Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1944 2015 SLD 1944 2015 PTD 1635 (2015) 112 TAX 79 2015 PTCL 826 2015 SCMR 950
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1319, 1320 and 1321 of 2007, decided on 24th March, 2015. DATE of hearing: 24th March, 2015.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, EJAZ AFZAL KHAN AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, JJ.
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for appellant. Shahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY ZONE, ISLAMABAD

VS

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 15,15(b),15(d),17,17(1)(a),22,32,65(2)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

ORDER JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Civil Appeals Nos. 319-1320 of 2007:- The appellant-revenue impugns the judgment of the High Court dated 12-1-2007 whereby Income Tax Appeals Ntis.259-270 of 1999 were decided. In these appeals the following question had been proposed for the opinion of the Court "Whether an the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that requirement of subsection (2) of section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 cannot be fulfilled if the administrative and legal approval for reopening of such assessment is obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment order passed by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax as Chairman of Panel when the IACs consent for reopening was also there vide letter No. IAC/R-11/Cos-1/1993-94/1169 dated 21-3-1994?" At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank drew our attention to the case titled Commissioner Income Tax v. Habib Bank Ltd. (2014 SCMR 1557) and stated that the issue which arises in this ease has already been settled through the said precedent. This indeed appears to be the case which is why we had asked learned counsel for the revenue to ascertain if the ratio of the cited precedent was applicable in these appeals also. He states that the principle of law which has been enunciated in the aforesaid case is attracted in the facts of the present case also. We may reproduce below the relevant part of the cited judgment, for ease of reference:-- "(4)(sic.) Considering the provisions of sections 17 and 2 of the Ordinance, reproduced above, we cannot help but notice that section 32 provides an except on to the computation of income set out in section 17 which obviously includes section 17(1) (a). In these circumstances, the impugned judgments rendered by the High Court have in our opinion correctly held that the respondent-Banks were justified in adapting the method of accounting which was hybrid and had been consistently used by the respondent Banks since long. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant, however, made reference to a s decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 18-9-1993, wherein it…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492