Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 5,6,7,8,21(c),21(c)(m),23,Proviso,11,39( 3),39(5),56,56(1),57(1)(4),111,131,169(3 ),120,122,149,165,231

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 5,6,7,8,21(c),21(c)(m),23,Proviso,11,39( 3),39(5),56,56(1),57(1)(4),111,131,169(3 ),120,122,149,165,231

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-------Ss. 120, 122 & 131---Amendment of assessment---Assessee, a Sugar Mill---Assessing Authority by taking average rate of three Sugar Mills on the basis of being parallel cases, applied sugarcane purchase-rate against the declared rate by the assessee and made addition---Taxpayer had contended that Assessing Authority had failed to mention the provision under which it had applied average rate of sugarcane purchased by said three sugar mills---Assessing Authority repeatedly mentioned in its best order that taxpayer had failed to furnish complete books of account and supporting evidences to substantiate his claim---Appellate Authority upheld stance of Assessing Authority on the basis of non-production of books of accounts and relevant record---Assessing Authority, though had made comparison of sugarcane purchase price of three parallel cases, but failed to confront the taxpayer with the names, NTN/names, area/locality of these sugar mills; and had not fulfilled its legal obligation, and norms of natural justice---Matter was remanded to Assessing Authority, with the directions that after obtaining complete books of accounts, and relevant documentary evidence, taxpayer be confronted with the discrepancies; and ask to submit specific reasons of increased rate of input---Complete names/NTN and locality of said three mills operating, in the area, to be communicated to taxpayer---Taxpayer was directed to co-operate with the department, and provide all relevant records including evidence of payment to the growers made through proper Banking Channel---Matter could be adjudicated according to the facts and circumstances of the case---Appeal on that ground was disposed of by the Tribunal accordingly. 2013 PTD 1274; 1975 PTD 58 and 2011 PTD 2161 ref. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 5, 6, 7, 8, Proviso, 11, 39(5), 56, 131 & 169(3)---Taxation of dividend Income---Confirmation of---Contention of taxpayer was that action of Appellate Authority below of confirming the taxation of dividend income separately and not allowing adjustment of the same against business loss, was against the expressed provision of…