Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 190 2003 SLD 190 2003 PTD 2020 (2004) 89 TAX 304
Sindh High Court
I.T.Cs. Nos.68 to 70 of 2002, decision dated: 18-04-2003.hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2003.
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND GULZAR AHMED, JJ
Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Muhammad Athar Saeed for
Respondent.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

VS

NATIONAL REFINERY LTD.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 23(i)(vii),136(1)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S. 136(1)---Jurisdiction of High Court to consider a question of law---Scope---High Court would consider only such question of law, which had arisen out of order of Tribunal or which had been raised before Tribunal and had been dealt with by Tribunal or question which had not been raised before Tribunal, but had been dealt with by Tribunal or question which had been raised before Tribunal but had not been dealt with by Tribunal. CIT v. Gohar Ayyub 1995 PTD 1074 and Iram Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1998 PTD 3835 ref. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----S. 136(1)---Questions of law raised before High Court materially were different from those referred by applicant to Tribunal for reference to High Court---Questions raised before High Court had been neither raised nor considered by Tribunal---High Court dismissed applications being not maintainable. JUDGMENT GULZAR AHMED, J.---The following question of law has been raised for determination by this Court in all the three above I.T.Cs:--- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest payment relatable to work in progress is allowable as revenue expenditure under section 23(i)(vii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 ...." In I.T.C. No.70 of 2000 the following additional question of law is also raised:--- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the department has a right to determine under statement of cost of Rs.664,067,655 in the year 1992-93 and was rightly added-back to the total income of the case..." Mr. Muhammad Athar Saeed, learned counsel for the respondent has taken preliminary objection that the two questions raised before this Court in the above ITCs are materially different from those referred by the applicant to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 136(i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for reference to this Court. He has stated that this Court is only required by law to consider only such questions of law which are raised before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He has stated that on this ground alone the three ITCs filed by the applicant are liable to be…
🔒
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