Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 649 2005 SLD 649 2005 PTD 2239 (2005) 91 TAX 278
Lahore High Court
W.T.As. Nos. 1339 of 2001 and 84 of 2003, decision dated: 28-02-2005
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT

VS

IJAZ AHMED

Law: Wealth Tax Rules, 1963

Section: 8(3)

Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)

Section: 7,27

Wealth Tax Rules, 1963----- ----R. 8(3)---Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Ss.7 & 27---Appeal to High Court---Expression "gross annual letting value" as defined in Explanation to R.8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, by itself, implies that it is not necessary for a building or property to have actually been let out for the purpose of application of "gross annual letting value"---Explanation to R.8(3) of the Rules defines "gross annual letting value" to be the one for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let out from time to time---"Gross annual letting value" is only a notional value on which a property could reasonably be expected to be let out from year to year---Actual renting out of property for the purpose of application of "gross annual letting value", is not required at all. Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Mst. Kamal Asghar 2005 PTD 50 fol. ORDER The question of law claimed in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax is as under:-- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned ITAT is justified in directing that value of constructed properties be adopted on GALV basis when the property has not been let out." 2. The above question was considered and decided through judgment, dated 18-10-2004 reported as Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Mst. Kamal Asghar (2005 PTD 50) by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Muhammad Sair Ali, J.) was a member. This judgment was thence consistently followed to decide numerous cases. The departmental appeals were dismissed by holding that:-- "(4). After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that the appeals filed by the Department need to be rejected for the following reasons: Firstly, the question as framed cannot be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as it was never contended nor argued before the Tribunal that the properties in respect of which the valuations were determined by the Assessing Officer were not let out. Secondly, learned counsel for…
🔒
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