| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1702 2015 SLD 1702 (2015) 112 TAX 22 2015 PTD 2236 |
Lahore High Court
WTA No. 154 of 2002, decided on 2-4-2015
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH AND SHAHID KARIM, JJ.
Muhammad Asad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, Lahore, for the Applicant. Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
WTA No. 154 of 2002, decided on 2-4-2015
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH AND SHAHID KARIM, JJ.
Muhammad Asad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, Lahore, for the Applicant. Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXWEALTH TAX
VS
Mst. ASMA JILANI and others
Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)
Section: 2(16)
Law: Wealth Tax Rules, 1957
Section: 2(16)(iii),2(1),(5)(ii),8(3)
Law: Registration Act, 1908
Section: 17
JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shahid Jamil Khan, J:- This judgment shall also decide WTA Nos. 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 2002 for being directed against common order dated 27.04.2002 by erstwhile Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Appellate Tribunal"). 2. Following common question of law is proposed in all the appeals:- "Whether ITAT is justified to maintain that the right, title or interest to or in any immovable property is determinable in the eyes of law on the basis which is otherwise, of the one obtaining in revenue record in the form of registration'?" However, in WTA No. 156 of 2002, two additional questions are proposed, which are reproduced hereunder:- "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned ITAT, Lahore is justified in holding that no wealth tax assessment in the status of an AOP can be made for the charge year 1997-98 under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963? ii) Whether omission and re-enactment of provision regarding an association of persons or a body of individuals as provided u/s 2(1)(5)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is prevalent during the relevant year?" 3. Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were field on a common grievance that assigning of status of AOP in relevant assessment years was not justified. Background of this case is that property in question measuring 8 kanals 7 marlas was transferred to Mrs. Sabiha Jillani through sale deed in 1980. A building was constructed in front portion of the said property jointly by said lady and her four children including the respondent assessee. Later, the co-owners decided to distribute the property, for which an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator gave his award on 01.01.1983, which was filed in Civil Court and a compromise decree was passed on 22.03.1983 By virtue of the decree respondent assessee became owner of 1/6th share of the property. On 10.06.1993 an agreement was arrived at between the co-owners for implementation of award/decree. Separate portions were earmarked and distributed accordingly. However, rented out portion, under rent agreement, remained in the domain of shareholders jointly till June, 2005. Till assessment year 1993-94 the…
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