| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1125 2017 SLD 1125 2017 PTD 1832 |
Sindh High Court
I.T.R.As. Nos. 70, 71 and C.M.A. No. 135 of 2016, decision Date : 2nd May, 2017. Heard on: 2nd May, 2017.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE, NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Asif Ali for Applicant.
I.T.R.As. Nos. 70, 71 and C.M.A. No. 135 of 2016, decision Date : 2nd May, 2017. Heard on: 2nd May, 2017.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE, NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Asif Ali for Applicant.
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II
VS
SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING, COMPANY LTD., KARACHI
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 21(g),133
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 133---Reference to High Court---Jurisdiction of High Court under S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Maintainability / competence of reference where questions of law contained therein had already been decided by the Superior Courts---Scope---Scope of filing a reference application in terms of S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not be equated with filing an appeal or revision and its scope was restricted only to extent of referring question(s) of law arising form an order passed by Appellate Tribunal, for the opinion of the High Court---High Court observed that filing of frivolous references by Department needed to be addressed so that the High Court as well as the litigants may not be unnecessarily burdened with such cases where question of law already stood decided by the Superior Courts. 2000 PTD 3741 and 2006 PTD 2256 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE:---.--- Through instant reference applications, the applicant department has proposed following common question, which according to the learned counsel for the applicant, is a question of law arising from the combined impugned order dated 19.11.2015 passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1060/KB/2013 (Tax Year 2007) and I.T.A. No. 1061/2013 (Tax Year 2009), for opinion of this Court:-- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is justified in holding that the late delivery charges cannot be termed as paid in violation of law, rule or regulation, therefore, do not come under the scope of section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?" 2. Learned counsel for the applicant, after having read out the impugned order and orders of the two authorities below, submits that the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was not justified to delete disallowance under section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, while holding that late delivery charges cannot be termed as paid in violation of law, rule or regulation, therefore, do not come under the scope of section 21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as, according to the learned counsel, such charges were paid…
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