Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 2(46),4A,11,18,18(2),39,67,122(1),122(5) ,122A,124,124A,&214C

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15

[IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE OF PAKISTAN KARACHI BENCH KARACHI] Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of`2001) - Sections 2(46), 4A, 11, 18, 18(2), 39, 67, 122(1), 122(5), 122A, 124, 124A, & 214C - Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 - Section 15 - Companies Ordinance, 1984 - Sections 2(18), 3, 27(1) - Companies Ordinance, 1981, Sections 284 to 287 - Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, Section 5(b)(c) - Amendment of assessment - Change of chamber, nature and source of business of appellant from manufacturing company to holding company - Demerger of business - Taxpayer filed return of income - Case selected for audit by FBR - Show Cause Notice - Amendment of assessment of CIR(A) - Validity - Whether main activity/business of appellant for period under review is only related to management of investments in various group companies as well as arranging of' finances which is activity in accordance with clause 3(19) of Memorandum of Association which reflects affairs of company - Held yes - Whether CIR(A) has restricted the profit on debt only for financial institution, This is incorrect and restrictively construed - Held yes - Whether taxpayer incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984 falls under category of "person " such as company, therefore, approach of CIR(A) excluding taxpayer is not conceivable - Held yes - Whether section 39 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 contains provisions about residuary head viz. Income front other sources and it does not come into operation until preceding heads (a), (b), (c) and (d) mentioned in section 11 are excluded - Held yes - Whether it is an undisputed principle that source of income cannot be brought under residuary head if it comes under any of specific heads - Held yes - Whether income of appellant being proj7t on debt, therefore, it is covered under head income from business thus other residuary section would not come to play - Held yes - Whether QWCEVS below have totally failed to appreciate changed circumstances happened in year under consideration whereby status of appellant has been changed from manufacturing to holding company - Held yes - Whether it is now well settled that principles of res judicota cannot be…