Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 58 2023 SLD 58 (2023) 127 TAX 189
Lahore High Court
P.T.R No. 81 of 2006 decided on 12.12.2022, Date of hearing: 12.12.2022
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE, ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, JUSTICE
M/s. Syed Naveed A. Andrabi, Syed Muhammad Ijaz and Mansoor Beg, Advocates for the Applicants. M/s. Shahzad Ahmad Cheema, Malik Abdullah Raza, Ghulam Ahmad Ansari and Shahid Sarwar Chahil, Advocates for the
Respondents.

UNION BANK LTD

VS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 17

INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 1979 (XXXI OF 1979)----Section: 17 - Interest on securities - Taxation of interest on securities on accrual basis, payment on account of non-compete agreement by holding them as capital expenditure, add back the admissible claim on account of technology cost, add back the admissible claim on account of provision for bad debts, remand order regarding addition on account of provision for bad debts - Confirmation by the Tribunal - Remand order of CIT(A) regarding addition on account of provision for bad debts, whereas the Appellate Tribunal ordered deletion of the same in assessment year 1998-99 - Ignoring nature of claim on account of non-compete agreement and ignore the well-known Canon of law no one should be condemned unheard - Reference to High Court - FACTS The following questions of law arise out of the order of Appellate Tribunal: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the honourable Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the respondents in respect of taxation of interest on securities on accrual basis? ii. Whether the Tribunal, in the presence of explicit expression “receivable” used by the legislature in section 17 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and enunciated by the courts as “received” was correct in law to hold that interest on securities is taxable on accrual basis? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that renovation of leasehold premises is only entitled for depreciation and is not allowable as revenue expenditure? iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance of payment on account of non-compete agreement by holding them as capital expenditure? v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to ignore the nature of claim on account of non-compete agreement, its effect over the business of the applicant and thereof its admissibility under the repealed Ordinance? vi. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondents were justified to add back the admissible claim on account of…
🔒
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