| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 1 1995 SLD 1 1995 PTD 1 (1994) 70 TAX 71 |
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
I.T.As. Nos.280 and 884 of 1994, decision dated: 17-08-1994,hearing DATE : 9-06-1994
NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dr. Ilays Zafar for Appellants (in both ITRs). Shahbaz Butt, L.A., Zahid Pervaiz L.A. and Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for
Respondent (in ITA No. 280 of 1994). Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for
Respondent (in ITA No. 884 of 1994).
I.T.As. Nos.280 and 884 of 1994, decision dated: 17-08-1994,hearing DATE : 9-06-1994
NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dr. Ilays Zafar for Appellants (in both ITRs). Shahbaz Butt, L.A., Zahid Pervaiz L.A. and Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for
Respondent (in ITA No. 280 of 1994). Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for
Respondent (in ITA No. 884 of 1994).
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 2(26)(b),13,13(1)(2),57
(a) Income-tax----Jurisdiction---Assessee, a company---Income Tax Officer (Companies Circle), by a letter addressed to Commissioner of Income-tax as his administrative head, requested for assignment of jurisdiction over the case of A.O.P. comprising of the two shareholders of the company on the ground that same would facilitate the examination of other related issues likely to arise in the case of the Company----Such seeking of permission by the Income Tax Officer which never came along, would not support the object of lack of jurisdiction on the part of assessing officer---Merely because the assessing officer was not permitted to ensnare the directors of the Company as A.O.P. for matters which might arise out of the proceedings in case of the Company, would not by itself disentitle the assessing officer (Company Circle) to exercise his powers qua the assessee-Company. 1987 PTD (Trib.) 1; PLD 1965 Lah. 390; (1964) 10 Tax 50 (Trib.).and 1962 PTD (Trib.) 125 ref. (b) Income-tax--- ---Company---Lifting of corporate veil---Necessity---Corporate veil is lifted when it so required by the provisions of a statute or otherwise necessitated by contentious move of creditors or shareholders or when the circumstances of a case so required. Salomon v. Salomon & Company (1897) AC 22 (HL) ref. (c) Income-tax--- ----Company---Lifting of corporate veil---Once the posture of an artificial person or juristic legal entity has been assumed by natural persons, they cannot be allowed to throw away the cloak at their fancy and show up their faces to claim as advantage which is no more available to them due to diversity in the role adopted. Persons who seek advantages of corporate personality must accept the corresponding burden. Once the posture of an artificial person or juristic legal entity has been assumed by natural persons, they cannot be allowed to throw away the cloak at their fancy and show up their faces to claim an advantage which is no more available to them due to diversity in the role adopted. To say that a company sustains a separate person and yet in the same breath to argue that in substance the person holding the shares is the company is an attempt to have it both…
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