Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 57 2023 SLD 57 (2023) 127 TAX 185
Lahore High Court
P.T.R No. 80 of 2006 decided on 12.12.2022, Date of hearing: 12.12.2022
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE, ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, JUSTICE

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

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 - Add back of admissible claim on account of provision for bad debts - Confirmation by the ITAT, holding that interest on securities is taxable on accrual basis, remand order regarding addition on account of provision for bad debt and also remand order of CIT(A) regarding addition on account of provision for bad debts - Validity - The ITAT ignored the well known canon of law “no one should be condemned unheard”, also not justified to ignore the binding decisions of the same judicial institution on the issue - Contention of the petitioner - Reference to High Court - FACTS The following questions of law arise out of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),: 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Whether the Tribunal, in the presence of explicit expression “receivable “ used by the legislature in section 17 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and enunciated by the courts as “received” was correct in law to hold that interest on securities is taxable on accrual basis?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 respondents were justified to add back the admissible claim on account of provision for bad debts? v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to confirm the remand order regarding addition on account of provision for bad debts? vi. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the remand order of CIT(A) regarding addition on account of provision for bad debt, whereas it ordered the deletion of the same in assessment year 1998-99? vii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the…
🔒
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