| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 201 2013 SLD 201 2013 PTD 1720 (2015) 111 TAX 78 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.19928 of 2001, decision dated: 27-02-2013
UMAR ARA BANDIAL, C.J
Tariq Rasheed for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for
Respondent
Writ Petition No.19928 of 2001, decision dated: 27-02-2013
UMAR ARA BANDIAL, C.J
Tariq Rasheed for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for
Respondent
Messrs LAND MARK
VS
Income Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others
Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)
Section: 2,2(1)(16)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---S.2(1)(16)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---"Net wealth"; computation of---Non-pay ability of wealth tax on debts which were secured on, or which had been incurred in relation to, any asset in respect of which wealth tax was payable---"Tax chargeable" and "tax payable", distinction---Scope---Petitioner had impugned order of Tribunal whereby wealth tax was assessed as payable on debts which according to the petitioner were liable to be deducted as they were acquired against taxable assets, and it was immaterial if such assets were subsequently sold on account of exigency of business and such sale of assets did not convert the loan into one which was created for non-taxable assets---Validity---Language of S.2(1)(16)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 used the expression "payable" rather than "chargeable", and the non-pay-ability of wealth tax was connected with an asset which was, for one reason or the other, exempt or relieved from such tax payment and also; tax ceased to be payable on an asset that had been disposed of---Debts of an assessee that were eligible for deduction from the value of the assets were necessarily those regarding/pertaining to existing assets that were not exempt from tax and where an asset did not exist there could be no ground to treat the same as a chargeable asset and therefore the debt procuring such asset could not be deducted from the value of assets---Requirement of non-pay-ability of tax was therefore met both in case of exemption from wealth tax as well as the non-existence of an asset forming the consideration or security for debt sought to be deducted---Impugned order of the Tribunal was legally correct---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.---The impugned order passed by a learned Division Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30-11-2000 ("Tribunal") has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that are reproduced in the order of this Court dated 13-2-2013. That order is:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan in issue was incurred in relation to assets which were taxable and therefore…
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