SLD 228 = 2005 PTD 72 = (2005) 91 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Tax Regime Agreement\nKey Issues:\n•\nBinding nature of administrative agreements on taxpayers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdministrative agreements without legislative backing cannot override statutory provisions.\n•\nTax imposition must comply with statutory or delegated legislative authority.\nConclusion:\nAgreement held non-binding; appellants not liable for additional tax or penalties based on the agreement.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(4)(c),3,47 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=77,127 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.224 and 225 of 2002, decision dated: 25-10-2004, hearing DATE : 5-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar. A. Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MAHMOOD & COMPANY\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SALES TAX (ENFORCEMENT & COLLECTION), SHALIMAR DIVISION; LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 229 = 2005 SLD 229 = 2005 PTD 104 = 2005 SCMR 54 = (2005) 91 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of General Public \nKey Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of general public under fiscal statutes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe term encompasses all people and is broad in scope, not restricted to specific groups.\nConclusion:\nSupreme Court declined review; interpretation upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(28) Supreme Court Rules, 1980=O.XXVI Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=188 ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petitions Nos.66 and 71 of 2002, decision dated: 17-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. and another\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 309 = 2003 SLD 309 = 2003 PTCL 289 = 2005 PTD 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issuance of Debit and Credit Notes\nKey Issues:\n•\nSituations allowing issuance of debit and credit notes under Section 9.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 9 identifies five scenarios for adjustments via debit and credit notes.\n•\nOmission by the Board to regulate some scenarios does not negate their statutory validity.\nConclusion:\nDebit and credit notes upheld for valid scenarios.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=9,46 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.34 of 2001, decision dated: 3rd December, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MIR FAUD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Umar. Khursheed, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 125 = 1981 SLD 125 = 1981 SCMR 687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Irregularities in Filing\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-signature on plaint and subsequent rectification.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFailure to sign was a rectifiable irregularity, causing no prejudice to the defendant.\nConclusion:\nObjection dismissed as technical; justice upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,r.14 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 1C06 and 1010 of 1978, decision dated: 11-03-1980", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND G. SAFDAR SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).\nNemos (in both the Petitions).", + "Party Name:": "ISMAIL AND another\nvs \nMst. RAZIA BEGUM AND 3 others\nC. P. No. 1010 of 1978\nBASHIR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS\nVs \nMst. RAZIA BEGUM AND 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 230 = 2005 SLD 230 = 2005 PTCL 382 = 2005 PTD 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Post-SRO Withdrawal\nKey Issues:\n•\nEntitlement to sales tax exemption after SRO withdrawal.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to examine entitlement and procedural issues.\nConclusion:\nPending further examination.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No. 495 K of 2002, decision dated: 10-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. S. Zaki Muhammad, Dy. A. G. of Pakistan on Court notice. Afsar Ali Abidi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate on-Record No. 1. Nemos Nos.2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR. CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS; KARACHI and another\nvs\nDEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 231 = 2005 SLD 231 = 2005 PTD 647 = (2005) 91 TAX 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Pay Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nAllegations of non-payment of sales tax and penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAbsence of evidence rebutting departmental claims led to penalties.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; Tribunal's decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 25 of 2003, decision dated: 5-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafaqat Mehmood Chohan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAJAR PAK (PVT.) LIMITED, Lahore\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISES, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 232 = 2005 SLD 232 = 2005 PTD 662 = (2005) 91 TAX 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Raw Materials\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustments for materials purchased during exemption periods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPost-exemption sales justified input tax adjustments to avoid double taxation.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment allowed; principles of Section 59 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,7,59 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 250 of 2001, decision dated: 22-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M. Akram. A. Karim Malik.", + "Party Name:": "FAUJI SUGAR MILLS\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 233 = 2005 SLD 233 = 2005 PTD 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Vires of SROs\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal's jurisdiction to declare SRO ultra vires.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal lacks jurisdiction to question the vires of legislative instruments.\nConclusion:\nBenefit of retrospective application allowed; further tax excluded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(25),3,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 360 of 2001, decision dated: 3rd December, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M.M. Akram. A. Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "FAUJI SUGAR MILLS\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 234 = 2005 SLD 234 = 2005 PTD 700 = (2005) 91 TAX 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Remand of Cases by Tribunal\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegitimacy of remand orders in tax disputes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRemand only justified when record lacks sufficient material for resolution.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court directed Tribunal to address legal and factual issues.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),3,6,22,23,26;46,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 373, 374 and 375 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd February, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui. Qamar ud Din Ahmad Mian", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAWA CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 274 = 2004 SLD 274 = 2004 PTCL 480 = 2005 PTD 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Deposit of 15% Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nImpact of non-deposit on appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-deposit cannot nullify appeal rights; Collector must hear appellants.\nConclusion:\nCases remanded for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45B,45,45B(4),45(3) ", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeals Nos.379/LB, 389/LB, 529/LB, 564/LB, 565/LB, 583/LB, 601/LB , 617/LB of 2004 and 727/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8-09-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Rana Farman Ali, Zulfiqar Ali and Muhammad Sarfraz Iqbals. M.B. Tahir, SDR and Saleem Akhtar, Superintendents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 235 = 2005 SLD 235 = 2005 PTD 742 = (2005) 91 TAX 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Discriminatory Tax Rates\nKey Issues:\n•\nImposition of discriminatory tax on wire rods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefund contingent on proving no burden passed to consumers.\nConclusion:\nRefund allowed upon verification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-807 of, 1991, decision dated: 23rd September, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner. Nadeem Azhar, D.A. G. No. 1. Raja Muhammad Iqbal and Abdul Saeed Khan Ghoris Nos.2 to 4.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HASHOO STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 236 = 2005 SLD 236 = 2005 PTD 743 = (2005) 91 TAX 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Further Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax on supplies to unregistered entities retrospectively.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFurther tax not applicable retrospectively to pre-2002 transactions.\nConclusion:\nTax demand set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(25),3(1A),47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 170 of 2002, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nomor Akram Raja. A. Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH & CO\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 237 = 2005 SLD 237 = 2005 PTD 803 = (2005) 91 TAX 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Deficiencies\nKey Issues:\n•\nAppeal without necessary parties and time-barred filing.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAbsence of necessary parties and time-barred appeals rendered them invalid.\nConclusion:\nAppeals dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 111 of 2003, decision dated: 31st March, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Hamid Khan. Izhar ul-Haq and Dr. Sohail Akhtar for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "ABBAS CORPORATION\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 238 = 2005 SLD 238 = 2005 PTD 812", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partial Success Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nRemand when both parties are aggrieved.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nWhen both parties contest the Tribunal's findings, fresh adjudication is necessary.\nConclusion:\nTribunal's order set aside for comprehensive reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36C ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 126, 132 and Customs Appeal No. 129 of 2003, decision dated: 7-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Sultan Mahmood. Nasar Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR\nvs\nMessrs RIAZ BOTTLERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 239 = 2005 SLD 239 = 2005 PTD 874 = (2005) 92 TAX 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Conditions\nKey Issues:\n•\nCompliance with SRO conditions for exemption.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nConditions under SROs clarified by CBR interpretations upheld.\nConclusion:\nExemption granted based on compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,7,45A ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.30 of 2000, decision dated: 19-01-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sattar Silat. Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukharis", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX (WEST)\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN AIRCONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 240 = 2005 SLD 240 = 2005 PTD 880 = (2005) 91 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Notification and Tax Liability\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of tax demands for periods under negotiation.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax demands cannot penalize for negotiation periods.\nConclusion:\nDemand set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,7,33,34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.493 K of 2002, decision dated: 24-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. M. Farid, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (WEST), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs AMSONS TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 241 = 2005 SLD 241 = 2005 PTD 1095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims with Suspect Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nInvestigating fraudulent transactions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartment's negligence in investigation constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nCase referred for comprehensive investigation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,10(4),37,37(a),73 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1316-K of 2002, decision dated: 17-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem for the Complainant. Farrukh Sajjad, Dy. Collector", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WELFARE TRADING COMPANY\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 242 = 2005 SLD 242 = 2005 PTD 1131 = (2005) 91 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Period Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustments limited to the specific tax period.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjustments must comply with statutory requirements for documented transactions.\nConclusion:\nAdjustments denied for non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,7 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.12 of 2004, decision dated: 9-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND FARRUKH LATEEF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAMZA SUGAR MILLS LTD. through General Manager\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 243 = 2005 SLD 243 = 2005 PTD 1154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Imposition\nKey Issues:\n•\nAbsence of mens rea in penalty proceedings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nProcedural violations and lack of intent invalidated penalties.\nConclusion:\nPenalties set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26,33,46 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-87 of 2004, decision dated: 6-01-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem. Muhammad Khurshed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 244 = 2005 SLD 244 = 2005 PTD 1200 = (2005) 91 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search Without Warrant\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of raids and seizures.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFailure to follow statutory procedures rendered actions unlawful.\nConclusion:\nSearch and seizure declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40A,40 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.6270, 4581, 6772 and 6773 of 2004, decision dated: 15-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZIKERIA ENTERPRISES through Partner\nvs\nMUHAMMAD MUSHARAF and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 245 = 2005 SLD 245 = 2005 PTD 1337 = (2005) 91 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Replacement Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of invoices under voluntary registration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 18 allowed replacement invoices; department's objection lacked basis.\nConclusion:\nInvoices upheld as lawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14,18,23,59 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.103 of 1998, heard on 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Latif Ahmad Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs ARAFAT CHEMICAL (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 246 = 2005 SLD 246 = 2005 PTD 1341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Scrap Sales\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of scrap from used machinery.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nScrap treated as taxable supply due to its distinct identity.\nConclusion:\nTax demand partly upheld; time-barred portions excluded.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,16,22,23,26,33,34,49,2(33) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.135 of 2001(K-2), decision dated: 5-06-2004. dates of hearing: 29-04-13th May an 27-05-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER TECHNICAL-II", + "Lawyer Name": "Nur Khan and Junaid Ghaffar. Barkat Ali Bukhari, Additional Collector and Mushtaque, Deputy Superintendent Departmental Representatives", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 247 = 2005 SLD 247 = 2005 PTD 1349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Instalment Sales and Markup\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of markup and replacement parts.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nMarkup excluded from taxable supply; spare parts taxed.\nConclusion:\nMarkup exempt; spare parts taxed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46)(a),2(41),2(39),2(12),3,2(46)(a)(iii) Finance Act, 2001=Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2,25 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.49 of 2004, decision dated: 17-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND MIR FUAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name": "Juanid Ghaffar. Azam Nafees and Ghazi Mehmood, Sr. Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 248 = 2005 SLD 248 = 2005 PTD 1358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Off-Season Electricity Usage\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax credit on off-season electricity bills.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nElectricity usage integral to production process qualifies for input tax credit.\nConclusion:\nCharge vacated; penalty set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,33,2(10) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.H-255 of 2004, decision dated: 7-01-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MS. YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali, Consultant A.R.. Tanveer-ul-Siddiq, Auditor/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 249 = 2005 SLD 249 = 2005 PTD 1368 = (2005) 91 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Sales Tax Pending Appeal\nKey Issues:\n•\nConditional stay orders.\n•\nProtection against coercive measures during appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPetitioners complied with a stay order by depositing one-fourth of the demanded amount.\n•\nDelay in deciding the appeal was due to an executive order, not the petitioners.\n•\nCoercive recovery actions during a pending appeal undermine justice.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court restrained authorities from coercive measures and directed expediting the appeal hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17947 of 2004, decision dated: 23rd November, 2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, LAHORE through Director Finance and another\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 250 = 2005 SLD 250 = 2005 PTD 1390 = (2005) 91 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Denial and Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of refund claims due to alleged fake invoices.\n•\nMaladministration in processing claims.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nComplainant fulfilled legal obligations by dealing with registered suppliers and maintaining documentation.\n•\nThe department's failure to act against fraudulent suppliers amounted to maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed re-adjudication and refund if complainant met statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,10,7(2)(1),8(1)(a),&33(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 732 of 2004, decision dated: 11-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Saghir Tirmizey for the Complainant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "SOHAIL BIN RASHID\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 251 = 2005 SLD 251 = 2005 PTD 1498 = (2005) 91 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Sales Tax Payment Penalty\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal's discretionary power to reduce penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAppellate Tribunal has wide discretion under Section 46(4) to modify penalties.\n•\nHigh Court interference not warranted without a substantial question of law.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; Tribunal’s order upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc),46(4),47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 61 of 2004, decision dated: 22-11-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Farani Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 252 = 2005 SLD 252 = 2005 PTD 1499 = (2005) 91 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Murabbajaat\nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification of goods under Customs Tariff.\n•\nExemption from sales tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nMurabbajaat classified under medicinal products exempt from sales tax.\n•\nChutney and pickles not included in the same classification.\nConclusion:\nDemand of sales tax on murabbajaat quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(2),34,72 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 12094 of 2003, decision dated: 20-09-2004, hearing DATE : 25-06-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Saleem Sehgal for Petitioner. Dr. Sohail Akhtars", + "Party Name:": "KHAWAJA & COMPANY FRUIT PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. through Director\nvs\nSECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE (SALES TAX WING), REVENUE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 253 = 2005 SLD 253 = 2005 PTD 1537 = (2005) 91 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Tax on Imports\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax to goods destined for Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nImport is a taxable event independent of the destination of goods.\n•\nConstitution supports taxing imports upon entry into Pakistan.\nConclusion:\nSupreme Court granted leave to examine constitutional aspects.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(b),3(1)(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Fourth Schedule,1 Customs Act, 1969=Preamble ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 435 of 1999, 499, 819, 1344 to 1346 and 1348 of 2000, 63 to 65 of 2001, 1852 of 2002 and 1674 of 2003, decision dated: 8th March,2005. dates of hearing: 23rd and 24-11-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid S. Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 435 of 1999)\nS.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Irtaza Naqvi, Advocates (in C.A. No. 499 of 2000)\nNajamul Hasan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.A. No. 819 of 2000)\nNemos (in C.A. No. 1344 of 2000)\nMahmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.1345, 1346, 1348 of 2000)\nJawahar A. Naqvee, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.63 to 65 of 2001)\nCh. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.1852 of 2002 and 1674 of 2003)\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney-General for Pakistan with Uzair Karamat Bhindari, Advocate and Suleman Hameed Afridi, Barrister (On Court Notice)\nFakhr-ud-Din G. Ibrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record No. 3 (in C.As. Nos.435/1999 and 499/2000)\nIzharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.819/2000 and 63 to 65/2001)\nSohail Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.1344 to 1346 and 1348/2000)\nMalik Itaat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.1852/2002 and 1674/2003)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MASTER FOAM (PVT.) LTD. and 7 others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 254 = 2005 SLD 254 = 2005 PTD 1575 = (2005) 91 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Edible Oil\nKey Issues:\n•\nEdibility requirement for tax exemption.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLaboratory reports found the oil inedible without further refining.\n•\nNot meeting exemption criteria under Sixth Schedule.\nConclusion:\nTax exemption denied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1)&SixthSched ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 1024 of 2001, heard on 2-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mazhar Lari for Petitioner. Raja M. Iqbal No. 1. S. Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MADINA ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. through Director\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 255 = 2005 SLD 255 = 2005 PTD 1590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Remand by Supreme Court\nKey Issues:\n•\nConsistency in adjudication across identical cases.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSupreme Court’s earlier remand justified extending the same treatment to similar appeals.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 210 and 173 of 2003, decision dated: 6-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farogh Nasim for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 256 = 2005 SLD 256 = 2005 PTD 1920 = (2005) 92 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalty\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal's authority to remit or reduce penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal validly reduced penalties under its discretionary power.\n•\nHigh Court cannot address factual questions under Section 47.\nConclusion:\nRevenue's appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,7,34,47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 60 of 1998, heard on 7-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Ashtar Ausaf Alis", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PACKAGES LIMITED, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 257 = 2005 SLD 257 = 2005 PTD 1925 = (2005) 91 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Scrap Sales\nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification of scrap as taxable supply.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nScrap is taxable if its sale constitutes a taxable activity.\n•\nTribunal did not adequately examine the issue.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; Tribunal directed to reconsider.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,36,47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 14 of 2002, heard on 28-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izhar-ul-Haq. Zaheer Ahmad Khan", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION DIVISION, SIALKOT and another\nvs\nMessrs ADIL BEVERAGES CO. (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 258 = 2005 SLD 258 = 2005 PTD 1953 = (2005) 91 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Power over Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal’s authority to waive additional tax and penalties.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal has discretion to waive penalties even after legislative amendments.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s powers upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,46,47(1) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.546 of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2005, hearing DATE : 30-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs FAROOQ TRADERS, JHAWARIAN, DISTRICT SARGODHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 259 = 2005 SLD 259 = 2005 PTD 1962 = (2005) 91 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Supply Value\nKey Issues:\n•\nUse of Valuation Committee under Section 2(46)(e).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDeputy Collector’s referral to the Valuation Committee was the proper course.\n•\nRecovery of tax without valuation invalid.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court directed valuation and re-assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46)(e),33(2)(cc),47 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.570 of 2004, decision dated: 11-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal. None", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT), KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SHAIKH MOHAMMAD FAREED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 260 = 2005 SLD 260 = 2005 PTD 1978 = (2005) 92 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Remission of Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal’s discretion in penalty remission.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal’s decision aligned with Section 34 provisions, allowing remission.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,46,47(1) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.567-S of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2005, hearing DATE : 30-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. \nHabib Ullah", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nKASHIF ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 261 = 2005 SLD 261 = 2005 PTD 1984 = (2005) 92 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals on Factual Grounds\nKey Issues:\n•\nHigh Court’s jurisdiction limited to legal questions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo substantial question of law arose; Tribunal’s findings upheld.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47(1),33,34,46 ", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 568-S of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2005, hearing DATE : 30-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs COCA COLA BEVERAGES PAKISTAN LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 262 = 2005 SLD 262 = 2005 PTD 1995 = (2005) 91 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Jurisdiction on Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nPower to waive penalties and additional taxes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal retains discretionary power post-amendment.\nConclusion:\nPenalty remission upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,46,47(1) ", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 474, 475 and S.T.As. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2005, hearing DATE : 30-03-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Muzamil Akhtar Shabbir", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nNATIONAL SUGAR MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 263 = 2005 SLD 263 = 2005 PTD 2012 = (2005) 91 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nGoods used for non-taxable purposes.\n•\nEligibility for input tax credit.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGoods must contribute directly to production of taxable supplies.\n•\nMachinery spare parts and lubricants facilitating production qualify for input tax credit even if not directly integral to the final product.\nConclusion:\nInput tax credit allowed for machinery parts and lubricants used in production.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,7,2(14), ", + "Case #": "S.A.Os. Nos.7 of 2003 and C.M. No.39 of 2003, heard on 5-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI AND SALIM KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdur Rauf Rohaila. Barrister Qasim Ali Chouhan", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX\nvs\nDHAN FIBRE LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 264 = 2005 SLD 264 = 2005 PTD 2067 = (2005) 91 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment Restrictions\nKey Issues:\n•\nS.R.O. restrictions on vehicle spare parts.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nS.R.O. 1307(I)/97 prohibits input tax adjustment for non-constituent goods.\n•\nVehicle spare parts not directly involved in taxable supply production.\nConclusion:\nInput tax adjustment denied; S.R.O. deemed consistent with the Act.\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(1),8(1)(b),47 ", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 220 of 2002, heard on 6-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "ITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 265 = 2005 SLD 265 = 2005 PTD 2128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Medicinal Products\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption for adhesive plasters containing pharmacological ingredients.\n•\nAlleged discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court directed Central Board of Revenue to assess the product's pharmacological properties.\n•\nDiscrimination claims depend on factual verification of medical equivalence with exempt products.\nConclusion:\nMatter remanded to authorities for determination.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Drugs Act, 1976=Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10864 of 2003, heard on 26-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zikria Sheikh. Malik Pervez Akhtar, Dy. A.G. for Federation and Syed Tahir Abbas Naqvi No. 4", + "Party Name:": "NAZIR AHMED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance Department Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 266 = 2005 SLD 266 = 2005 PTD 2131 = (2005) 91 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for RCC Pipes by City Authorities\nKey Issues:\n•\nSovereign immunity under Articles 165 and 165-A.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGoods manufactured for self-use by statutory bodies are subject to sales tax.\n•\nStatutory corporate veil restricts sovereign immunity claims.\nConclusion:\nSupreme Court upheld imposition of sales tax on RCC pipes.\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165,165A,185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.284 of 1987 decision on 29-12-1991", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH\"\" C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan assisted by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. Nasrullah Awan assisted by and M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Members Central Excise and Land Customs, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 267 = 2005 SLD 267 = 2005 PTD 2139 = (2005) 91 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Challenge S.R.O.\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal's limited authority in declaring S.R.O. unconstitutional.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on constitutional validity.\n•\nAppeals must address substantive legal and factual issues.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to Tribunal for factual adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals. Nos.142 to 153 of 2002 along with C.M.As. Nos.653 to 663 of 2004, Civil Appeals Nos.674, 675, 722 to 725, 824, 1205, 1704 to 1706 and 1320-L of 2002, decision dated: 18-01-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos.142 and 146 of 2002)\nShahid Karim, Advocate Supreme Court, Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos. 143, 148, 149, 153, 722 to 724, 823, 824, 1205, 1704 to 1706 of 2002, 1184 of 2003 and C.P. No. 1320-L of 2002)\nAli Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 144 of 2002)\nSyed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos. 150 to 152 and 725 of 2002)\nM. Rafiq Rajwana, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 674 of 2002)\nSh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. No. 675 of 2002)\nA. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court No. 3 (in C.As. Nos. 142, 143, (R.No. 1), 144 to 152, 722, 1205, 1704 of 2002)\nDr. Sohail Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos. 144, 153, 1205 of 2002 and 1183 of 2003)\nCh. Saghir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Courts (in C.As. Nos.674 to 675, 723 to 724, 823 to 824 and 1706 of 2002)\nNemo.s (in C.As. Nos.674, 675, 723, 724, 823, 824 and 1706 of 2002)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHANAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (SALES TAX) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 268 = 2005 SLD 268 = 2005 PTD 2234 = (2005) 91 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search and Seizure Provisions\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of searches under Sections 38, 40, and 40-A of the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court's jurisdiction to prohibit evidence from defective searches questioned.\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to address constitutional validity of provisions.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court's order suspended; matter to be heard by Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.3382-L and 3383-L of 2004, decision dated: 29-12-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others\nvs\nMessrs MEDORA OF LONDON LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 269 = 2005 SLD 269 = 2005 PTD 2247 = (2005) 91 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rate of Duty on Imported Machinery\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of S.R.O. 560(I)/96.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBills of Entry filed after the S.R.O. date subjected import to revised rates.\n•\nExemptions not retroactively applicable to pre-existing contracts.\nConclusion:\nDemand for revised rates upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6(1A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=31A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6751 of 1996, decision dated: 18-05-2005, hearing DATE : 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Rafiquc Rajwana for Petitioner. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FECTO SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 270 = 2005 SLD 270 = 2005 PTD 2272 = (2005) 91 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay Order Pending Appeal\nKey Issues:\n•\nInjunctive relief during appellate delays.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRecovery proceedings stayed to allow Tribunal to decide the appeal.\n•\nRecovery before liability determination deemed unjust.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court ordered expedited disposal of appeal with interim protection for petitioner.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3639 of 2005, decision dated: 30-06-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Khadim Nadeem Malik for Petitioner. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WEL AGRO WISE (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 271 = 2005 SLD 271 = 2005 PTCL 727 = 2005 PTD 2273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Syringe Manufacturing Materials\nKey Issues:\n•\nConcessionary rate application to raw materials.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSpecific law (pharmaceutical exemption) overrides general provisions.\n•\nMaterials for syringes classified as drugs exempt from sales tax.\nConclusion:\nExemption upheld for certain materials; others subject to differential tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,SecondSched Drugs Act, 1976=3 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(442)CU/ATIB of 1999, decision dated: 13-05-2005, hearing DATE : 7-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Farhan Ahmad Rattu, Consultant. Qurban Ali Khan, D.R. and Fazal-ur-Rehman, D.S. and Azam Khan, D.S.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 448 = 2004 SLD 448 = 2004 PTD 2777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,36,37,38,59,69A,62,63,65,80C,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 332/LB to 337/LB of 2003, dated 26/05/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 273 = 2005 SLD 273 = 2005 PTD 2364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Tractor Exemption\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption validity for non-agricultural use.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption applies based on product classification, not buyer’s intended use.\n•\nPurchasers’ usage verified as agricultural.\nConclusion:\nExemption upheld; no legal question arises.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(2)(a),13,47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 482 and 483 of 2002, decision dated: 31st January, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for the Federation", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SALES TAX, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs ALGHAZI TRACTORS LTD., DERA GHAZI KHAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 274 = 2005 SLD 274 = 2005 PTD 2376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Filing Delays\nKey Issues:\n•\nFailure to justify delay in filing appeal.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo proof or specific dates provided to explain delay.\n•\nDelay must be justifiable on a day-to-day basis.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 53 of 2000 and C.M. No.1 of 2005, decision dated: 22-06-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Sajjad Hussain Naqvi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PETROSIN RAVI INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT SALES TAX, LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 275 = 2005 SLD 275 = 2005 PTD 2377 = (2005) 91 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty Scheme for Additional Tax and Penalty\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of S.R.O. 461(I)/99 and adjudication rights.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPayment under the amnesty scheme does not admit liability for claimed sales tax.\n•\nTribunal's failure to adjudicate legality warranted remand.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for adjudication of liability.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,34A,33,45 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 479 of 2002, heard on 8-02-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND FARRUKH LATIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana. Ch. Sagheer Ahmad, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUNRAYS TEXTILES MILLS LTD., through Director\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 276 = 2005 SLD 276 = 2005 PTD 2412 = (2005) 91 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Payment of Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-payment not wilful or mala fide.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenalty unjustified in absence of wilful evasion.\n•\nQuestion of wilfulness is factual, not legal.\nConclusion:\nPenalty waived; High Court declined appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,4,6,7,33,34,47 ", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos. 14-S and 15-S of 1999, decision dated: 28-04-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izhar-ul-Haq. Ali Zafar and Haider Zaman Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs RUPALI POLYESTER LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 277 = 2005 SLD 277 = 2005 PTD 2417 = (2005) 91 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Duty to Decide All Issues\nKey Issues:\n•\nImproper remand without addressing all issues.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRemanding without resolving factual and legal questions causes unnecessary delays.\n•\nTribunal must provide a comprehensive ruling.\nConclusion:\nRemand order set aside; case returned to Tribunal for fresh decision.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 9 to 13 of 2005, decision dated: 17-08-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Farogh Naseems. Farid-ud-Dins", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHMURD SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Managing Director and others\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION) QUETTA, HYDERABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 278 = 2005 SLD 278 = 2005 PTD 2420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Filing High Court Appeal\nKey Issues:\n•\nLapse in timely filing attributable to appellant's office.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAppellant responsible for ensuring timely filing.\n•\nAppeals filed after statutory deadlines require credible justification.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1332-L of 2001, decision dated: 17-05-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): FALAK SHER AND TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Atta-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nSERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 279 = 2005 SLD 279 = 2005 PTD 2436 = (2005) 91 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreements Affecting Tax Levy and Enforcement\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegal enforceability of agreements between taxpayers' associations and revenue authorities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax levy, rates, and collection methods require superior or subordinate legislation.\n•\nAgreements not formalized through statutory instruments (e.g., notifications) cannot override statutory provisions.\n•\nCompliance or partial adherence to such agreements does not confer them legal status.\n•\nNo estoppel against law; affected parties can refuse adherence.\nConclusion:\nAgreements lacking statutory backing are unenforceable; penalties for non-compliance cannot be imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=77,127 ", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 224 and 225 of 2002, decision dated: 5-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar. A. Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "CRESCENT REROLLING MILLS, LAHORE\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 280 = 2005 SLD 280 = 2005 PTD 2442 = (2005) 91 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting of Registered Persons\nKey Issues:\n•\nBlacklisting without prior notice or substantive reasons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBlacklisting imposes severe penalties and requires adherence to natural justice principles.\n•\nActions based on audit reports must align with statutory provisions; audits must not serve as the sole basis.\n•\nSpeaking orders are mandatory for such penalties.\nConclusion:\nBlacklisting order declared illegal; High Court directed issuance of a fresh speaking order with valid grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2) ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 12490 of 2005, heard on 3rd August, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Arshad Hameed for Petitioner. Kausar Perveen", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AYESHA TEXTILE through Managing Partner\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR (INCHARGE AUDIT DIVISION), SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 281 = 2005 SLD 281 = 2005 PTD 2453 = (2005) 91 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Issuing Show-Cause Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether collusion or deliberate evasion justifies notices beyond three years.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLack of evidence for deliberate evasion; case falls under standard limitation period of three years (Section 36(2)).\nConclusion:\nDemand for disputed tax period declared time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.34 of 2004, decision dated: 23rd May, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Saood Nasrullah Cheema. Dr. Sohail Akhtars", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PSIC CUTLERY, WAZIRABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJRANWALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 282 = 2005 SLD 282 = 2005 PTD 2582 = (2005) 91 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charges for Installation Services\nKey Issues:\n•\nInclusion of installation charges in taxable supply.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInstallation services were not part of taxable activity under applicable law.\n•\nAppeals requiring no substantial legal questions were dismissed.\nConclusion:\nInstallation charges excluded from taxable value; appeal dismissed in limine.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(33),(35),(46),47 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 529 of 2004, decision dated: 9-09-2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal. Faisal Siddiqui", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ALLIED ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 275 = 2004 SLD 275 = 2004 PTCL 276 = 2004 PTD 1328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tobacco Processing and Taxability\nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification of processed tobacco as manufactured or unmanufactured. \nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nProcesses like re-drying and curing do not transform tobacco into a manufactured product.\n•\nExemption applies to unmanufactured tobacco under Sixth Schedule.\nConclusion:\nCured/redried tobacco exempt from sales tax; levy on waste/scrap upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(16),2(16)(b)(c),33(1),34,7(1) Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(13) ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(840)ST/IB, of 2001(PB), decision dated: 8-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Athar Minallah, Sultan Zafar, Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Farid Khan. Pir Alam Shah, D.R. and Al Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 276 = 2004 SLD 276 = 2004 PTD 1339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search and Seizure under Sales Tax Act\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of searches conducted without proper authorization or adherence to procedure.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSearches require compliance with procedural safeguards (e.g., Assistant Collector’s presence).\n•\nActions without adherence to statutory provisions lack legal validity.\nConclusion:\nSearch declared illegal; documents seized unlawfully to be returned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,40A,38 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=Chap.VII,94,105,96,97 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5150 of 2003, decision dated: 27-02-2004. dates of hearing: 10th and 13-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "MEGNA TEXTILE MILLS\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 277 = 2004 SLD 277 = 2004 PTCL 239 = 2004 PTD 1367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Financial and Operating Leases\nKey Issues:\n•\nRetrospective application of amendments excluding leases from supply. \nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAmendments to the definition of supply apply prospectively.\n•\nLeases prior to amendments were taxable as supplies.\nConclusion:\nSales tax on pre-amendment leases upheld; additional tax and penalties partially waived.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(33),34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(306)ST/IB of 2000(PB), decision dated: 13-12-2003. dates of hearing: 23rd September, 16th, 29th October of 2002, 25-06-18th, 24, 29-09-6th .8th and 14-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mahmood Mirza, Isaac Ali Qazi and Muhammad Yunus. Al Haj Gul, D.R., Hussain Muhammad and Bakht e Dauran, Sr. Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 278 = 2004 SLD 278 = 2004 PTD 1388 = (2004) 90 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjudication Principles\nKey Issues:\n•\nFailure to conduct factual inquiry in adjudication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders based on generalized assumptions violate principles of natural justice.\n•\nAdjudication requires a detailed factual and legal analysis.\nConclusion:\nOrder quashed; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition. No. 7967 of 2003, decision dated: 16-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Azhar for Petitioner. Ahmad Sibtain Fazlis", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PRIME CHEMICALS through Member of Association of Person\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 279 = 2004 SLD 279 = 2004 PTD 1429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Extensions and Administrative Maladministration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelays and procedural deviations in audit processes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-compliance with procedural guidelines undermines validity of audit.\n•\nAdministrative excesses warrant corrective measures.\nConclusion:\nAudit to be completed promptly; department directed to address procedural lapses.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,24,37C Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C 138 K of 2003, decision dated: 12-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Haji Yousuf Rehmatullah for the Complainant. Muneeb Sarwar, Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (East), Karachi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WASEELA PRINTERS and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 280 = 2004 SLD 280 = 2004 PTD 1449 = (2004) 90 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Additional Tax without Notice\nKey Issues:\n•\nLevy of additional tax without prior show-cause notice.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nShow-cause notices are mandatory for imposing additional tax.\n•\nObservations in orders do not substitute formal notice requirements.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax and penalties set aside for lack of procedural compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,12,12A,34,49(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2003, decision dated: 10-02-2004, hearing DATE : 29-01-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Sana Minhas. Raja M. Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, (ADJUDICATIONIII), COLLECTORATE CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 281 = 2004 SLD 281 = 2004 PTD 1495 = (2004) 89 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compulsory Registration Thresholds\nKey Issues:\n•\nRegistration without evidence of exceeding turnover threshold.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLack of evidence for exceeding turnover makes compulsory registration invalid.\nConclusion:\nDeregistration recommended; penalty for non-compliance deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19,3A,11,14,33,34,SixthSched. Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 912 of 2003, decision dated: 18-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Tariq Khan for the Complainant. Imtiaz Shaikh, Deputy Collector", + "Party Name:": "FAISAL TARIQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 282 = 2004 SLD 282 = 2004 PTD 1506", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption from General Practice\nKey Issues:\n•\nClaiming exemption based on established practice.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nConsistent non-payment without objection establishes a general practice.\n•\nExemptions based on past practice justified in absence of conflicting evidence.\nConclusion:\nExemption recommended for prior period; levy on subsequent periods upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=65,11 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 930-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor ul Arefeen, Mansoor Anjum and Muhammad Mehtab Khan for the Complainant. Mirza Mubashir Baig, Deputy Collector and Zia Ahmed Khan, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GENERAL LOCKERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION; ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 283 = 2004 SLD 283 = 2004 PTD 1527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delegation of Powers for Search and Seizure\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of actions by unauthorized officials.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelegation of authority must adhere strictly to statutory provisions.\n•\nUnauthorized actions contravene procedural requirements and constitutional safeguards.\nConclusion:\nSearch declared illegal; seized documents ordered to be returned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=32,38,40,40A,32(2)(3) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=103 ", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeal No. 353 of 2001, decision dated: 21st August, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL II) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL II)", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 284 = 2004 SLD 284 = 2004 PTD 1533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Administration of Justice and Tax Demand Timelines\nKey Issues:\n•\nJudicial orders must articulate reasoning (speaking orders).\n•\nTime-barred tax demands under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax demands beyond the statutory three-year period are unenforceable.\n•\nJudicial orders lacking reasoning deprive appellate courts of clarity and violate principles of justice.\nConclusion:\nTime-barred tax demands are invalid; non-speaking orders are unsustainable in law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-57 of 2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name": "Ataullah Khan, Consultant. Abdul Khaliq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 285 = 2004 SLD 285 = 2004 PTD 1538 = (2004) 89 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Compulsory Registration of Seasonal Businesses\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of registration without exceeding turnover thresholds.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartments failed to justify compulsory registration under Sections 14 and 19 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nMaladministration established due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.\nConclusion:\nRegistration canceled; case to be reassessed with opportunity for representation.\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19,,3A,14,26,33(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 903 of 2003, decision dated: 22-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Messrs Bashir Ahmad and Mansoor Sattar Lodhi for the Complainant. Imtaiz Ahmad Sheikh, D.C.S.T.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TROUT LAND HOTEL (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISOIN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 286 = 2004 SLD 286 = 2004 PTD 1567 = (2004) 89 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nMisclassification of goods/services for tax purposes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPersistent disregard of superior court rulings constitutes maladministration.\n•\nConsumption of seals and bags treated as sales without proper justification.\nConclusion:\nActions deemed maladministration; Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended rectifications.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26,3,45A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 701 K of 2003, decision dated: 9-09-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari for the Complainant. Saeed Khan Jadoon, D.C.C.S.T.", + "Party Name:": "PHOENIX ARMOUR (PVT.) LTD. through Amin Ansari Law Associates\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 287 = 2004 SLD 287 = 2004 PTD 1585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit-Based Tax Liabilities\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustments against tax refunds without adjudication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nActions based solely on audit reports were premature and lacked procedural adherence.\n•\nShow-cause notice and adjudication are prerequisites for recovery.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended proper adjudication and adjustment/refund based on findings.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,45 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 710 L of 2003, decision dated: 16-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mumtaz Hussain Bhutta for the Complainant. Taimoor Kamal Malik, A.C.s", + "Party Name:": "FARAN PROCESSING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 288 = 2004 SLD 288 = 2004 PTD 1614 = (2004) 90 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment Rules\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of tax invoices from registered/unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjustments under unamended Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, were independent of Section 23.\n•\nDouble taxation is impermissible under the statutory scheme.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment allowed where valid tax invoices exist; provisions construed to avoid double taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(40),7(2)(i) ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No.73 of 2002, heard on 25-02-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMED AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mrs. Farhat Zafar. Farhat Nawaz Lodhis", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE .OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs ISLAMABAD FEEDS, RAWALPINDI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 289 = 2004 SLD 289 = 2004 PTD 1659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Suspected Suppliers\nKey Issues:\n•\nWithholding refunds due to suspected supplier status.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds cannot be denied without proving the complainant's complicity.\n•\nAdministrative excesses and defective show-cause notices violate due process.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims to be reassessed; Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended procedural corrections.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1103 K of 2003, decision dated: 31st October, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Rahim Lakhany, Chartered Accountant and Ajeet Sunder for the Complainant. Dr. Mubashir Baig, Dy. Collector of Sales Tax and Syed Alley Jaffer Dy. Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KAM INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 290 = 2004 SLD 290 = 2004 PTD 1731 = (2004) 89 TAX 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search and Seizure under Tax Laws\nKey Issues:\n•\nPowers of access, inspection, and seizure under the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSearches must comply with statutory safeguards and Cr.P.C. provisions.\n•\nUnauthorized raids and seizure violate constitutional protections.\nConclusion:\nRaid and seizure declared unlawful; show-cause notices and related proceedings annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=37,38 Central Excise Rules, 1944=197,201 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=9,14,15,18,23,24 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=18 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7035, 10311 of 2000, heard on 25-03-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli, Shamoon Zakaria, Ahmad Sibtain Fazli and Nasar Ahmad for Petitioner. Izharul Haq Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FOOD CONSULTS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE and others\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (CENTRAL EXCISE & SALES TAX), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 291 = 2004 SLD 291 = 2004 PTCL 27 = (2004) 90 TAX 227 = 2004 PTD 1759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions and Legislative Authority\nKey Issues:\n•\nInterpretation and enforceability of tax exemption clauses.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemptions are not an inherent right and require express statutory provisions.\n•\nLegislative intent supersedes prior administrative understandings.\nConclusion:\nExemption claims denied in absence of clear legislative basis.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(2),6(1A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.916 to 918, 1282, 1306 of 2003 and 3409 of 2002, heard on 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Awais, M.S. Babar and Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi for Petitioner. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Shahzad Mazher", + "Party Name:": "Messrs VARAN TOURS\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary Finance Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 292 = 2004 SLD 292 = 2004 PTD 1809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustments on Electricity Bills\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdditional tax demands for short payments caused by WAPDA adjustments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-speaking orders fail to address arguments raised by the complainant.\n•\nArbitrary tax demands constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax demands voided; excess payment refunded.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=31(A),3b(1),34 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 205 of 2003 decided on 11-08-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajjad Ahmad Chaudhry alongwith S.K. Jodoon for Petitioner. Ziaullah Shams, Assistant Collector, Sales Tax and Bakht Dauran, Senior Auditor, Sales Tax, Peshawar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CH. FABRICS PVT. LTD., HATTAR\nvs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 293 = 2004 SLD 293 = 2004 PTD 1841", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Value Addition and Input Tax Compliance\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermination of taxable value and compliance with Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCash payments violate Section 73; input tax claims disallowed.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended re-examination of value addition and penalties.\nConclusion:\nCase to be reassessed; packing charges and penalty imposition to be reconsidered.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46)(e),33(2),45A,73,7,34 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.392 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sheikh Ghulam Asghar for the Complainant. Fazal ur Rehman, A.C.s", + "Party Name:": "ECONOMY PESTICIDES (PVT.) LTD., DERA GAZI KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 294 = 2004 SLD 294 = 2004 PTD 1861", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Sales Tax Scheme\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility for exemption under S.R.O. 392(I)/2001.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nClaims depend on the validity of fixed tax permissions and pending appeals.\nConclusion:\nComplaint closed; matter deferred to appellate tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.203 of 2003, decision dated: 2-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Isaac Ali Qazi for the Complainant. Ziaullah Shams, A.C. and Bakhat Dowran, Senior Auditor/Law Officer", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALPHA VINYL (PVT.) LTD., SAWABI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 295 = 2004 SLD 295 = 2004 PTD 1893 = (2004) 89 TAX 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Refund Claims\nKey Issues:\n•\nWithholding refunds due to supplier non-compliance.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBuyers cannot be penalized for supplier defaults absent collusion evidence.\n•\nAdministrative delays in refunds are inefficiencies.\nConclusion:\nRefund claims to be decided expeditiously or supported by valid show-cause notices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,34(4)(c),67,73 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=8(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-485-K of 2003, decision dated: 10-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WELFARE TRADING COMPANY, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 296 = 2004 SLD 296 = 2004 PTD 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Recovery Procedures\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdictional errors in assessment and recovery orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSummary assessments must align with procedural requirements.\n•\nOrders issued by unauthorized officers are void.\nConclusion:\nAssessment order declared without jurisdiction; proceedings remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(2),45,11,11A,45,73 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=179 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10840 of 2003, heard on 5-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Shafique for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal Choudhry Ambalvi", + "Party Name:": "AAA STEEL MILLS LIMITED through Proprietor Mrs. Shaista Kausar\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, COLLECTORATE OF SALES -TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 308 = 2000 SLD 308 = 2000 PLC 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Labor Law and Unfair Dismissal\nKey Issues:\n•\nVictimization for trade union activities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDismissal based on fabricated allegations violates labor protections.\n•\nEmployers' actions constitute unfair labor practices.\nConclusion:\nEmployee reinstated with back benefits; dismissal order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "National Industrial Relations Commission", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=15,22A(8)(g) ", + "Case #": "Case No.4 A(509) of 1998, decision dated: 12-04-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): BAHADER ALI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Waqar Ahmad for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Tahirs", + "Party Name:": "NAU BAHAR\nVs\nCHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL through Regional Manager, Pakistan Steel, The Mall, Lahore a and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 309 = 2000 SLD 309 = 2000 PLC 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ejectment of Employees from Residential Quarters\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAfter privatization, residential accommodations became part of civil servant terms, placing jurisdiction with the Federal Service Tribunal, not the NIRC.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the NIRC.", + "Court Name:": "National Industrial Relations Commission", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=15,22 ", + "Case #": "Case No. 4 A (1407) of 1996 L, decision dated: 8-07-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NABI BAKHSH BHATTI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Waqar Ahmad for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Tahirs", + "Party Name:": "SHAHID MUNIR and others\nVs\nPECO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 310 = 2000 SLD 310 = 2000 PLC 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Termination of Services and Departmental Proceedings\nKey Issues:\n•\nAllegation of unfair labor practices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTermination for misconduct, supported by inquiry and evidence, is not unfair labor practice.\n•\nNIRC lacks jurisdiction over departmental proceedings unless tainted by victimization or unfair practices.\nConclusion:\nPetitions dismissed as baseless; NIRC jurisdiction not applicable.", + "Court Name:": "National Industrial Relations Commission", + "Law and Sections": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=1522A(8)(g) ", + "Case #": "No.7(535) of 1998 L and 4 A (456) of 1995 L, decision dated: 6-05-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NABI BAKHSH BHATTI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Javed Iqbal for Petitioner. Ch. Zafar Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM DASTAGIR\nVs\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, SHEIKHUPURA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 297 = 2004 SLD 297 = 2004 PTD 636 = (2004) 89 TAX 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Sales Tax and Excise Duty on Reclaimed Oil\nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification and taxation of reclaimed lubricating oil.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nReclaimed oil differs in properties and value from used oil, constituting a taxable new product under relevant laws and SROs.\nConclusion:\nLevy upheld; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(16),3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(f),3 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4361 of 1996, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 17-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner. Izharul Haq Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "Mirza NASRULLAH KHAN\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, HAFIZABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 298 = 2004 SLD 298 = 2004 PTCL 84 = (2004) 89 TAX 429 = 2004 PTD 714", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-Audit and Refund Blocking\nKey Issues:\n•\nProcedural irregularities in audit approvals and refunds.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRe-audit requires exceptional circumstances and adherence to procedural safeguards.\n•\nRefund blocking without adjudication violates due process.\nConclusion:\nApproval for re-audit declared unlawful; refund claims to proceed per law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=22,25,45A,45,36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18599 of 2002, decision dated: 17-10-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. Ahmad Bilal Soofi for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUSKZAR KNITWEARS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive, Lahore\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND STATISTICS through Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 299 = 2004 SLD 299 = 2004 PTD 748 = (2004) 89 TAX 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption and Legislative Authority\nKey Issues:\n•\nRight to claim exemption under Section 13(2).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax exemptions are discretionary, not a statutory right.\n•\nLegislative mala fides cannot be attributed.\nConclusion:\nClaim denied; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=12(2),6(1A),13(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=31A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.917 of 2003, heard on 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmed Awais, M.S. Babar and Ibad-ur-Rehmar Lodhi for Petitioner. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Shahzad Mazhars", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHAN BROTHER (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 278 = 2006 SLD 278 = 2006 PTD 2482 = 2007 PTCL 462 = (2007) 95 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Remand Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nPrinciples for remanding cases in revenue matters.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRemand orders must not allow parties to rectify procedural lapses or improve their cases.\nConclusion:\nRemand order annulled as unwarranted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 503 of 2002, decision dated: 18-07-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE \nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt.Sarfaraz Ahmad Cheema for Revenue. Mian Muhammad Khalid, Advocate on behalf of A. Karim Malik for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS KArs PAINTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES, FAISALABAD THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 300 = 2004 SLD 300 = 2004 PTD 767 = (2004) 89 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Coal Supply\nKey Issues:\n•\nConstitutionality and uniformity of levy.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLevy on coal supply is constitutional and non-discriminatory, even if collected differently across provinces.\nConclusion:\nLevy upheld; leave to appeal refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(2)(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 983-L to 993-L of 2002, decision dated: 3rd June, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Records (in all Petitions). M. Yawar Ali Khan, Dy. A.G., Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record and Manzoor Hussain, Secretary, Sales Taxs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD AMIN BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD. and others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (Finance), Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 310 = 2003 SLD 310 = 2003 PTD 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Goods in Stock\nKey Issues:\n•\nClaiming adjustments for unused raw materials.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment linked to tax period and intended use, not immediate consumption.\n•\nDepartment's demand time-barred.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment allowed; department’s demand set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(3),7,8(1)(a),10,11,36 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-55 of 2002, decision dated: 19-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Sattar Silat. Iftikhar M. Ansari, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 311 = 2003 SLD 311 = 2003 PTD 187 = (2003) 87 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Refund Reforms\nKey Issues:\n•\nSuggestions for transparency in refund processes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman suggested better coordination between tax authorities and State Bank for tracking refunds and remittances.\nConclusion:\nRecommendations forwarded for systemic improvements.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=14(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1652 to 1742, of 2001, decision dated: 15-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi for the Complainant. Nazim Saleem, Chief (Sales tax) C.B.R. with Pervez Esbhani, Secretary (Sales Tax) C.B.R.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAHIM ELECTRIC STORE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 312 = 2003 SLD 312 = 2003 PTD 205 = (2003) 87 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Registration under Sales Tax Act\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdditional requirements imposed by Standing Orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nStanding Orders exceeding prescribed rules are extralegal.\n•\nDelays in registration issuance constitute maladministration.\nConclusion:\nStanding Order withdrawn; maladministration confirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=17 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 318 of 2002, decision dated: 30-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saleem Malik for the Complainant. Masood Sabir, A. C. S. T.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB TEXTILES, GOJRA, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 313 = 2003 SLD 313 = 2003 PTD 225 = (2003) 87 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplication of amnesty provisions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders ignoring compliance with amnesty provisions are arbitrary and unjust.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; maladministration established.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,33(2)(c) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1513-L of 2001, decision dated: 30-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Sh. Ghulam Asghar for the Complainant. Dr. Aftab Bhatti, Dy. Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HASSAN EHSAN COTTON GINNERS\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 314 = 2003 SLD 314 = 2003 PTD 312 = (2003) 87 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for New Industrial Units\nKey Issues:\n•\nTimely application for exemption under SRO 561(I)/94.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRegistration delays caused by the department should not penalize the assessee.\n•\nExemption applicable for units established before the cutoff date.\nConclusion:\nDemand set aside; exemption granted.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13(2)(a) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 173 of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Nazir Ch., Chief Executive and Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan, A.R. for the Complainant. M. Saleem, Deputy Collector", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PRIME CHROMIUM (PVT.).LTD., HATTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 315 = 2003 SLD 315 = 2003 PTD 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compulsory Registration and Survey Evaluations\nKey Issues:\n•\nSurvey evaluations as agreements for registration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSurvey signatures are not binding agreements.\n•\nObjected evaluations require verification and due process.\nConclusion:\nSurvey-based demands withdrawn; procedural corrections recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,3(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1353 of 2001, decision dated: 26-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for the Complainant. Dr. Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Collector (Sales Tax), Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IQBAL & CO., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 316 = 2003 SLD 316 = 2003 PTD 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Input Tax on Exempt Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nCondonation of delay and taxation of inputs for exempt goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelay condoned due to postal issues.\n•\nTaxation on inputs justified unless specifically exempted.\nConclusion:\nCondonation allowed; tax on inputs upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,2(25)(39(48),4,8(2) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 7(480) ST/IB of 2001(PB), decision dated: 8-11-2002. dates of hearing: 14th, 24th January: 20-02-22nd May and 1st July, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Latif Yousafzai and Mian Faiz Muhammad, Senior Manager (Accounts). Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorates", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 317 = 2003 SLD 317 = 2003 PTCL 102 = 2003 PTD 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Local Supplies and Imported Machinery\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of exemptions under S.R.O. 582(I)/98 and S.R.O. 561(I)/94.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption under S.R.O. 582(I)/98 applies to taxable goods, which are distinct from taxable supplies under S.R.O. 561(I)/94.\n•\nPlastic mats, though exempt as supplies, are taxable goods under Section 2(39) of the Sales Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nAppeal accepted; recovery order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,2(33)(39)(41),6,31 Customs Act, 1969=32 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(316) CU/IB of 2000(PB), decision dated: 28th September 2002. dates of hearing: 5th, 14th, March; 16th April and 26-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJA MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Dins. Al Haj Gul, D.R. No. 1. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer No. 3. Shamsur Rehman, Inspector No. 1", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 318 = 2003 SLD 318 = 2003 PTD 686 = (2003) 87 TAX 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Raid and Stock Verification Allegations\nKey Issues:\n•\nCoercion and intimidation during factory raids by tax officials.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAllegations of coercion and forced signature are substantiated by lack of proper stock reconciliation and procedural lapses.\nConclusion:\nInquiry recommended into misconduct, and the case was directed to be decided on merit post-investigation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,38,25 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 335 of 2002, decision dated: 28-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Zia Harder Rizvi for the Complainant Muhammad Tahir, A.G. Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWOOD TEXTILE PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 319 = 2003 SLD 319 = 2003 PTCL 109 = 2003 PTD 757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Certificates and Tax Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of Special Registration Certificates issued under S.R.O. 826(I)/98.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCertificates valid until rescinded or canceled under S.R.O. 543(I)/99.\n•\nNo evidence of cancellation by the department before July 1999.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; appeal accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,33,36 General Clauses Act, 1897=21 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.STA-711-A/PB of 2002, decision dated: 5-10-2002. dates of hearing: 22nd May; 18th June and 2-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Javed. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officers", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 320 = 2003 SLD 320 = 2003 PTD 760 = (2003) 88 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Supply of Imported Parts and Sales Tax Exemption\nKey Issues:\n•\nDemand of sales tax on goods supplied without manufacturing.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption applies to goods not subjected to manufacturing under Entry No. 33 of Sixth Schedule.\n•\nAmbiguity in fiscal statutes resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\nConclusion:\nDemand canceled; petition accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(33)(a),3,34,36,SixthSched. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1944 of 1999, decision dated: 24-09-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HINOPAK MOTORS LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 321 = 2003 SLD 321 = 2003 PTD 764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wastage of Gas and Tax Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax liability on wastage exceeding permissible limits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nWastage up to 13% allowable as per C.B.R. guidelines.\n•\nActual wastage must be determined and justified before recovery.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for audit and recalculation of tax liability.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.STA-344/PB of 2001, decision dated: 29-10-2002. dates of hearing: 26th September; 17th and 22-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Idrees Mufti. Al Haj Gul, D.R., Mr. Zaman, D.S., Hussain Muhammad. Senior Auditor and Ehsanullah, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 568 = 2002 SLD 568 = 2002 PTCL 597 = 2003 PTD 773 = (2003) 88 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\nKey Issues:\n•\nLevy of further tax under Section 3(1-A).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax applies to persons registered or liable to be registered.\n•\nAmbiguities in fiscal statutes resolved in favor of taxpayers.\nConclusion:\nProof of registration required for further tax liability.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(25),3(1A),14,19 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1457 of 1999, decision dated: 30-11-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAHID KURBAN ALVI AND MUSHIR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Farough Naseem for Petitioner. Saleem Thepdawala and Akhlaque Ahmeds. Syed Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "MATIARI SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nvs\nPAKISTAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 322 = 2003 SLD 322 = 2003 PTCL 330 = (2003) 87 TAX 340 = 2003 PTD 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Principal Companies and Taxable Supplies\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxation of supplies made by manufacturing companies.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nManufacturing companies supplying goods to principal companies constitute a taxable activity.\n•\nShow-cause notice issued contrary to express provisions of the Act.\nConclusion:\nNotice declared invalid; petition accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,3,Third,Sched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1960 to 1963 of 1999 and 1495 of 2001 decided on 22-11-2002, hearing DATE : 8-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR UL MULK AND TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Petitioner Abdul Rauf Rohila, Issac Ali Qazi and Salah-ud-Din, Dy. A. G.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMBAR TOBACCO CO. (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, PESHAWAR CANTT, and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 279 = 2006 SLD 279 = 2006 PTD 2683 = 2007 PTCL 241 = (2007) 95 TAX 149 = 2007 PTR 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Payment of Sales Tax and Additional Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nImposition of additional tax for late clearance of bank instruments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax deemed paid only upon clearance of the instrument.\n•\nRule 5(4) of Monthly Returns Rules is consistent with Section 6.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax upheld; leave to appeal denied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(9),(43),6(2),26,34 Filing of Monthly Return Rules, 1996=5(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2721 of 2001, decision dated: 21st August, 2006, hearing DATE : 24-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J, FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Mumtaz Ahmad, Member (Legal), C.B.R.s", + "Party Name:": "DHAN FIBRES LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 323 = 2003 SLD 323 = 2003 PTD 899 = (2003) 87 TAX 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-Audit of Registered Persons\nKey Issues:\n•\nConditions for conducting re-audits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRe-audit requires exceptional circumstances and procedural justification.\n•\nDepartment must provide reasons and allow the taxpayer to respond.\nConclusion:\nPetition disposed of with instructions for adherence to due process.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=14 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18535 of 2002, heard on 31st October, 2002, hearing DATE : 21st October, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli, Nasar Ahmad and Ahmad Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner A. Karim Malik and Mazhar Waseem, Dy. Collectors", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAISAL ENTERPRISES\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 569 = 2002 SLD 569 = 2002 PTCL 495 = 2003 PTD 928", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Value of Supply and Tax Liability\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermination of value for supply and input tax adjustment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nValue addition cannot be arbitrarily fixed without statutory backing.\n•\nInput tax adjustments, even beyond prescribed periods, are statutory rights.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax and penalties set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46)(d),7(1),3,6,8,10,34,66 Customs Act, 1969=25,25B ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 157/LB of 2002, decision dated: 10-07-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL), SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, ZAFAR IQBAL, SAFDAR ALI, MEMBERS (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ M.KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Andrabi. Amer Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 570 = 2002 SLD 570 = 2002 PTCL 456 = 2003 PTD 953", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Self-Supplied Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax liability on self-used raw materials in manufacturing.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSelf-supplied goods like limestone and clay are taxable under Section 3.\n•\nTaxable activity includes internal use for further manufacturing.\nConclusion:\nOrder upheld; tax liability maintained.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,2(33),2(41),3,6,22,23,26,33,2(16) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 117 of 2002, decision dated: 4-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MASUD AHMED DAHER, CHAIRMAN AND ABDUL HAMEED KHAN KHATTAK. MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "S.K.M. Kiani Tariq Ahad Nawaz, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 280 = 2006 SLD 280 = 2006 PTD 2673 = (2006) 93 TAX 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability and Registration\nKey Issues:\n•\nLiability for supplies made prior to registration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDemand for pre-registration period requires proper notice.\n•\nLiability adjudged post-registration upheld.\nConclusion:\nOrder modified; partial relief granted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,14,19,22,23,26,33,34,36 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.19/ST/IB of 2006, decision dated: 24-02-2006, hearing DATE : 20-02-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik M. Irfan I.T.P.. Moeen -ud-Din Wani, D.C./D.R. and Muhammad Akram, Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 324 = 2003 SLD 324 = 2003 PTD 970", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Credit and Banking Requirements\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-admissibility of cash payments for input tax credit.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 73 mandates banking instruments for transactions exceeding Rs. 50,000.\n•\nCash payments do not meet statutory requirements.\nConclusion:\nComplaint dismissed; credit denied.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,7,2(46)(e) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1300/L of 2002, decision dated: 13-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi and Ghaffar Hussain for the Complainant. Fazal ur Rehman, A.C., Sales Tax, Multan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZARCO CHEMICALS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 281 = 2006 SLD 281 = 2006 PTD 2721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Injunction and Recovery Proceedings\nKey Issues:\n•\nContinuation of recovery despite pending appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInterim orders lapse after six months, requiring final adjudication of appeals.\nConclusion:\nPetition allowed; recovery stayed temporarily.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(4), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4171 of 2006, decision dated: 5-05-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Izharul Haq Sheikhs", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.S. TANNERIES through Proprietor\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (AUDIT AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONII), SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 325 = 2003 SLD 325 = 2003 PTD 1032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Impropriety in Show-Cause Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-disclosure of reasons for notice issuance.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLack of transparency violates principles of natural justice.\nConclusion:\nNotice declared illegal; order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6,7,10,36,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. H-46 of 2001, decision dated: 31st May, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJID HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Majeed Akmal, M.D.. M.R.K. Warsi, Superintendent and Ali Gohar, Inspector for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 326 = 2003 SLD 326 = 2003 PTD 1034 = (2003) 88 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search and Seizure Procedures\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-compliance with procedural safeguards during searches.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSearches must comply with Cr.P.C. provisions.\n•\nLack of adherence renders actions unlawful.\nConclusion:\nSearch declared unlawful; High Court decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40A Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=96,98,99A,100,103 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.291-K of 2001, decision dated: 16-12-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWANDAS AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Abid S. Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others\nvs\nMessrs MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 327 = 2003 SLD 327 = 2003 PTD 1106 = (2003) 88 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery under Special Statutes\nKey Issues:\n•\nExtension of interim orders in appellate proceedings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSpecial statutes override general procedural laws like C.P.C.\nConclusion:\nStay extension denied; statutory timelines upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,R.2(2A),(2B),141 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1865 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.4713, 4714 and 4720 of 2002, decision dated: 5-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sattar Silat for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARIM CONTAINERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 328 = 2003 SLD 328 = 2003 PTD 1131 = (2003) 87 TAX 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for In-House Consumption\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplication of exemptions to intermediate goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nIn-house consumption of bagasse is exempt under Sixth Schedule.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; exemption confirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=Sixth Schedule,32A,3,6,22,23,26,11,33,34,36 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. S.T.A. 992 of 2002/PB, decision dated: 17-12-2002. dates of hearing: 24th September and 17-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "S.K. Masud Kiyani. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer and Phool Badshah, Cost Accountants", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 329 = 2003 SLD 329 = 2003 PTCL 527 = 2003 PTD 1212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Excess Tax Paid\nKey Issues:\n•\nConditions for claiming refunds under Section 3-B.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefund not admissible without compliance with statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; refund claim denied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3B(3)(2),6(1),66,SixthSched Customs Act, 1969=33(1) ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No CUS. A 292/TRF of 2001/(PB), decision dated: 18-12-2002. dates of hearing: 19th June and 23rd July, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Idrees Muftis. Al Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "Zahid Idrees Mufti for . Al Haj Gul, D.R. for \nvs\nKALEEM CUSTOMS CLEARING AGENCY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 330 = 2003 SLD 330 = 2003 PTD 1664 = (2004) 89 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Orders in Tax Recovery Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction of High Courts to grant interim relief.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Courts retain jurisdiction to issue interim orders unless explicitly ousted.\nConclusion:\nInterim relief granted; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=183(3),199(4A) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1840-L of 2002, decision dated: 24-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Kairm Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shahid Karim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul-Islam, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-II SALES TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nABDULLAH SUGAR MILLS LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 331 = 2003 SLD 331 = 2003 PTCL 705 = 2003 PTD 1215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment and Customs Bonded Warehouse Fire Incident\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of input tax adjustment against goods lost in a fire.\n•\nNon-indication of Sales Tax Registration Number on utility bills.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax credit was allowed under Section 205 of the Customs Act, 1969, and disallowance by the Sales Tax Department was invalid.\n•\nNon-indication of Sales Tax Registration Number on electricity bills was condoned as the omission was beyond the taxpayer's control.\nConclusion:\nTribunal annulled the penalties and validated input tax adjustment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,33,34,36,7(1),6(1) Customs Act, 1969=27,205,108 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. 7(1412)CU/IB of 2001 (PB), decision dated: 18-01-2003. dates of hearing: 5th March; 2nd, 4th, April; 27th May; 16th 22nd, 31-10-and 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi, A.K. Masud Kiyani, Qazi Waheed-ud-Din, Syed Nawab and Mr. Altaf. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorate, Al Haj Gul, D.R., Hussain Muhammad, Senior Auditor and Alam Zaib Khan, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 301 = 2004 SLD 301 = 2004 PTCL 445 = (2004) 89 TAX 363 = 2004 PTD 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Consumed Raw Materials in Cement Production\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of self-excavated limestone and clay used in cement production.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSelf-consumed goods fall under taxable supply under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nThe process of excavation qualifies as manufacturing in furtherance of taxable activity.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld the Department’s decision for tax liability on self-consumed raw materials.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(16),45 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched. ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 87 and 105 of 2002, heard on 4-12-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb. Ms. Farhat Zafars", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FACTO CEMENT SANGJANI, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 282 = 2006 SLD 282 = 2006 PTD 2726 = (2007) 95 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes\nKey Principles:\n•\nThe intention of the legislature is gathered from the language of the statute.\n•\nStatutes creating obligations must be enforced as specified without deviation.\n•\nNotifications cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated.\nConclusion:\nStatutory provisions must be interpreted strictly, favoring the express language used.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990= ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.192 to 196 of 2001, decision dated: 10-11-2005, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2005", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Tasawar Ali Hashmi\nNemo for the respondents", + "Party Name:": "NISHAT MILLS LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 332 = 2003 SLD 332 = 2003 PTD 1303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Under Simplified Sales Tax Rules\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption applicability under S.R.O. 392(I)/01.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemptions apply to tax amounts exceeding the fixed rates specified in applicable rules.\n•\nDepartment failed to act on the taxpayer’s application for exemption, constituting maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended resolving the exemption claim under S.R.O. 392(I)/01.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13(2)(a) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 659 of 2002, decision dated: 22-08-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Bhatti for the Complainant. Muhammad Tahir, A.C., Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARIM P.V.C. PIPE FACTORY, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUEDIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 333 = 2003 SLD 333 = 2003 PTD 1329 = (2003) 88 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal’s refusal to condone delay for lack of a separate application.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelay should be condoned in revenue matters if the request is made, even in grounds of appeal.\n•\nHarsh refusal undermines taxpayer rights in procedural matters.\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; case remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 451 of 2002, decision dated: 26-02-2003, hearing DATE : 28-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Muhammad Saleem Jahangir. A. Karim Malik", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASHRAF DAWAKHANA through Proprietor Hakim Muhammad Ashraf\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 283 = 2006 SLD 283 = 2006 PTD 2821 = (2007) 95 TAX 113 = 2007 PTR 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Diesel Used in Generators\nKey Issues:\n•\nDisallowance of input tax credit under S.R.O. 578(I)/98.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFederal Government empowered to deny input tax credit for specified items via notification.\n•\nThe withdrawal of a notification does not retroactively void its effect during its validity.\nConclusion:\nAdjustment claim rejected; notification upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(1),8(1)(a),8(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No. 89 of 2006, decision dated: 5-09-2006", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Lakhani for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMZ SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Manager\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 334 = 2003 SLD 334 = 2003 PTD 1376 = (2003) 88 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Additional Tax and Further Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of further tax and additional tax on delayed payments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLevy of further tax was struck down as unlawful.\n•\nNo additional tax could be imposed in its absence.\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; further tax demand struck down.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,3(1A) ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.539 of 2002, heard on 10-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Sohail Akhtar. Mian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad and A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE through Collector Sales Tax\nvs\nCUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 335 = 2003 SLD 335 = 2003 PTD 1429 = (2003) 88 TAX 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Condonation of Delay in High Court Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe Sales Tax Act prescribes its own limitation period, excluding the Limitation Act.\n•\nDelay condonation in such cases is limited to statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nCondonation denied; appeals must adhere to the Sales Tax Act’s specified timeline.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47 Limitation Act, 1908=5 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 5 to 9 of 2001, decision dated: 29-10-2002, hearing DATE : 7-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J. AKHTAR ZAMAN MULGHANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K. N. Kohli, D.A.G.s (in all Appeals) Syed Mehmood Ali Askari (in all Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, QUETTA through Additional Collector, Sales Tax, Hub, Balochistan\nvs\nMessrs DAWOOD YAMAHA (PVT.) LTD., BALOCHISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 336 = 2003 SLD 336 = 2003 PTD 1445 = (2003) 88 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Exempt Tractor Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustments for exempt supplies of agricultural tractors.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment is disallowed for exempt supplies.\n•\nRefund under Section 66 may be pursued instead of adjustment.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s findings upheld; taxpayer’s refund claim maintained.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(a),34,36,47,66,SixthSched,33,46 ", + "Case #": "Custom. Appeals Nos. 67 and 84 of 2002, heard on 28-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sajid Ijaz Hotina. Maqsood Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS. LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 571 = 2002 SLD 571 = 2002 PTD 387 = (2002) 85 TAX 466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment and Duties of Special Auditors\nKey Guidelines:\n•\nAuditors must notify taxpayers and restrict their scope to established parameters.\n•\nInvestigations must comply with time limits specified in instructions and rules.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 295 of 2001, decision dated: 1st November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ejaz Ahmad Awan. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "BROTHER SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through General Manager Finance\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 337 = 2003 SLD 337 = 2003 PTD 1460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Registration-Related Penalties\nKey Issues:\n•\nImposition of penalties despite administrative lapses by the Department.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenalties cannot be imposed when the taxpayer is uninformed of registration status due to departmental failure.\nConclusion:\nPenalties annulled; case remanded for reevaluation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26,15,33 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 591 of 2002, decision dated: 1st August, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Complainant in person. M. Saleem, D.C. (Sales Tax)", + "Party Name:": "HAZIR ZAMAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 338 = 2003 SLD 338 = 2003 PTD 1473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retail Tax on Alcoholic Liquor\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery of retail tax despite Central Excise Duty payment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExcise Duty and Sales Tax are distinct taxes; one does not substitute the other.\n•\nPenalty remitted due to initial stages of tax enforcement.\nConclusion:\nDemand upheld; penalty remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3AA,33,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.ST.No.799/PB of 2002, decision dated: 4-01-2003. dates of hearing: 2nd, 16th September and 2-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Issac Ali Qazi. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer, Bakht Dauran, Senior Auditor and Al-Haj Gul, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 339 = 2003 SLD 339 = 2003 PTCL 274 = 2003 PTD 1477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Review by High Court in Sales Tax Matters\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaintainability of review under the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nReview powers must be explicitly conferred by statute.\n•\nSales Tax Act is a special law, excluding general provisions of the C.P.C.\nConclusion:\nReview application dismissed; C.P.C. provisions not applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLVII,R.1(c) ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.27 of 2002, decision dated: 10-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AZIZULLAH M. MEMON AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal. Abid S. Zuberi No. 2", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE, SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 280 = 2008 SLD 280 = 2008 PTD 1905 = (2008) 98 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notices and Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of show-cause notices without specific section references.\n•\nInput tax adjustment on non-taxable goods and services (e.g., hotel bills, air tickets).\n•\nSelf-consumption of electricity and taxable activities.\n•\nSales of fixed assets and scrap as taxable supplies.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSubstantive matters in show-cause notices take precedence over procedural deficiencies.\n•\nInput tax credit is disallowed on items not linked to taxable activities.\n•\nSelf-consumption of electricity in housing colonies and sales of fixed assets/scrap are taxable.\nConclusion:\nCharges upheld; input tax disallowed on non-taxable items; adjustments for gas bills allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,8,2(41),2(46)(ii)(a),36 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1869/LB of 2002, decision dated: 27-11-2007, hearing DATE : 20-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R. and Pervaiz Alam, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 572 = 2002 SLD 572 = 2002 PTCL 37 = (2002) 85 TAX 171 = 2002 PTD 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Manufacture or Produce \nKey Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of clauses under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nActivities like galvanizing and threading pipe fittings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nClauses under Section 2(16) must be read in continuity.\n•\nGalvanizing and threading do not transform articles into distinct goods, thus not qualifying as manufacture. \nConclusion:\nAssessee was not liable for additional sales tax on galvanizing/threading as these processes do not constitute manufacturing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=.3(1)(a),2(16),2(35),6(1),(a),(b),&(e) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition.No.19868 of 1996, heard on 7-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAMNA FITTINGS AND PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Director, Lahore\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 340 = 2003 SLD 340 = 2003 PTCL 202 = 2003 PTD 1566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit on Imported Vehicles\nKey Issues:\n•\nEntitlement to input tax credit on imported dumper trucks.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDumpers classified under Chapter 87 of the Customs Act are ineligible for input tax credit under S.R.O. 556(I)/96.\nConclusion:\nInput tax credit denied for dumper trucks; order of the Additional Collector restored.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(b),10(1),2(23),2(35),34 Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched.,Chap.87 ", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(76)ST/IB of 2000(PB), decision dated: 4-01-2003. dates of hearing: 11th June; 3rd, 25th July; 5th August and 3rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer and Syed Ahmad, Senior Auditor. Issac Ali Qazi Muhammad Riaz and Tabrais Baigs", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 341 = 2003 SLD 341 = 2003 PTD 1574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cotton Ginning Factory and Recovery Ratios\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermination of sales tax liability based on recovery ratios of cotton seed.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRecovery ratio adjusted to 55% based on local benchmarks.\n•\nDepartment’s initial assessment of 58% was reduced by the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nShort-paid tax recalculated based on 55% recovery; penalties upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,11(2),34 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 1583/LB of 2001, decision dated: 13-05-2002, hearing DATE : 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Rana Shabbir Ahmed, S.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 342 = 2003 SLD 342 = 2003 PTD 1576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fake Invoices and Input Tax Credit\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of input tax credit based on allegations of fake invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartment failed to examine the taxpayer's evidence, leading to a flawed decision.\nConclusion:\nOrder remanded for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of the taxpayer’s arguments and evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 384 of 2002, decision dated: 8-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hamayun for the Complainant. Ch. Muhammad Javed, D.C. Adjudication, Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALI PACKAGES, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 741 = 2001 SLD 741 = 2001 PTD 1580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Cotton Seed Production\nKey Issues:\n•\nEx parte order on production discrepancies without disclosure of formulas.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLack of transparency and failure to follow natural justice principles rendered the order invalid.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; case remanded for a fresh decision with proper hearings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,34 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 102/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-05-2002, hearing DATE : 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYVUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Rana Shabbir Ahmad, S.A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 343 = 2003 SLD 343 = 2003 PTD 1586 = (2004) 89 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)\nKey Issues:\n•\nResponsibility for sales tax on LPG supplies.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLPG producers are liable for sales tax on supply from bore-holes.\n•\nDealers and retailers bear responsibility for sales tax on further supplies.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; producer's liability affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36 ", + "Case #": "Tax Appeal No. 103 of 2002, decision dated: 22-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Raja Khalid Ismail Abbasi. Ms. Farhat Zafars", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), RAWALPINDI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 344 = 2003 SLD 344 = 2003 PTD 1591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cotton Ginning Factory and Sales Tax Demand\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery ratio of cotton seed based on arbitrary departmental benchmarks.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal reduced the recovery ratio to 55%, balancing fairness and local standards.\nConclusion:\nSales tax recalculated based on the revised recovery ratio; penalties remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,11(2),34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A.-81/LB of 2002, decision dated: 13-05-2002, hearing DATE : 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Rana Shabbir Ahmed, S.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 345 = 2003 SLD 345 = 2003 PTD 1600", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Cotton Seed\nKey Issues:\n•\nUnder-valuation of cotton seed for sales tax purposes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSales tax must align with values fixed under S.R.O. 1361(I)/98.\n•\nDepartment’s assessment of suppressed sales upheld.\nConclusion:\nRecovery ratio adjusted to 57%; case remanded for recalculations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(46),11(2),3,34 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 100/LB of 2001, decision dated: 13-05-2002, hearing DATE : 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Rana Shabbir Ahmed, S.A,", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 346 = 2003 SLD 346 = 2003 PTD 1694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Manufacturing Oil Cake and Tax Liability\nKey Issues:\n•\nDetermining whether oil cake is produced during oil extraction.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjudicating Officer’s findings lacked depth; process verification required.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; case remanded for fresh adjudication with detailed analysis of manufacturing processes.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34,2(33) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1371-L of 2002, decision dated: 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mujahid Eshai, FCA and Riaz Ahmad, Tax Consultant for the Complainant. Dr. Muhammad Adnan Akram, D.C, (Adjudication)", + "Party Name:": "QADIR AGRO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, MULTAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 347 = 2003 SLD 347 = 2003 PTD 1702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Oil Cake Taxation and Adjudication Deficiencies\nKey Issues:\n•\nFailure to address key arguments regarding oil cake production.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjudication lacked clarity and procedural thoroughness.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed fresh adjudication with proper consideration of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34,2(33) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1369 and 1370-L of 2002, decision dated: 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Mujhaid Eshai, FCA Riaz Ahmad; Tax-Consultant for the Complainants. Dr. Muhammad Adrian Akram, D.C. Sales Tax (Adjudication), Multan", + "Party Name:": "KHAWAJA BASHIR & SONS, MULTAN\nvs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 348 = 2003 SLD 348 = 2003 PTD 1746 = (2004) 89 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Injunctions in Tribunal Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nExpiry of interim relief and pending appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal must prioritize timely resolution to safeguard taxpayer and revenue interests.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court directed expedited disposal of the appeal with a stay on coercive recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1555 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd February, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Bashir for Petitioner. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Z. N. EXPORTS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 349 = 2003 SLD 349 = 2003 PTD 1747 = (2004) 89 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Special Audit Provisions\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of audits for periods before the insertion of Section 32-A in the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRetrospective application requires express statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to High Court for reconsideration of retrospective audit scope.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=32,32A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 446 of 2002, decision dated: 25-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court, Shoukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent). K.M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record (absent) No. 1", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IHSAN YOUSAF TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD through Mian Muhammad Akram, Director\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 350 = 2003 SLD 350 = 2003 PTD 1767", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compulsory Registration and Non-Service of Enrolment Certificates\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of show-cause notices without proof of enrolment service.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNotices issued without service of enrolment certificates are void.\nConclusion:\nShow-cause notice void; Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended investigation into survey records.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19 Sales Tax Act, 1990=19 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,Preamble ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1321-L of 2002, decision dated: 20-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Iftikhar Ahmad and Tariq Mehmood for the Complainant. Mrs. Mona Aslam, A.C. Sales Tax, Gujranwala", + "Party Name:": "Haji MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 351 = 2003 SLD 351 = 2003 PTD 1772 = (2004) 89 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds Based on Fake Export Bills\nKey Issues:\n•\nConcessionary penalties under time-linked S.R.O.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRelief denied as S.R.O. conditions were not met.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision upheld; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,33,34,47 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 11 of 2003, decision dated: 9-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mian Sultan Tanvir Ahmed for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AZEE GARMENTS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD through Collector and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 352 = 2003 SLD 352 = 2003 PTD 1774 = (2004) 89 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Factual Controversy in High Court Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of factual questions in High Court appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court jurisdiction excludes factual matters.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as no question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal NO. 155-S of 1999, decision dated: 18-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE\nvs\nAYESHA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 353 = 2003 SLD 353 = 2003 PTD 1782 = (2004) 89 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Appeals and Condonation\nKey Issues:\n•\nTime-barred appeals and applicability of Limitation Act provisions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court cannot condone delay; appeals must adhere to statutory timelines.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; delay not condoned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,46 Limitation Act, 1908=5,29(2) ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.85 of 1999, decision dated: 17-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sahzad Mazhar", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAVI MEDICAL SUPPLY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nvs\n and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 354 = 2003 SLD 354 = 2003 PTD 1789 = (2004) 89 TAX 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Questions in Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nDifferentiating legal questions from factual disputes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOnly substantial legal controversies qualify for High Court adjudication.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as no substantial question of law was raised.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.550 of 2002, decision dated: 14-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Zubair Mehmood. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "RAFIQ SPINNING MILLS (PVT.), LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\n, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 355 = 2003 SLD 355 = 2003 PTCL 362 = (2004) 89 TAX 98 = 2003 PTD 1797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notices and Limitation Periods\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of show-cause notices under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nNecessity for clear differentiation between subsections for limitation periods (deliberate vs. inadvertent acts).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe authority must specify whether the case falls under Section 36(1) or (2) and outline explicit grounds in the notice.\n•\nFailure to differentiate renders the notice invalid.\nConclusion:\nShow-cause notices lacking clarity or issued beyond prescribed limitations are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,32 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2002, heard on 17-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ahmad Hassan Anwari. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 356 = 2003 SLD 356 = 2003 PTCL 281 = 2003 PTD 1817 = (2003) 88 TAX 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Raw Materials\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustment of input tax proportionate to monthly raw material consumption.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjustment did not harm revenue interests; clarificatory amendments by the Finance Act, 1996 supported taxpayer’s interpretation.\n•\nProvisions of Section 10 allowed flexibility in adjustment or refund.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; adjustment valid and in line with legislative intent.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.59 of 1998, decision dated: 18-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR ANA MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Zaheer Ahmed Khan", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nHOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED, FAISALABAD ROAD, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 357 = 2003 SLD 357 = 2003 PTD 1819 = (2004) 89 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Excess Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nCarrying forward or refunding excess input tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTax period, not raw material consumption, determines input tax adjustment.\n•\nExcess input tax can be carried forward or refunded under Section 10.\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision upheld; adjustment aligned with statutory provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,9,7 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 107 of 1998, decision dated: 10-03-2003, hearing DATE : 27-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik. Imran Shafique", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs BREEZE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 358 = 2003 SLD 358 = 2003 PTD 1836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delays in Tribunal Appeals and Coercion\nKey Issues:\n•\nCoercive recovery by the department during delayed appellate hearings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelays attributable to the tribunal, not taxpayers, cannot justify coercive measures.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court directed no coercive recovery; expedited disposal of appeals recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7172, 7173, 7174, 7222, 7140 and 7139 of 2003, decision dated: 17-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan and Nauman Mushtaq for Petitioner. Shahid Pervaiz, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "BROTHERS ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 359 = 2003 SLD 359 = 2003 PTD 1844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Extra Tax and Limitations\nKey Issues:\n•\nLiability for extra tax under rescinded notifications.\n•\nAdditional tax for delayed returns.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRescission of S.R.O. 795(I)/99 did not negate prior liabilities.\n•\nEven nominal delays in returns incur additional tax under Section 34.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld liabilities; penalties remitted in part for specific delays.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,26,2(9),3,22,34,33 General Clauses Act, 1897=10 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 588/PB of 2002, decision dated: 17-04-2003. dates of hearing: 27th May; 19th June; 3rd July; 18th November and 18-12-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Zahid Idrees Mufti and Shahid Parvez Jami. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer and Fawwad Saeed, Senior Auditors", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 360 = 2003 SLD 360 = 2003 PTD 1852", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Services of Customs Agents\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of taxing services under Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCustoms agents’ services are taxable under the ordinance.\nConclusion:\nTax on services confirmed; law upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000)=3,Sched Customs Act, 1969=207 ", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No.709 of 2001, decision dated: 6-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN AND RUSTAM ALI MALIK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kamran Sheikh. Tahir Gondal, A.A.G., Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema on behalf of Khan Muhammad Virks", + "Party Name:": "HAFEEZULLAH MALIK & COMPANY through Hafeezullah Malik, Lahore\nvs\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Finance, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 361 = 2003 SLD 361 = 2003 PTD 1871 = (2004) 89 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals to High Court and Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of legal questions in High Court appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOnly substantial questions of law arising from Tribunal decisions can be entertained.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court jurisdiction limited to substantive legal issues.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.22 of 2002, decision dated: 24-02-2003, hearing DATE : 9-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Shafiq", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TUFAIL CHEMICAL LIMITED, KASUR\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 362 = 2003 SLD 362 = 2003 PTD 1881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Extra Tax Compliance and Procedural Breaches\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustment of extra tax under Levy and Collection of Extra Tax Rules.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-compliance with procedural rules did not harm revenue or benefit taxpayers unduly.\nConclusion:\nTribunal set aside extra tax liability; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(5),3(1A),8(1),66,71 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A.-808/PB of 2002, decision dated: 19-04-2003. dates of hearing: 11th June; 29th July; 31st October; 19th December. 2002, 20th January; 15th and 17-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Issac Ali Qazi. Hussain Muhammad, Inamul Haq and Qadeerullahs", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 363 = 2003 SLD 363 = 2003 PTCL 608 = 2003 PTD 1888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Pre-Registration Stocks\nKey Issues:\n•\nAdjustment of tax on stocks acquired before registration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment on pre-registration stocks is valid under VAT principles.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld adjustments; penalties partially remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=59,33,2(44),3,2(44),6(2),22(d),33(2)(cc),34,13,16 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. 1057/PB of 2002, decision dated: 17-04-2003. dates of hearing: 19-12-2002 and 4-02-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, ACA, Shahzad Hussain, FCA and Saeed Iqbal. Al-Haj, D.R., Hussain Muhammad and Phool Badshahs", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 573 = 2002 SLD 573 = 2002 PTD 1530 = (2003) 87 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Notification Dates\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of withdrawn exemptions based on letter of credit dates.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption depends on statutory provisions, not L/C opening dates.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court disposed of the petition per Supreme Court’s precedent.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=31A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 13135 an 13187 of 1996, heard on 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nemo for Petitioner A. Karim Malik and Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "ORIENT LABORATORIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD through its Secretary and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 364 = 2003 SLD 364 = 2003 PTCL 564 = (2004) 89 TAX 334 = 2003 PTD 2037", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Search, Seizure, and Constitutional Guarantees\nKey Issues:\n•\nLegality of search and seizure under amended Sections 38, 40, and 40-A.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSearch/seizure must comply with Constitutional safeguards.\n•\nEvidence collected through illegal means is inadmissible.\nConclusion:\nRaid declared illegal; materials ordered to be returned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,39,40,40A Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=2(c),37,38,39 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 19482 of 2002, decision dated: 21st May, 2003, hearing DATE : 16-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli and Tariq Kamal for Petitioners. A. Karim Malik and Izharul Haques", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IHSAN YOUSAF TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 365 = 2003 SLD 365 = 2003 PTD 2100 = (2004) 89 TAX 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Further Tax on Supplies to Unregistered Persons\nKey Issues:\n•\nAssessment of taxable supplies to unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCases must be examined individually to determine recipient registration status.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for proper assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1A),2(25) ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 54 to 209 and 211 to 399 of 2002, heard on 7-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli. Mian Qamar-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAQAS & CO., MAILSI\nvs\nCUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXICSE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 366 = 2003 SLD 366 = 2003 PTD 2116 = (2004) 89 TAX 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Valid Tax Invoices and Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nDisallowance of input tax adjustment due to missing invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal findings on factual records do not raise legal questions.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed in limine.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,7(2) ", + "Case #": "S. T. A. No. 119 of, 2003, decision dated: 14-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan.", + "Party Name:": "YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nDEPUPTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 281 = 2008 SLD 281 = 2008 PTD 1528 = (2008) 97 TAX 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty and Tax Exemptions\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of amnesty to pre-1999 liabilities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFederal Government’s S.R.O.s extended amnesty to pre-1999 payments.\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed subject to proof of payment compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33(2)(ee),33(4)(e)(f),34,2(9),3,3(2),3(A) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.16/LB of 2007, decision dated: 22-10-2007, hearing DATE : 18-09-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal. Irfan Ahmad", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 574 = 2002 SLD 574 = 2002 PTD 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nTribunal's refusal to condone delays in appeal filing.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelays should be considered leniently unless malicious.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court accepted appeal; case remanded to Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 306 and 323 of 2001, heard on 6-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KEEP & CARRY COMPANY\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), SALES TAX and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 367 = 2003 SLD 367 = 2003 PTD 2165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Advances and Ad Hoc Deposits\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax on advances or deposits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdvances against supply contracts are taxable, but general deposits are not.\nConclusion:\nAssessment of deposits as taxable supplies deemed illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(33),(44),2(30)(22),45,36 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-342 of 2002, decision dated: 29-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Naseem. Ishaq Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 368 = 2003 SLD 368 = 2003 PTD 2203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and General Practice\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman in cases of exemption under general practice.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRelief under Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, applies when tax is not levied due to general practice or inadvertence, irrespective of registration status.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration in demand for back taxes on closed businesses.\nConclusion:\nExemption recommended for the disputed period; demand for past taxes declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,65,3,33,34,2(25) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1014 of 2002, decision dated: 15-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for the Complainant. Ahmad Kamal, A.C. Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AGRIAID INDUSTRIES, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 369 = 2003 SLD 369 = 2003 PTD 2230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Excess Input Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelays in refund issuance for exports.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnjustified delays in refunds due to inadequate verification constitute maladministration.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended timely processing and hearings for disputed invoices.\nConclusion:\nAuthorities directed to resolve refund claims promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10(2),73 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-145 of 2003, decision dated: 7-05-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Khalid Siddiqui for the Complainant. Zahid Habib, Assistant Collector of Sales Tax East) Karachi", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALLIED IMPEX, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 575 = 2002 SLD 575 = 2002 PTD 609 = (2002) 86 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petitions and Fiscal Disputes\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaintainability of constitutional petitions in fiscal matters.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nEstablished legal hierarchy should be followed for fiscal disputes.\n•\nFiling constitutional petitions as a substitute for appeals is discouraged.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; taxpayers directed to use statutory remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45(3),2(16),3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 903 of 2000, heard on 16-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Talib Haider Rizvi. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "FAUJI CEMENT COMPANY LTD. through Secretary\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 370 = 2003 SLD 370 = 2003 PTD 922", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise and Customs Taxation\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of delegated powers for tax imposition.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelegated powers under the Central Excises Act, 1944, cannot extend to creating new charges.\n•\nTribunal invalidated excise duty demands imposed through improper delegation.\nConclusion:\nOrder for tax collection at import stage set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(5) Customs Act, 1969=30,31A,3 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=9,37, ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-985 of 2001, decision dated: 6-06-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNIAL) AND ABDUR RASHID A. SHAIKH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Jahangir Khan, Consultant. Muhammad Moosa, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 576 = 2002 SLD 576 = 2002 PTD 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Alternate Remedies and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nAvailing alternate remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nConstitutional remedies allowed only for patently illegal actions.\n•\nStatutory forums for tax disputes must be utilized first.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; taxpayer directed to appellate forums.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3(1),13(1),241 Finance Act, 1998=3(1),13,33,34,36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-86 of 2000, decision dated: 29-11-2001, hearing DATE : 10-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM NABI SOOMRO AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Aziz Memon for Petitioner. Syed Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel No. 1. Raja Muhammad Iqbals Nos. 2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PREMIER DISTRIBUTORS\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 371 = 2003 SLD 371 = 2003 PTD 2272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Demands Based on Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of tax demands without original invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nReliance on photocopies and absence of original records invalidates tax demands.\nConclusion:\nTribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication with proper evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,11,22,26 ", + "Case #": "S. T. A. No. 1223/LB of 2001, decision dated: 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Imran Anjum Alvi and Hassan Anwari. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Riaz Hussain Tahir, S.A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 577 = 2002 SLD 577 = 2002 PTD 822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Receipt of Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nPresumption of service for registered notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nMere issuance of notices does not ensure service; ex parte orders violate principles of natural justice.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,56 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2046/LB of 2001, decision dated: 24-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Shahid Umer Khan. Amer Ahmad, D.R.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 372 = 2003 SLD 372 = 2003 PTD 2296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds and Additional Taxes\nKey Issues:\n•\nDeduction of additional tax from refunds without justification.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nEx parte orders without application of judicial mind are invalid.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside for fresh decision after proper hearings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.433/LB of 2000, decision dated: 18-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Abdul Waheed. Rana Shabbir Ahmad, S.A", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 373 = 2003 SLD 373 = 2003 PTD 2306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speaking Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of orders without reasoning.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders lacking reasons or factual narration are invalid.\nConclusion:\nTribunal remanded the case for re-adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2755/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mirza Muhammad Waheed. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 578 = 2002 SLD 578 = 2002 PTD 920 = (2002) 85 TAX 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petitions and Amendments\nKey Issues:\n•\nOverreach in amended pleadings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnauthorized amendments to petitions are excluded from consideration.\n•\nPetitioners must exhaust statutory remedies.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; amendments restricted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,FourthSched. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,R.17 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17378 of 1998 and Customs Appeal No.11-S of 2001, decision dated: 9-01-2002. DATE of haring: 16-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "M. M. Akram for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue. Kh. Saeedu-uz-Zafar, Dy. A.G.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PIONEER CEMENT LIMITED, JAUHARABAD, DISTRICT KHUSHAB\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR SALES TAX, SARGODHA and I others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 374 = 2003 SLD 374 = 2003 PTD 2343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Advances and Taxable Supplies\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxation of advance payments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdvances are taxable as per time of supply unless explicitly excluded.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld liability; penalties reduced.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(44),3(i)(a),33,34,3 Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=19 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSchedule, ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 327/LB of 2001, decision dated: 22-10-2001. dates of hearing: 12th, 26-09-5th, 11th, 15th a-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN, MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MASOOD AHMED DAHER, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "M. M. Akram. Amer Ahmed, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 579 = 2002 SLD 579 = 2002 PTD 942 = (2003) 87 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Gypsum\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax on mineral supplies.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nGypsum is taxable as a movable property after excavation.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court reversed Tribunal decision; tax demand upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(26),3,13,45,46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 11-S of 2001, decision dated: 9-01-2002, hearing DATE : 16-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar and Ch. Muhammad Hussain. M. M. Akrams", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, SARGODHA\nvs\nMessrs REHMAN AND RAFIQ GYPSUM, WARCHA ROAD, QUAIDABAD, DISTRICT KHUSHAB and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 375 = 2003 SLD 375 = 2003 PTD 2358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Short-Levied Taxes\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-determination of recoverable amounts in tax orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders must quantify recoverable amounts and address all issues.\nConclusion:\nOrder remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1474/LB of 2000, decision dated: 14-02-2002, hearing DATE : 2-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Tariq Najib Chaudhry. Imran Tariq D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 376 = 2003 SLD 376 = 2003 PTD 2364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Spare Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nConflict between statutory provisions and S.R.O.s.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDisallowed input tax credits must align with legislative intent.\nConclusion:\nOrder upheld for tax demand; penalties remitted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(1),8(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2241 /LB of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2002, hearing DATE : 30-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Zaheer Ahmed Khan. Imran Tariq D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 377 = 2003 SLD 377 = 2003 PTD 2369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Speaking Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nNullity of orders without factual basis or hearings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOrders must narrate facts and provide reasons to be legally binding.\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside for fresh hearings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,11,22,26,33,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal,No.527 and 528 of 2001, decision dated: 15-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Khokhar. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 378 = 2003 SLD 378 = 2003 PTD 2379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nFailure to produce evidence of notice service.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNon-production of records raises adverse presumption against the department.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2443/LB of 2001, decision dated: 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Rana Muhammad Afzal. Imran Tariq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 379 = 2003 SLD 379 = 2003 PTD 2385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover Tax Registration\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility for turnover tax benefits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRegistration under turnover tax regime is mandatory to claim benefits.\nConclusion:\nPenalty remitted; tax liability upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3A(2) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1334/LB of 2001, decision dated: 5-04-2002, hearing DATE : 28-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Hashmat Ali. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 380 = 2003 SLD 380 = 2003 PTD 2388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defective Show-Cause Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nVague notices and their validity.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNotices must provide detailed reasons for tax claims.\nConclusion:\nNotice declared invalid; fresh issuance recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 39 of 2003, decision dated: 5-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashraf Hashmi, A.R. for the Complainant. Sarmad Qureshi, Deputy Collector Sales Tax (Adjudication), Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALHADDID ENGINEERING WORKS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 381 = 2003 SLD 381 = 2003 PTD 2392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nDisallowance of input tax due to unregistered suppliers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustments valid if supported by customs documents.\nConclusion:\nOrder for payment of tax set aside; appeal allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(3)(a),2(9),6,7,11,22,26,33(2)(cc) Customs Act, 1969=79,104 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2569/LB of 2001, decision dated: 3rd June, 2002, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Shahbaz Butt. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 382 = 2003 SLD 382 = 2003 PTD 2395 = (2003) 88 TAX 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Coconut Seeds\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery of sales tax on exempted coconut seeds and maladministration.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCoconut seeds under Hdg. 2.09 were exempt from sales tax, and no regulatory mechanism restricted their sale.\n•\nActions by the Collector and subordinate officials, including raids, searches, and refusal to allow appeals, were arbitrary and constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended quashing proceedings, initiating inquiries against responsible officials, and implementing better administrative practices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,SixthSched Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1351 of 2002, decision dated: 4-04-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ishaque for the Complainants. Dr. Mubashir Baig, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (West). Najeebullah Jafferi, Deputy Superintendent. Tehseen Saleem, Deputy Superintendent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs I.A. QAZI AND SONS, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 580 = 2002 SLD 580 = 2002 PTD 955", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Auto Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nExemption for brake linings under amended S.R.O. provisions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLegislative ambiguity led to conflicting interpretations of tax applicability.\n•\nRevenue’s inconsistent treatment of brake linings as auto parts during different tax periods was criticized.\nConclusion:\nPetition accepted; brake linings treated as exempt auto parts for the disputed period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,13(1),33,34,36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.694 of 1996, decision dated: 31st October, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM NABI SOORMO AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed for Petitioner. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "SUPER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 383 = 2003 SLD 383 = 2003 PTD 2460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim Time Limits\nKey Issues:\n•\nTime-barred refund claims under Section 66.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds must be claimed within the statutory period of one year.\n•\nTax incidence passed to consumers cannot be reclaimed by manufacturers.\nConclusion:\nAppeal rejected; refund claim deemed time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66,3B,7,66,3B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=24(1) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1968/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11-03-2002, hearing DATE : 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Rahim Bhatti. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 384 = 2003 SLD 384 = 2003 PTD 2463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax Discretion\nKey Issues:\n•\nLevy of additional tax and judicial discretion.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPre-1996, adjudicating officers had discretion to waive additional tax.\n•\nTribunal found the case fit for discretion in favor of the taxpayer.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax remitted; penalties retained.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,22,23,35,35A,36,39 Central Excise Rules, 1944=7,52,52A,210;226,237,238,241,246 ", + "Case #": "Ex. A. No. 1671 /LB of 2001, decision dated: 1st March, 2002, hearing DATE : 26-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Saleem. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 385 = 2003 SLD 385 = 2003 PTD 2477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Mandatory Additional Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nPost-1996 mandatory imposition of additional tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\n Shall pay language in amended Section 34 removed adjudicating discretion.\n•\nAppeals for leniency were dismissed in the absence of compelling reasons.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax upheld; appeal rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,33 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 2180/LB of 2001, decision dated: 15-03-2002, hearing DATE : 7-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Waheed. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 386 = 2003 SLD 386 = 2003 PTD 2480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Sale of Fixed Assets\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax on non-business activities.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSale of fixed assets not in furtherance of business is neither taxable activity nor supply.\nConclusion:\nTribunal set aside tax demand for fixed assets.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,36(3),6,7,8,,23,33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2806/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2002, hearing DATE : 4-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Faisal Zamans. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 143 = 1995 SLD 143 = 1995 PTD 202 = (1994) 205 ITR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Counsel Withdrawal and Fair Hearing\nKey Issues:\n•\nDismissal for default due to last-minute counsel withdrawal.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCourts must ensure notice to parties before counsel withdrawal.\nConclusion:\nSupreme Court remanded case for a fresh hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5033 and 5034 of 1993, decision dated: 13-09-1993", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M.N. VENKATACHALIAH. C.J. R. M. SAHAI AND A.S. ANAND, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "C.N. Srekumar. M.A. Firoz", + "Party Name:": "ALOK SPICES\nvs\nSTATE OF KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 581 = 2002 SLD 581 = 2002 PTD 967 = (2003) 87 TAX 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Time Limits\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax demand for goods supplied post-exemption period.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption expired on 30-06-1996; subsequent supplies were taxable.\n•\nTribunal misinterpreted the notification.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court upheld tax demand post-exemption period.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,46,2(33)(41)(44),33,34 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2001, decision dated: 18-10-2001, hearing DATE : 1st October, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMAN-UL-ALLAH KHAN AND TARIQ MAHMOOD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Kohli, D.A.G.. Aziz A. Shaikh", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others\nvs\nMessrs BALCHEM (PVT.) LTD., BALOCHISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 387 = 2003 SLD 387 = 2003 PTD 2518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Time Limits\nKey Issues:\n•\nTax demand for goods supplied post-exemption period.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemption expired on 30-06-1996; subsequent supplies were taxable.\n•\nTribunal misinterpreted the notification.\nConclusion:\nHigh Court upheld tax demand post-exemption period.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.35/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2002, hearing DATE : 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Hafeez. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 388 = 2003 SLD 388 = 2003 PTD 2521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims for Fake Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nWithholding entire refund due to some fake invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefund claims should be processed for genuine invoices; fake claims disallowed.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended re-verification and timely refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10(2),67 Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000=6,7(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C 123 K of 2003, decision dated: 8-05-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, Dealing Officer. M. Shamshad Younus, Consultant. Dr. Mubashir Baig, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (West) and Nadeem Ahmed Rao, Senior Auditor", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TOP WEAVE INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 582 = 2002 SLD 582 = 2002 PTCL 50 = 2002 PTD 976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Fixed Assets and Taxable Activity\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of fixed assets disposal.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFixed asset sales do not qualify as taxable activity or supply.\n•\nDiscriminatory treatment violates Article 25 of the Constitution.\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; tax on fixed assets deemed invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(12)(35)(41),3,7,47 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal. No.62 of 2001, decision dated: 13-09-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAHID KURBAN AM AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Shakil Ahmed. Dr. Farogh Naseem", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI (WEST)\nvs\nNOVARTIS PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 583 = 2002 SLD 583 = 2002 PTD 1033", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Appeals and New Points\nKey Issues:\n•\nRaising new questions in appeals to High Court.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nOnly points raised before the Tribunal can be brought to the High Court.\nConclusion:\nNew points disallowed in High Court appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47 Customs Act, 1969=96 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax No. 39 of 2001, decision dated: 5-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ms. Masooda Siraj for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX\nvs\nMessrs MUNAF LACE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 389 = 2003 SLD 389 = 2003 PTD 2538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Bagasse Production\nKey Issues:\n•\nValuation of bagasse for sales tax purposes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunal directed reassessment based on CBR-notified value.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(24),34,33,SixthSched ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2676/LB/2001, decision dated: 13-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Abdul Waheed. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 584 = 2002 SLD 584 = 2002 PTD 1445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Vehicle Accessories\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of floor mats supplied as vehicle accessories.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFloor mats classified as accessories are exempt under S.R.O. 109(1)/94.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld exemption for floor mats.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1834 of 1999, decision dated: 8-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ZAFAR IQBAL, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name": "Websters Third New International Dictionary ref. Yaqoob Macco, Deputy Collector. Nemos", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 390 = 2003 SLD 390 = 2003 PTD 2542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Illegal Tax Collection\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund for sales tax collected on exempt goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBurden of proof that tax incidence passed to consumers lies with CBR.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman recommended refund of illegally collected tax.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3(1A),3B,SixthSched. Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 120 of 2003, decision dated: 31st March, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shafqat ur Rehman for the Complainant. Asif Yousaf, D.C. (Refund) for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALFAIZ FURNITURE, JHELUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 585 = 2002 SLD 585 = 2002 PTCL 95 = 2002 PTD 1455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment\nKey Issues:\n•\nDouble taxation due to belated adjustments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBelated adjustments cannot justify double taxation.\nConclusion:\nDemand for double taxation deemed illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,7,7(1),10,66,3,8(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. S.T.A. No.748/LB of 2001. decided on 1st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 12-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN, ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MASUD AHMAD DAHER, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Asim Zulfiqar. Amir Ahmad, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 586 = 2002 SLD 586 = 2002 PTD 1493 = (2002) 85 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax on Conditional Exemptions\nKey Issues:\n•\nLevy of additional tax for delayed payments under exemption disputes.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBank guarantees during exemption disputes preclude default penalties.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended relief for additional tax.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,34A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1293/L of 2001, decision dated: 13-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "M.S. Babar for the Complainant. Ashaad Jawwad, D.C.S.T.", + "Party Name:": "DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 587 = 2002 SLD 587 = 2002 PTD 1573 = (2003) 87 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Remand of Case by Original Authority\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of remand orders in revenue matters by adjudicating officers.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAdjudicating officers lack statutory authority under Sections 11 and 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to remand cases.\n•\nRemands should not serve as a mechanism to extend limitation periods or allow authorities to fill procedural gaps.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court invalidated the remand order, emphasizing that cases should either be decided or dropped. Constitutional petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(2),36(1),11,36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16270 of 2000, heard on 16-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Waqar Azim for Petitioner. Khan Muhammad Virks", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUPER ASIA MUHAMMAD DIN SONS (PVT.) LTD., G.T. ROAD, GUJRANWALA through Chief Executive\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 588 = 2002 SLD 588 = 2002 PTD 1585 = (2002) 86 TAX 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Based on Genuine Invoices\nKey Issues:\n•\nRefund claims based on alleged fake invoices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInvestigation revealed invoices were genuine, and sales tax had been paid.\n•\nDepartment withdrew the show-cause notice.\nConclusion:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman closed the case as the grievance was redressed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990= ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 57 of 2002, hearing DATE : 20-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Abid Shafi, Manager (Taxation) on behalf of the Complainant Company. Dr. Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax, Faisalabad and Ch. Muhammad Jived, Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IHSAN YOUSUF TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 391 = 2003 SLD 391 = 2003 PTD 2592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Assessment\nKey Issues:\n•\nNon-service of notices before passing an ex parte order.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo evidence of notice service to the appellant invalidated the ex parte order.\nConclusion:\nThe assessment was set aside and remanded for a fresh hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.314/LB of 2001, decision dated: 21st February, 2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Yaqoob. Imran Tariq, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 589 = 2002 SLD 589 = 2002 PTCL 336 = 2002 PTD 1616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Orders and Stay of Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nExpiry of interim orders issued by Appellate Tribunals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nTribunals lack authority to extend interim relief beyond statutory limits.\n•\nHigh Court intervened under Article 199 to grant interim protection.\nConclusion:\nRecovery stayed during pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46(3)(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1975 of 2002, decision dated: 19-03-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Sh. Maqsood Ahemd Qadri for Petitioner. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "ADEEM HOSIERY DYEING through Proprietor Muhammad Rasheed Faisalabad\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 8 = 2014 SLD 8 = 2014 SCMR 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Human Rights and Police Misconduct\nKey Issues:\n•\nNegligence and misconduct in handling a murder investigation.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPolice acted with inefficiency and bias, violating the victim’s mother’s rights.\n•\nSupreme Court emphasized the duty of police to follow due process.\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for transparent investigation and disciplinary actions against negligent officers.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=154 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=9,184(3) ", + "Case #": "Human Rights Case No.19526-G of 2013, decision dated: 24-07-2013, hearing DATE : 11-07-2013", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record with Ihsan Ghani, IGP, KPK, Imran Shahid, SSP Operation Peshawar, Muhammad Faisal SP, Cantt., Peshawar, Rana Umer Farooq, ASP U/Town Peshawar and Rizwanullah SI, U/Town for KPK Police\nBani Amin Khan, IGP, Yasin Farooq, SSP Operation, Jamil Ahmed Hashmi, SP Saddar, Abdul Rasheed Niazi, DSP, Sajjad Bukhari, Inspector/SHO and Rashid Ahmed, SI (all in person) for Islamabad Police\n(Application by Mst. Bibi Zahida for arrest of accused of murder of her daughter Waheeda.)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 590 = 2002 SLD 590 = 2002 PTD 1800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Premature Constitutional Petition\nKey Issues:\n•\nWithdrawal of exemptions and government policy decisions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPremature petitions are inadmissible where exemptions remain in force.\n•\nThe government retains discretion in fiscal policy matters.\nConclusion:\nConstitutional petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Drugs Act, 1976=18,19,27 Customs Act, 1969=19 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.834 of 1995, decision dated: 30-11-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Fazal Hussain Chaudhry for Petitioner. Mansoor Sultan, Dy. A.G. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WILSONS PHARMACEUTICALS through Partner\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 392 = 2003 SLD 392 = 2003 PTD 2635 = (2004) 89 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Retailer \nKey Issues:\n•\nSales tax applicability on liquor supplied to the general public.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLiquor supplied to individuals constitutes a taxable retail activity under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nConclusion:\nTribunal upheld sales tax liability.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(28),3,3(1),48(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Second Appeal from Order No.26 of 2003, decision dated: 29-07-2003, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR UL MULK AND TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Isac Ali Qazi. Amir Javeds", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW GREENS HOTEL, PESHAWAR CANTT.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 393 = 2003 SLD 393 = 2003 PTD 2657 = (2004) 89 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Appeals to High Court\nKey Issues:\n•\nStarting point for limitation and condonation of delay.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nLimitation begins upon receipt of the order; delay must be satisfactorily explained.\n•\nAppeals filed beyond statutory limits without sufficient cause are inadmissible.\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47(2) Limitation Act, 1908=5,29 ", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.4.of 2001, decision dated: 29-10-2002, hearing DATE : 7-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, C.J. AND AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "K.N. Kohli, D.A. G,.. H. Shakil Ahmeds", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, QUETTA\nvs\nMessrs SANA INDUSTRIES LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 394 = 2003 SLD 394 = 2003 PTD 2722 = (2004) 89 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Notices and Alternate Remedies\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of High Court jurisdiction in sales tax recovery cases.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nHigh Court directed petitioner to pursue statutory remedies within prescribed timeframes.\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; statutory appeals remain available.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=48 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.201-L of 2003, decision dated: 23rd January, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court with Faiz ur Rehman, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HIGHNOON LABORATORIES\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 395 = 2003 SLD 395 = 2003 PTD 2752 = (2004) 89 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Additional Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelayed implementation of Tribunal orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartment's inaction and failure to refund remitted tax constituted maladministration.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman directed the refund within 15 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,34 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-146 of 2003, decision dated: 28-04-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 396 = 2003 SLD 396 = 2003 PTD 2775", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion in Suspected Units List\nKey Issues:\n•\nViolation of natural justice in labeling units as suspected. \nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDepartment failed to notify or allow the assessee to contest the inclusion.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman recommended removing the unit from the list and ensuring procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.864 of 2002, decision dated: 12-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Bashir Malik and Mazahar Hussain Shah for the Complainant. Moin ud Din Ahmad, Assistant Collector (H.Q.), Collectorate of Sales Tax, Faisalabad", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM RASOOL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 397 = 2003 SLD 397 = 2003 PTD 2819 = (2004) 89 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Oil/Ghee Plastic Pouches\nKey Issues:\n•\nClassification of pouches as separate taxable goods.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPouches integrated with the product lose independent identity and are not separately taxable.\nConclusion:\nPouches classified under the goods they contain.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.226 of 2002, decision dated: 2-06-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Malik Naveed Sohail", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MALIK GHEE AND COOKING OIL MILLS\nvs\nCOLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES. TAX, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 398 = 2003 SLD 398 = 2003 PTD 2844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Ad Hoc Deposits and Sales Tax\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of sales tax on advance payments.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDispute remanded to Additional Collector for reconsideration per judicial precedent.\nConclusion:\nRemanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(44),34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-716 of 2000, decision dated: 25-10-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. A. SARWANA AND S. ZAWAR HUSSAIN, JAFARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HINOPAK MOTORS LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 399 = 2003 SLD 399 = 2003 PTD 2859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Return Filing\nKey Issues:\n•\nPenalty for a one-day delay caused by bank processing.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelay was due to administrative reasons beyond the assessee's control.\nConclusion:\nPenalty set aside as unwarranted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26 Filing of Monthly Return Rules, 1996=5(4) ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal/Sale Tax Appeal No. 166 of 1998, decision dated: 12-03-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izharul Haque", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE COLLECTORATE through Assistant Collector of Sales Tax/E&C, Chunian Division, Lahore\nvs\nMessrs ALNOOR BULBS (PVT.) LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 400 = 2003 SLD 400 = 2003 PTD 2862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Notification Effectiveness\nKey Issues:\n•\nWithdrawal of exemption effective upon publication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNotification becomes effective from its actual publication date, not the date mentioned on it.\nConclusion:\nExemption upheld for imports before the publication date.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,47 ", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 15 of 2000, decision dated: 25-05-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Arif Khan. Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "SINDH ENGINEERING LIMITED\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHIand others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 401 = 2003 SLD 401 = 2003 PTD 2864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction transfer due to the abolition of Collector (Appeals).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCentral Board of Revenue clarified transfer of appeals to Appellate Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nPetitioner directed to pursue remedy before the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D 808 of 2001, decision dated: 26-03-2002, hearing DATE : 26-02-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, ATA UR REHMAN AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Jawaid Siddiqui for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MULTICARE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, AUDIT DIVISION1, SALES TAX (EAST), GOVERNMENT OF THE PAKISTAN, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 402 = 2003 SLD 402 = 2003 PTD 2891", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "De-registration and Audit Delays\nKey Issues:\n•\nUnreasonable delays in processing de-registration applications due to prolonged audits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAudit dragged on without informing the complainants about its outcome, constituting harassment and maladministration.\n•\nSenior officers failed to supervise, leaving taxpayers at the mercy of auditors.\nRecommendations:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended devising clear parameters for audits, strict timelines for show-cause notices and adjudication, and an inquiry to address delays.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,37 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 688 K of 2003, decision dated: 17-07-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK EXPO (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 592 = 2002 SLD 592 = 2002 PTD 87 = (2002) 86 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds and Void Orders\nKey Issues:\n•\nClaims for refund of excess tax and the distinction between void and illegal orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds can only be claimed by the payer of the tax.\n•\nIrregularities in summons service do not vitiate decrees.\n•\nVoid orders are non-existent in law and not subject to limitation, unlike illegal or voidable orders.\nConclusion:\nThe scope of void orders must be cautiously interpreted to avoid undermining judicial processes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3B,7 ", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos. 128 and 129 of 1995, decision dated: 29-05-2001. dates of hearing: 17th, 18th, 19th, 24th and 25-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. H. Lakho. Khalid Anwar and Afsar Abidi No. 1. M. G. Dastagir No. 4", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN\nvs\nMETROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 302 = 2004 SLD 302 = 2004 PTD 823 = (2004) 89 TAX 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Bagasse Consumption\nKey Issues:\n•\nLevy of additional tax and penalties on sugar manufacturers consuming bagasse as in-house fuel.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBagasse is chargeable to sales tax, and default attracted penalties.\n•\nHigh Court upheld penalties but directed applying the amended, beneficial tax rate retrospectively.\nConclusion:\nOrder-in-original imposing penalties was restored with necessary adjustments.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,7,46 ", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos. 85 to 94 and 99 of 2002, decision dated: 2-10-2003, hearing DATE : 31st July, 2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Maqsood Ahmad. Mian Abdul Ghaffar", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXICSE, LAHORE\nvs\nBABA FARID SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD ROAD, OKARA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 593 = 2002 SLD 593 = 2002 PTCL 302 = 2002 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustments\nKey Issues:\n•\nRestrictions on input tax adjustments under Section 8 of the Sales Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment is valid for goods directly contributing to taxable supply production.\n•\nRestrictions in Section 8(1)(a)(b) must be narrowly applied.\nConclusion:\nTribunal allowed input tax adjustments, setting aside narrow interpretations by the department.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(a)(b),8,2(16),7 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 2331 of 1999, decision dated: 29th April; 2001, hearing DATE : 24-04-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAJID HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Mohi-ud-Din Siddiqui. Ghulam, Appraiser", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 742 = 2001 SLD 742 = 2001 PTCL 627 = 2002 PTD 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Sale of Business Assets\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of sales of plant, machinery, and other assets.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSales of assets linked to business activity are taxable, but sales of vehicles and goods excluded under Section 8(1)(b) are not.\n•\n Sale and lease-back transactions are fictional and outside the tax net.\nConclusion:\nAdditional tax and penalties were waived, with clear demarcation of taxable and non-taxable transactions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,34 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1259 of 2000, decision dated: 11-07-2001. dates of hearing: 17th January; 15th February and 4-05-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, CHAIRMAN AND FALAK SHER MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli, Noman Akram Raja, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Sajid Mehmood Sheikh, Naveed Sohail Malik, Saood Nasrullah Cheema, Akram Gondal, Saqib Bashir, Anwar Bhatti and Rana Attaullah Khan, Consultant. Amer Ahmed, D.R. with Riasat Ali, Noor ud Din Ahmed and Abdul Lateef", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 474 = 2004 SLD 474 = 2004 PTD 2639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-782 of 2004, dated 08/07/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE AND GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Universal Shipping (Private) Ltd., Karachi \nVS \nAdditional Collector of Customs, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 475 = 2004 SLD 475 = 2004 PTD 2637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21(4), ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 1881 of 2004, dated 30/07/2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs Awais Enterprises through Proprietor \nVS \nCollector of Sales Tax and Central Excise And Another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 476 = 2004 SLD 476 = 2004 PTD 2634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Clause(6A) ofPartII of Second Schedule ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 414 of 2000, dated 05/06/2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Batala Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore \nVS \nCollector Of Customs, Karachi and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 282 = 2008 SLD 282 = 2008 PTD 1879 = (2008) 98 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Further Tax on Sugar Supplies\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery of further tax on supplies exceeding the fixed value under SRO 207(I)/98.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFurther tax was mandatory as the fixed value applied only to sales tax, not further tax.\n•\nAbsence of registration details in invoices invalidated claims of exemption.\nConclusion:\nAppeal was dismissed, affirming the additional tax and penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1A),3(1),2(46),23,33(2)(cc),34,36(1) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.876/LB of 2005, decision dated: 13-11-2007, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan. Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R. and Tauqir Zaman, Investigating Officer", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 595 = 2002 SLD 595 = 2002 PTD 403 = (2002) 86 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Orders in Revenue Matters\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of constitutional provisions to interim orders by non-High Court forums.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nArticle 199(4A) applies only to interim orders by High Courts, not other tribunals or authorities.\nConclusion:\nInterim orders by other forums are outside the ambit of Article 199(4A).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4A) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.817 of 1999, decision dated: 3rd May, 1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND MUSHIR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for Petitioner. Naim-ur-Rehman, Deputy Attorney-Generals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EVICRETE LIMITED through Chairman\nvs\n (KARACHI BENCH) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 283 = 2008 SLD 283 = 2008 PTD 1966 = (2008) 98 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Forum for Appeals\nKey Issues:\n•\nMisunderstanding of the appropriate forum for appeals under Section 45-B.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAppeals against orders by sales tax officers should be filed before the Collector (Appeals), not the Appellate Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nCollector (Appeals) is the correct forum; the appeal was deemed competent.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45B,2(9)(33)(41)(43)(46),3(1A),6,7(1)(2)(i),8(1)(a),11(2),23(1),26,33(2)(cc),34(1),36(1),48,73 ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.175/LB of 2007, decision dated: 22-11-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Omer Arshad and Waseem Ahmad. Pervaiz Alam, Auditor", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 743 = 2001 SLD 743 = 2001 PTCL 528 = 2002 PTD 475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit on Machinery Parts\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility for input tax credit on components and parts of machinery.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax credit applies to machinery parts used for production, as per substantive provisions of law.\nConclusion:\nTribunal allowed tax credit, nullifying contrary departmental actions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(b),10,8,7(2),10(2) ", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 1, 100 to 104 and 14 of 2000, decision dated: 27-10-2000", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): KHALIL MASOOD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MALIK A.R. ARSHAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Usman, Consultant, S.M.A. Askari and Mrs. Navin Marchants Dr. Rafiquz Zaman Khan, Senior Auditors and Irshad Thaim D.S.s", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 303 = 2004 SLD 303 = 2004 PTCL 1 = 2004 PTD 868 = (2004) 90 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability on Cash Credits\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of unexplained bank credits as taxable supply. \nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nNo deeming provision in the Sales Tax Act allows treating cash credits as taxable supplies without evidence.\n•\nAllegations of tax fraud require proof from the department before shifting the burden of explanation.\nConclusion:\nTribunal invalidated tax liability based on unexplained cash credits.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(41),2(35),2(33) ", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeals Nos.99 and 100 of 2002, decision dated: 12-11-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Khalid Jawed Khans. Raja M. Iqbal No. 1 (in both the Cases)", + "Party Name:": "ALHILAL MOTORS STORES and another\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (EAST) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 284 = 2008 SLD 284 = 2008 PTCL 551 = (2008) 98 TAX 221 = 2008 PTD 1584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Proceedings in Tax Fraud Cases\nKey Issues:\n•\nQuashing of FIR in tax fraud cases during pending adjudication.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nCriminal proceedings can proceed parallel to adjudication.\n•\nExistence of show-cause notice and contravention report validates the liability.\nConclusion:\nFIR was upheld; constitutional petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33(5)(13),37A,37B(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2227 of 2008, decision dated: 15-04-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Talib Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema", + "Party Name:": "AMIR SADIQ\nvs\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1392 = 2015 SLD 1392 = 2015 PTD 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Refunds and Compensation\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelay in issuing refunds for excess tax deductions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRefunds must be processed within statutory timeframes, and delays warrant compensation under Section 171.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman recommended timely issuance of refunds and compensation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,153,171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.837/LHR/IT(608)/1473 of 2012, decision dated: 4-02-2013.", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Waseem Chaudhry Authorized Representative. Usman Asghar, DCIR, Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "IQ STUDIO (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 285 = 2008 SLD 285 = 2008 PTD 1271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Registration\nKey Issues:\n•\nDelay in issuing sales tax registration certificates.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nProlonged delays without explanation constitute maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance.\nConclusion:\nOmbudsman directed issuance of the certificate and withdrawal of unnecessary procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=14 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.441 of 2004, decision dated: 22-07-2004", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Shamim Ahmad, Advisor, (Dealing Officer). Muhammad Saleem Malik for the Complainant. Muhammad Masood Sabir, AC, Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALHAMAD WEAVING FACTORY, GOJRA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 596 = 2002 SLD 596 = 2002 PTD 549 = (2002) 85 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay\nKey Issues:\n•\nPrinciples for condoning delay in appeals.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nDelay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.\n•\nStatutory discretion should balance justice and fairness without penalizing genuine lapses.\nConclusion:\nTribunal's refusal to condone delay was set aside; the case was remanded for a decision on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,46(2) Limitation Act, 1908=5,14 ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.323 of 2001, heard on 1st November, 2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Ahmed Andrabi. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "LAS PARAXIS DEPLIEX CLINIC, LAHORE\nvs\n, LAHORE BENCH, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 286 = 2008 SLD 286 = 2008 PTCL 477 = 2008 PTD 1531 = (2008) 98 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Appeals in Sales Tax Matters\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether appeals against orders-in-original should be filed with the Tribunal or the Collector (Appeals).\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBefore the Finance Act, 2005, appeals against orders by officers below the rank of Additional Collector were to be filed with the Collector (Appeals), while orders by Additional Collectors or Collectors were appealable to the Tribunal.\n•\nPost-2005 amendment, all orders became appealable to the Collector (Appeals), except those by officers not notified as adjudicating authorities.\nConclusion:\nThe constitutional petition was dismissed as an effective appellate remedy was available at the relevant time.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10061 of 2005, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema-Revenue", + "Party Name:": "KHALID MEHMOOD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 597 = 2002 SLD 597 = 2002 PTD 632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Notifications and Tribunal Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nRetrospective applicability of beneficial notifications.\n•\nPowers of the Tribunal concerning judicial review of statutory notifications.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nBeneficial notifications, like S.R.O. 751(I)/2000, can be retrospective if they impose no new liabilities or impair existing rights.\n•\nTribunals lack jurisdiction to examine the vires of notifications, a power reserved for higher courts.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to declare S.R.O.s ultra vires was set aside as it exceeded its jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(2),36,46(4),3(lA) ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 185, 171, 173, 174, 175. 181, 182, 183, 184, 197, 198, 212, 196 and 236 of 2001, decision dated: 21st November, 2001, hearing DATE : 17-10-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Shahid Karim, Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqi, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Ch. M. Hussain, Imran Anjam Alvi and Ahmad Hassan Anwaris. Chaudhry Muhammad Hussain, Khan Muhammad Virk, Jawahar A. Naqvi and Syed Mozzams", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KAMALIA SUGAR MILLS LTD., KAMALIA\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE), REGIONAL\nOFFICE LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 403 = 2003 SLD 403 = 2003 PTD 1301 = (2003) 88 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bypassing Statutory Remedies\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaintainability of constitutional petitions in the presence of statutory remedies.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nConstitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because statutory remedies are considered inadequate.\n•\nAppeals and revisions under relevant statutes must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.\nConclusion:\nThe petition was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-422 of 1990, decision dated: 5-11-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "I. H. Zaidi for Petitioner. Jawaid Farooqis", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN OXYGEN LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 404 = 2003 SLD 404 = 2003 PTCL 538 = 2003 PTD 1411 = (2004) 89 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of CBR under Section 45-A\nKey Issues:\n•\nScope of CBR’s powers to call for records and issue show-cause notices.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 45-A allows the CBR to examine the legality or propriety of orders passed by sales tax officers, except when appeals are pending.\n•\nA show-cause notice issued under Section 45-A is lawful and cannot be challenged through civil suits.\nConclusion:\nThe suit was dismissed as barred by Section 51 of the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=51,45A,46,30 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54,55 ", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 297 and 412 of 1999, decision dated: 24th January 2003. dates of hearing: 20th to 24-01-2003", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Dr. Farogh Naseem and Irfan Aziz for Plaintiffs.\nFarid-ud-Din for Defendants\nAbdul Mujeeb Prizada alongwith Syed Khalid Shah and Raja M. Iqlial for Defendant (in Suit No. 412 of 1999)\nSajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel alongwith Anwarul Haq, Collector (Adjudication), Sales Tax and Sirzameen, Senior Auditor, Large Tax Payers Unit for Defendants", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALUMINIUM PROCESSING INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., through Director and Chairman and another Karachi\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 311 = 2000 SLD 311 = 2000 PTD 1296 = (2000) 81 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment for Multiple Registrations\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of input tax adjustment due to separate factory registrations.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustment is valid if the tax was paid by the assessee at the time of import and no second registered person existed.\n•\nSubsequent registration of another factory does not affect the initial eligibility for adjustment.\nConclusion:\nOrders denying input tax adjustment were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,47,16 ", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.95 of 1999, decision dated: 7-12-1999, hearing DATE : 17-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Salman Akram Raja for Petitioner. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 312 = 2000 SLD 312 = 2000 PTD 1798 = 2003 PTCL 224 = (2001) 83 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Show-Cause Notice Requirement under Penal Provisions\nKey Issues:\n•\nMandatory nature of show-cause notices under Sections 36 and 48.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenal provisions under Section 48 cannot be enforced without issuing a proper show-cause notice.\n•\nAudit observations do not qualify as show-cause notices unless explicitly stated.\nConclusion:\nActions taken without proper show-cause notices were invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,48 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1600 of 1998, decision dated: 19-03-1999, hearing DATE : 24-02-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): M. SHAIQ USMANI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for Plaintiff. Musheer Alam, Standing Counsel for Defendants", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED EXPORTS COMPANY through Proprietor\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 313 = 2000 SLD 313 = 2000 PTD 3403 = (2000) 82 TAX 535 = 2000 SCMR 1753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Relief and Recovery Notices\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecall of interim relief when taxpayers fail to comply with court orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPetitioners failed to deposit the tax amount despite court directions, losing the right to continued interim relief.\n•\nApplication for exemption under Section 65 does not automatically bar recovery actions.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal was refused, affirming the recall of interim relief.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=48,65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.858-L, 859-L and 860-L of 1998, decision dated: 19th June 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners Yawar Ali Khan, Deputy Attorney-General (on Notice)s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AGRIAID INDUSTRIES through Proprietor\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 314 = 2000 SLD 314 = 2000 PTD 3715", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Claims and Subsequent Amendments\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of input tax claims following changes in statutory definitions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSupreme Court precedent in Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. clarified that manufacturers are entitled to input tax adjustment unless explicitly restricted.\nConclusion:\nThe petition was allowed, resolving the issue in favor of the petitioners as per existing precedent.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(i).(d),36 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-788 and D-789 of 1994, decision dated: 25-05-2000, hearing DATE : 30-11-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): GHULAM NABI SOOMRO AND WAHID BUX BROHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Iqbals", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DADEX ETERNIT LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 598 = 2000 SLD 598 = 2000 PTCL 696 = 2000 PTD 3765 = (2001) 83 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Validity of Further Tax and Retail Tax Provisions\nKey Issues:\n•\nConstitutionality of further tax under Item 49 of the Fourth Schedule.\n•\nRegistration requirements for hotels selling liquor.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nFurther tax is constitutional as Item 49 allows such levies without distinguishing commodities.\n•\nHotels selling liquor to specific permit holders do not qualify as retailers under Section 2(28) since their customers are not the general public. \nConclusion:\nThe petition was allowed, and the petitioner was exempted from additional registration as a retailer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(28),2(25),2(33),2(35),2(41),3,3AA,14,2(28),(25),(33),(35) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,FourthSched.,Item49 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8154 of 1939, decision dated: 18-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik and Ghulam Haider Alghazali, Addl. A.G.", + "Party Name:": "AVARI HOTEL LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 315 = 2000 SLD 315 = 2000 PTCL 25 = 2000 PTD 319 = (2000) 81 TAX 212 = (1999) 80 TAX 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Calculations Contrary to Statute\nKey Issues:\n•\nAssessing Authorities calculating sales tax based on a leaflet issued by CBR contrary to Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe leaflet issued by CBR was deemed without lawful authority.\n•\nAssessments must strictly adhere to statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded to the Assessing Authority for recalculation under Section 34, disregarding the leaflet.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16574 of 1999, decision dated: 4-10-1999, hearing DATE : 27-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name": "M. S. Babar and M. M. Akram for Petitioner. A. Karim Maliks", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PIONEER CEMENT LIMITED, JAUHARABAD, DISTRICT KHUSHAB\nvs\nTHE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SALES TAX, SARGODHA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 287 = 2008 SLD 287 = 2008 PTD 1893 = (2008) 98 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Input Tax Claims and Audit Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n•\nInput tax adjustment on ineligible items.\n•\nJurisdiction of DRRA to conduct audits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nInput tax adjustments are disallowed for goods prohibited under Section 8(1)(b) or specified notifications like S.R.O. 578(I)/98.\n•\nDRRA auditors acted within their authority under applicable orders.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, rejecting the appeal as meritless.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(2),8(1)(a),6,23,26,33(5),34,36(1) ", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.132/LB of 2007, decision dated: 31st October, 2007, hearing DATE : 12-09-2007", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan. Dr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 316 = 2000 SLD 316 = 2000 PTCL 1 = (2000) 81 TAX 329 = 2000 PTD 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Additional Tax for Exempted Supplies\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of additional tax on exempted goods supplied to unregistered persons.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemptions under Section 13 prevail over additional tax under Section 3(1-A).\n•\nFurther tax is not a penalty but a means to encourage documentation.\nConclusion:\nFurther tax provisions were upheld, with no contradiction found in the statutory framework.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1A),13(i),13,22,14,18,2(34) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched,4,18,24,25,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.25915 of 1998, decision dated: 17-11-1999. dates of hearing: 14th, 15th and 16-09-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioners. Kh. Saeeduz Zafar, Dy. A.G. No. 1. A. Karim Maliks Nos.2 to 4", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Revenue & Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 678 = 1999 SLD 678 = 1999 PTD 1135 = (1999) 79 TAX 433 = 1999 PTCL 645 = 1999 SCMR 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Intermediary Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nTaxability of intermediary goods used in manufacturing exempt final products.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 3(6)(d) creates a legal fiction treating certain intermediary goods as taxable.\n•\nThe Federal Legislature has the competence to enact such provisions.\nConclusion:\nLeave to appeal was granted to examine the legislative intent and implications of deeming provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(6)(d), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),FourthSched., ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.289, 290, 291, 292 of 1978, 899-K, 900-K,901-K, 902-K, 903-K, 904-K, 905-K, 906-K, 907-K, 908-K, 909-K, 910-K and 911-K of 1990, decision dated: 11-01-1999. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th and 23rd June, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, ABDUR REHMAN KHAN AND MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Man soor Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Courts (in C. As. Nos. 899-K to 911-K of 1990)\nMansoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.289 to 292 of 1978 ands (in C. As. Nos. 899-K to 911-K of 1990)\nEjaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Records (in C.As. Nos.289 to 292 of 1978)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX and others\nvs\nHUNZA CENTRAL ASIAN TEXTILE AND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 679 = 1999 SLD 679 = 1999 PTD 1184 = 2000 PTCL 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bar on Civil Suits Against Sales Tax Recovery\nKey Issues:\n•\nMaintainability of civil suits challenging sales tax recovery orders.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 51 bars jurisdiction of civil courts where statutory remedies exist.\nConclusion:\nThe suit was dismissed as incompetent, emphasizing reliance on designated statutory forums.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=51 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 494 of 1995, decision dated: 12-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RASHEED A. RAZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHEMITEX INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT OF SALES TAX and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 680 = 1999 SLD 680 = 1999 PTD 1308 = (1999) 79 TAX 615 = 2000 PTCL 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Additional Tax on Withdrawn Exemptions\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of additional tax where exemptions were withdrawn without notice.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nImposition of additional tax without deliberate evasion violates principles of fairness.\nConclusion:\nLevy of additional tax was declared invalid, citing lack of awareness by both the taxpayer and the authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VIII,R.12 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-368 of 1995, decision dated: 27-11-1998, hearing DATE : 18-11-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansurul Arfin for Petitioner. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori", + "Party Name:": "IDEAL GLASS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 599 = 2002 SLD 599 = 2002 PTD 1805 = (2002) 85 TAX 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds Denied Due to Supplier Non-Verification\nKey Issues:\n•\nDenial of refunds despite compliance by the taxpayer due to supplier untraceability.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe burden of verifying suppliers lies with the government, not taxpayers.\n•\nGood faith payments with proper documentation should not be penalized.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the issuance of refunds with compensation under Section 76.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,76 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 950-L of 2001, decision dated: 15-01-2002", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): , JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Naveed Andrabi for the Complainant. Dr. Aftab Ahmed, Deputy Collector, Sales Tax, Multan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KASHMIR EDIBLE OILS LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 681 = 1999 SLD 681 = 1999 PTD 1358 = (1999) 79 TAX 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Personal Hearing and Natural Justice\nKey Issues:\n•\nOrders passed without personal hearings.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe principle of audi alteram partem mandates personal hearings in quasi-judicial proceedings.\n•\nOrders passed without hearing violate statutory requirements and are invalid.\nConclusion:\nThe Additional Collector’s order was set aside for non-compliance with procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=44,44(c),45,46,45(2),46(4) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.849 of 1998, decision dated: 4-12-1998, hearing DATE : 16-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): S. SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Naimur Rehman Dy. A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD\nvs\nPAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 682 = 1999 SLD 682 = 1999 PTD 1655 = (1999) 80 TAX 24 = 2000 PTCL 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Legislation and Vested Rights\nKey Issues:\n•\nValidity of retrospective taxation affecting past transactions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nRetrospective legislation is valid but cannot nullify vested rights unless explicitly stated.\nConclusion:\nNotification withdrawing exemptions post-transaction was held inapplicable to past and closed transactions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6 Customs Act, 1969=31A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1184 of 1996, decision dated: 28-10-1998, hearing DATE : 8-09-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Nasar Ahmed for Petitioner. Mamnoon Hasan, Dy. A.G.s", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KASHMIR FEEDS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 683 = 1999 SLD 683 = 1999 PTD 1668 = (1999) 80 TAX 5 = (2000) 82 TAX 413 = 1999 PTCL 724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Locally Manufactured Goods\nKey Issues:\n•\nApplicability of exemptions for raw materials used in manufacturing under S.R.O.s.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSubsequent notifications should not alter the nature and character of exemptions granted earlier.\nConclusion:\nSteel strips used in manufacturing were exempted as per the notification, and the department's demand was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13 Customs Act, 1969=19 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1241 of 1996, decision dated: 23rd December, 1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMED ANDCH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s. Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. S. Baqar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent)s", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and another\nvs\nPIONEER STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 684 = 1999 SLD 684 = 1999 PTD 1892 = (1999) 80 TAX 30 = 2001 PTCL 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Accessories\nKey Issues:\n•\nEligibility of accessories for input tax adjustment.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nAccessories not classified as goods under Section 8 are eligible for adjustment.\nConclusion:\nShow-cause notices issued to recover tax on accessories were declared unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(b)(2),7(2)(ii),11,46 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3) Customs Act, 1969=79,104 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 929 of 1995, decision dated: 4-03-1999, hearing DATE : 4-03-1999(On appeal against the order, dated 16-6-1994 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in C. P. No. 14 of 1994).", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMED AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Fatehali W. Vellani, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghouri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) Yawar Ali, Deputy Attorney-Generals", + "Party Name:": "ATTOCK CEMENT PAKISTAN LTD.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, QUETTA and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 685 = 1999 SLD 685 = 1999 PTD 1912 = (1999) 80 TAX 57 = 2000 PTCL 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Sales Tax on Misclaimed Exemptions\nKey Issues:\n•\nRecovery of sales tax on imports claimed under invalid exemptions.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nExemptions apply only to goods used in production, not imports.\n•\nMisclaimed exemptions are recoverable within the statutory time frame.\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner’s claims were dismissed, and recovery was upheld as valid.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 143 of 1995, decision dated: 14-01-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "Ashfaq Ahmad for Petitioner. Qazi Muhammad Ghazanfar Khans", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NADEEM ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LTD through Chairman, Ashfaq Ahmad, Registered Office, near Swat Textile Mills, Haripur, District Haripur\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE SALES TAX, JAMROD ROAD, PESHAWAR and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 686 = 1999 SLD 686 = 1999 PTD 2174 = (1999) 80 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Conflict Between Notifications and Statutory Provisions\nKey Issues:\n•\nPrevailing authority of statutory provisions over notifications.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSubstantive provisions of the Sales Tax Act prevail over conflicting notifications.\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner was directed to seek remedies under designated statutory forums.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1986-L, 1987-L, 1995-L, 1996-L, 2012-L, 2013-L, 2016-L, 2019-L and 2020-L of 1998, decision dated: 24-12-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUNAWAR AHMED MINA AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name": "A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Adam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners, Imtiaz Rasheed, Advocate and Syed Mansoor Ali Khan, Advocate with special permission and Sh. Sala-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Records", + "Party Name:": "THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others\nvs\nSHEIKH SPINNING MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 687 = 1999 SLD 687 = 1999 PTD 2341 = 2000 PTCL 146 = (1999) 80 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Simultaneous Proceedings in Multiple Forums\nKey Issues:\n•\nAbuse of process by pursuing identical claims in separate forums.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSuch conduct constitutes mala fide and undermines statutory forums.\nConclusion:\nCivil court jurisdiction was barred, and proceedings were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,46,47,51 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 828-D of 1998, decision dated: 19-03-1999", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY, J", + "Lawyer Name": "Ch. M. Bashir for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for the Customs Department", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WORLD TRADE CORPORATION\nvs\nC.B.R. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 688 = 1999 SLD 688 = 1999 PTD 2421 = (1999) 80 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Bagasse in Sugar Mills\nKey Issues:\n•\nWhether the use of bagasse constitutes a taxable supply.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to examine the applicability of sales tax to bagasse under legislative definitions.\nConclusion:\nPending final adjudication, the issue remains under scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(35),2(41),2(44),2(46),3,SixthSechdule Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),FourthSchedule ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 475, 486-L, 656-L, 1014-L, 1075-L, 1076-L and 1291-L of 1998, decision dated: 19-10-1998, hearing DATE : 16-10-1998", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): AJMAL MIAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (in C.P. No. 475 of 1998). Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court, Ehsanullah Lilla, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 486-L of 1998). Ehsanullah Khan Lilla, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 656-L of 1998). M. Imtiaz Khan Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1014-L of 1998), Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C. P.No. 1075-L of 1998). Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C. P.No. 1076-L of 1998). \nJawaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C. P. No. 1291-L of 1998). Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Deputy Attorney-Generals (in all C.Ps.) on Court‘s Notice", + "Party Name:": "SHEIKHOO SUGAR MILLS LTD\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 600 = 2002 SLD 600 = 2002 PTD 1823 = (2002) 85 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Documentation of the Economy and Taxpayer Harassment\nKey Issues:\n•\nComplaints about coercive measures for compliance with turnover tax rules.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman emphasized education and transparency in implementing tax policies.\nConclusion:\nCBR was directed to engage with stakeholders to resolve grievances and ensure fair practices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1132/IC of 2001, decision DATE : 31-12-2001", + "Judge Name": "AUTHOR(S): JUSTICE (R) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name": "Petitioner(s) by: M. Mubeen Ahsan, Dealing Officer. \nRespondent(s) by: Abdul Hameed Memon, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax", + "Party Name:": "Sheikh MUHAMMAD MANSOOR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + } +] \ No newline at end of file