Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4373 = 2026 SLD 4373
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
ITA No.7346/LB/2023 (Tax Year 2022) Date of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date of Order: 20.11.2025
Presented By: MIAN TAUQER ASLAM (CHAIRMAN)
Mr. Kamran Hussain, DR

CIR, Zone-AEOI, LTO, Lahore. Appellant

VS

. Mian Amer Mahmood, Lahore [3520219677063]. Respondent

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 4C, 37(3A)

  Brief Facts Case Subject: This income tax appeal was filed by the Revenue Department (CIR, Zone-AEOI, LTO, Lahore) against the order of the CIR (Appeals-V). The dispute concerns the levy of Super Tax under Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for the Tax Year 2022 on the income of the respondent, Mian Amer Mahmood. Issues and Taxpayer's Grounds: The primary dispute involved a tax demand of Rs. 245,078,052 created by the Assessing Officer. The taxpayer challenged this on the following grounds: Capital Gains on Immovable Property: The taxpayer argued that super tax was unlawfully levied on capital gains from the sale of immovable property because the holding period exceeded four years. Calculation of Gain: Under Section 37(3A), if the holding period exceeds four years, the gain is computed as zero ("0"). Procedural Lapses: The taxpayer contended that the calculation table and issues regarding "income from foreign controlled companies" were never formally confronted to them during proceedings. Retrospective Application: Relying on the Lahore High Court judgment (Service Global Footwear Limited v. FOP), the taxpayer argued that Section 4C cannot be applied retrospectively to the Tax Year 2022. Department's Position: Correctness of Assessment: The Departmental Representative (DR) maintained that the Assessing Officer had correctly charged super tax on capital gains. Challenge to Annulment: The Department argued that the CIR(A) had illegally annulled the original assessment order. Tribunal's Final Decision: Finding on Capital Gains: The Tribunal agreed that since the property was held for over four years, the gain was zero under Section 37, and therefore, no super tax was payable on that specific amount. Consistency in Computation: The Tribunal held that income computation principles for regular income tax must also apply to super tax unless specifically stated otherwise. Retrospective Ruling: The Tribunal followed the superior court's precedent, declaring the retrospective application of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register