Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 7 2011 SLD 7 (2010) 102 TAX 405 2011 PTD 293
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos. 369/LB, 295/LB, 1485/LB to 1488/LB of 2009, decision dated: 30-06-2010
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Muhammad Aslam Anwar and Masoom Akhtar, FCA for Appellant. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, D.R. for
Respondent

Messrs NESPAK FOUNDATION, LAHORE

VS

. C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 80,80(2)(b)(v),153,80(2),169,16(2)(b),21 ,21(c),155,21(k),153(1)(c),16

[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]......Section 80 (2)(b)(v), First Sched., Part-I, Division-II, Paragraph (ii)..."Person"-Cooperative society...Status of... Notwithstanding the fact that a cooperative society had been clothed with the status of a company as per S.80(2)(b)(v) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, its income was proposed to be taxed at a relatively lower rate in order to ensure the growth and expansion of the Cooperative 'Societies...No conflict existed between S.80(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Paragraph (ii) of Division-II of Part-I of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and both the provisions were applicable simultaneously. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)...S. 153(1)(c)-Payments for goods and services...Execution of contract...Work sublet to various sub-contractors... Assessment of receipts received by the assessee for execution of work under a contract under Presumptive Tax Regime... Assertion that assessee had sub-let the entire work to various sub-contractors and tax was also being regularly deducted from the payments made to them under S.153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and deposited in State Exchequer could not be brushed aside casually...Interest of revenue were being adequately safeguarded by the assessee by way of compliance with the provisions of S.153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 vis-a-vis the payments made to sub-contractors...Taxation Officer and the First Appellate Authority were not justified in treating the receipts of the assessee as income from the execution of contracts assessable under Presumptive Tax Regime because assessment of receipts under Presumptive Tax Regime in the hands of assessee-company would result in double taxation, first in the hands of assessee and then in the hands of sub-contractors which was not countenanced by law...Orders of the authorities below were vacated and it was directed that the consultancy services fee be assessed as normal law income of the assessee. (c) Income-tax...Nature of receipts...Determination, method. (d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)...S. 169(2)(b)...Tax collected or deducted as a final tax...Proration of administrative…
🔒
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