Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 827 2015 SLD 827
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
ITA No. 534/IB/12, Tax year 2011, DATE of hearing 25.05.2015, DATE of order 25.05.2015
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JEHANZEB MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by Mr. Mohy-ud-Din Ismail, DR
Respondent by Syed Tauqeer Bukhari Advocate & Syed Tanseer Bukhari Advocate

The Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU Islamabad court, --Appellant

VS

M/s. DB Joint Venture Projects Rawalpindi, --Respondent

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 122(5A),21(6),128(5),233,21(c),153(7)(c)

Through this appeal department has objected to the impugned order of the learned CIR(A) dated 30.04.2012 for the tax year 2011. The grounds agitated by the department are reproduced as under:- 1. "That the order of the /earned CIR(A) is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case. 2. That the order of the learned CIR(A) was not justified to admit any documentary material or evidence which was not produced during Assessment Proceedings under section 122(5A) without establishing that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such material or evidence before the Assessing officer as provided in sub section (5) of section 128 of income tax ordinance, 2001. 3. The Learned CIR(A) was not justified to delete the addition made under section 21(6) due to non deduction of tax from payment made for rendering of services of construction to M/s Artova Engineering & Consultants, M/s. Hero Construction Services (Pvt) Ltd., M/s Sky Way Construction amounting to Rs. 24,964,637/-, Rs. 1,772,529/-, and Rs.57,631,606/- and payment against rental hiring of construction machinery amounting to Rs.3,026,827/- by the treating the services rendered for leveling of grounds as "composite contract" as the services rendered or otherwise remain "services" and the same cannot be treated as covered in the expression "Execution of Contract". As such the findings of the learned CIR(A) are against the fact and material available on record. 4. The Learned CIR(A) was not justified to delete the addition made under section 21(c) amounting to Rs.23,800,000/- an account of commission paid to different dealers under the heads for acquisition of land on the ground that the appellant is not a statutory AOP under section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as the provisions of section 233 cover any AOP established under the law and as such the taxpayer was required to withhold tax from said payments. 5. That the appellant may be allowed to alter, amend, or add more grounds: of appeal at the time of hearing. PRAYER: That the Order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-Ill) May Kindly be vacate and the original assessment order of assessing officer be restored. The…
🔒
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