| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 932 2022 SLD 932 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 4596 to 4601 of 2019, Date of hearing: 08-06-2022 (On appeal against the Judgment Dated 23-10-2019 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Income Tax Reference Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2018)
MR., JUSTICE IJAZ UL HASSAN, MR., JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, ASC (via video link from Lahore)
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Babar Bilal, ASC Me. Shahid Soomro, Commissioner (Legal) Inland Revenue. Dr, Muhammad Husnain, AC (Legal) Inland Revenue
Civil Petition No. 4596 to 4601 of 2019, Date of hearing: 08-06-2022 (On appeal against the Judgment Dated 23-10-2019 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Income Tax Reference Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2018)
MR., JUSTICE IJAZ UL HASSAN, MR., JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, ASC (via video link from Lahore)
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Babar Bilal, ASC Me. Shahid Soomro, Commissioner (Legal) Inland Revenue. Dr, Muhammad Husnain, AC (Legal) Inland Revenue
PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION FOUNDATION THROUGH ITS MANAGER FINANCE, ISLAMABAD
VS
THE COMMISSIONER IMLAND REVENUE, RTO ISLAMABAD
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 100C,clause(58) ofPartI oftheSecond Schedule
IJAZ UL HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Commissioner (Legal) Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Islamabad assisted by Assistant Commissioner (Legal) Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Islamabad and Mr. Babar Bilal, learned ASC appearing for the Respondents. 2. At the very outset we have confronted the Commissioner with the fact that by means of the impugned judgment, the High Court has decided tax references of the Petitioner tax payer stretching over tax years 2010 to 2015. In respect of the earlier tax years, the petitioner claimed exemption from tax under clause (58) of Part I of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (“the Ordinance”) while in one of others the claim was for a tax credit in terms of s. 100C. Two point are of immediate relevance here. Firstly, the latter provisions was added to the Ordinance only by the Finance Act, 2014, by which the aforementioned clause (58) was also omitted. However, the impugned judgment is focussed exclusively on s. 100C as though it applied in respect of all the tax years involved, which was patently not the case. There is no consideration of clause (58) at all. This is clearly erroneous. Secondly, the learned High Court has conflated the exemption under clause (58) and the tax…
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