Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 27 1992 SLD 27 1992 PTD 176 (1992) 65 TAX 19
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
I.TA. No.4616/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-07-1991, hearing DATE : 5-03-1991
MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AA. ZUBERI AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS
G. M. Gangat, CA. for Appellant. Qudrat Ullah, D.R. for
Respondent

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: ThirdSched

Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Third Sched. cl. 5---Depreciation---Assessee, a limited company engaged in its business of manufacturing and vending of tin containers---Factory of the assessee was situated at M while the Head Office was in K---Assessee during the relevant year purchased machinery which was not such as needed installation by way of fixing on the ground or attachment with any other fixed machine (etc.) but were portable units which could be installed for commissioning into service simply by plugging like a computer or such like equipment---Said machines were purchased at K and after obtaining possession it was thought expedient by assessee that the staff members who were to operate should be called for training so that in case of difficulty the manufacturer (who also were in K) could be consulted and called in for necessary guidance---Concerned staff members were thus brought on tour to K from M for which usual TA./DA. was paid debiting the accounts to which no exception was taken by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance---Held, machines in question could be treated as installed for the purposes of Third Sched. to the Ordinance but the same could not be treated as having been used for the purpose of assessee's business as it was used for training of the staff and therefore assessee was not entitled to the depreciation on the machinery in question. In re: S. Muhammad Din 1979 PTD 538; In re: Challipali Sugar Mills (1973) 98 ITR 167 and In re: Simco Metres Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 113 (Mad.) distinguished. Per A. A. Zuberi, Accountant Member (Minority view)--¬ In re: Meer Muhammad Ali (1964) 10 Tax 262; In re: Shahemilon Steamship Co. Ltd. 1971 PTD 429; In re: S. Muhammad Din 1979 PTD 538; In re: Challapalli Sugar Mill (1975) 98 ITR 167 and In re: Simco Metres Ltd (1978) 111 ITR 113 ref. ORDER A. A. ZUBERI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).--This appeal has been filed at the instance of a company who act as manufacturers and vendors of tin contain. The appeal impugned order dated 15-5-1985 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals Zone-I) Lahore in respect of the assessment year 1983-84. The learned counsel for the appellant give-up his…
🔒
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