Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 284 2016 SLD 284 2016 PTCL 548 2016 PCTLR 472 (2018) 114 TAXMAN 36 2016 PTD 2074
Lahore High Court
W.P No. 18703 of 2008, Date of Hearing. 12-04-2016, Date of order: 23-04-2016
JUSTICE SHAHID KARIM
PETITIONERS by: Mr. Shahbaz Butt, Advocate. RESPONDENTS by: Mr. Liaqat Ali Chaudhry, Advocate.

Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd.

VS

The Federal Board of Revenue & others

Law: Income Tax Rules, 2002

Section: 44(4)

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 32,34,120,151,158,161,165,165(1),165(2), 174,174(1),174(3),177,DivisionIIorDivisi onIII ofPartV ofChapterX

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 40(4A),52,156

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

JUDGMENT Shahid Karim, J:- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, lays a challenge to the notice dated 06.12.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement and Collection Division-02, Large Taxpayer Unit, Lahore. By the impugned notice, a request has been made to furnish the annual statement of withholding taxes as prescribed under section 165 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance, 2001) in respect of tax year 2003 along with reconciliation statement as per rule 44(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002). 2. According to the contents of the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that the record of the tax department shows that annual statement of withholding taxes for the tax year 2003 has not been filed. It was further intimated through the impugned notice that the results declared in the return of income/audited accounts statements furnished along with return of income for the tax year 2003 show that certain amount of tax had not been deducted by the petitioner during the tax period 2003. Thus, by the impugned notice the petitioner was required to furnish the statement of withholding taxes for the tax year 2003 along with reconciliation statement as per the provisions of rule 44(4) of the Rules, 2002. Further that the evidence of payment of the claimed deduction should also be made over to the officer issuing the impugned notice. It is clear from the impugned notice, therefore, that the department is seeking a reconciliation of the amounts claimed as tax deductions by eliciting evidence of the payment of the tax deductions claimed by the petitioner. 3. This judgment shall also decide W.P No.13957 of 2010 which also seeks to restrain the respondents from requiring the petitioner to produce the record which was not required to be maintained beyond a period of five years under section 174(3) of the Ordinance, 2001. In this petition too, the return of total income in respect of tax year 2004 was filed under section 114 of the Ordinance, 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected for audit by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 177(4) of the Ordinance, 2002. This was…
🔒
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