| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1978 SLG 45 1978 SLD 45 (1979) 39 TAX 176 |
Lahore High Court
Tax Reference No. 122 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 179 of 1974), decision dated: 15-11-1978, hearing DATE : 5-7-1978
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ
Javaid Hashmi, Advocate for the Applicant. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate for the
Respondent
Tax Reference No. 122 of 1974 (P.T.R. No. 179 of 1974), decision dated: 15-11-1978, hearing DATE : 5-7-1978
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ
Javaid Hashmi, Advocate for the Applicant. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate for the
Respondent
M, S. HAMEED MASOOD AND ASSOCIATES, MULTAN
VS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 66,66(1)
[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)].........Section 66(1)-Reference to High Court Question arising out of Tribunals order-Question whether or not certain materials were considered or utilised by Tribunal behind the back of the applicant-Whether a controversial question of fact Held yes-No material on record to reach a positive finding that gist of two cases utilised by Tribunal were not disclosed to the applicant-Preponderence of probability suggestive of the inference to the contrary-Question whether arises out of Tribunals order-Held no. Case referred to :- Superior Furniture Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 15 Taxation 56. B. Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)-Section 66(1)-Reference to High Court-Question arising out of Tribunal order-List of comparable cases submitted to Tribunal day after the order was passed-No material to prove that materials were supplied at the behest of the Tribunal-Question that Tribunal was not justified in giving its finding without considering the materials placed before it-Whether arises not of Tribunals order-Held no. C. Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)-Sections 10(2), 13, 23 Assessment -Rejection of accounts-Contractor-Assessment made on net profit rate basis without allowing expenses and depreciation claimed-Whether valid in law-Held no-Income Tax Officers observation that "15 per cent net profit was inclusive of expenses and depreciation claimed"-Whether sweeping remarks and not proper compliance with Section 10-Held yes. There is, however, merit in the arguments of the petitioners learned counsel that the provisions of Section 10 are mandatory. Obviously, therefore, if the petitioner, on the facts of the case, qualified for the grant of over-head expenses and the depreciation claimed by him, the Tribunals order in this respect does not satisfy requirements of law. No doubt the assessment order mentioned that 15 per cent net profit was inclusive of the expenses and depreciation claimed by the petitioner, but mere sweeping observations of the assessing officer, without passing a speaking order, in this respect is not the proper compliance with Section 10 of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,…
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