Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 101 1980 SLD 101 (1980) 42 TAX 1
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-17 of 1971, decision dated: 10-3-1980. dates of hearing : 19th, 20th and 21st, January 1980
ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., G. SAFDAR SHAH, KARAM ELAHI CHAUHAN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASSAN SHAH, JJ
A.K, Brohi, Senior, Advocate Supreme Court, S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record, Athar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and TanziI ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellate Iqbal Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate-on-Record

HAMDARD DAWAKHANA

VS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 4,4(3)(i)

[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)]......Section 4(3)(i)-Exemption- Property-Nature and scope of the term "Property" in clause (i)-Whether covers business, cash deposits, securities and other such things-Held yes Per Anwarul Haq, C.J.-There is consensus of judicial opinion that the term 'property', as used in clause (i), is a term of the widest import and subject to any limitation or qualification which the context might require, it signifies every possible interest, which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy; It is comprehensive enough so as to cover even business, cash deposits, securities and other such things. There is nothing in the language of the clause in question to restriction any manner the normal and accepted meaning of the word property so as to exclude business from its connotation. Although a restricted view of term pro petty was taken in the cases reported as, In re : Lachman Das Naraindas [AIR 1925 AII. 115] and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thevara Patasala [AIR 1926 Mod. 949] in which it was observed that income derived from profits in trade or business, even though the income be dedicated to an idol or for other charitable purposes, was not income derived from trust property, yet this view was not approved in subsequent cases; and the matter was set at rest by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Trustees of Tribune Press, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income Tax [AIR 1939 PC 208] and All India Spinner's Association of Mirzapur V. Commissioner of Income Tax [AIR 1944 PC 88] by holding that even the stock and goodwill of a business as well as its organisation and undertaking besides the fluctuating stock in trade, were covered by the term property. Cases referred to: Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Muhammad Abdur Rauf Khan (PLD 1963 SC 209)(1963) 7 Taxation 426 (S.C.); In re. Lachman Doss Naraindas (A.I.R. 1925 All. 115) ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thevara Palasala (A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 949) ; Tribune Press, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.I.R. 1939 PC 208) ; All India Spinner's Association of Mirzapur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.I.R. 1944 PC 88); Charitable Godadia Swadeshi Stores v. Commissioner of income Tax…
🔒
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