Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 111 2002 SLD 111 2002 PTD 779 (2002) 85 TAX 60
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
I. T. A. No. 1227/KB/DB of 2000-01, decision dated: 20-11-2001
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
A. H. Faridi for Appellant. Muhammad Umar Farooq, 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: 20,19

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 20 & 19---Deductions---Income from house property---Salary arid allowances---Electricity expenses---Tenant's burden borne by the landlord---Salaries paid to office staff had nothing to do with the property income and was not a business expenditure---Salary of electrician was covered by the allowance of repair allowed against the property income---Salaries paid to watchman and sweepers were adjustable against the annual value and in the present case could not be adjusted because the annual value has to be equal to the rent received--­No adjustment of salaries and allowances was permissible against the property income. 1985 PTD (Trib.) 240 ref. ORDER MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).---This appeal is directed by a company deriving income from property against order of the CIT(A), dated 16-1-2001. The order is agitated on the following grounds of appeals:--- "(1) That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals is bad in law and on facts (2) That the learned CIT Appeals has erred in not directing that the claim 'of the expenses made by the appellant amounting to Rs.1,449,409 which were disallowed by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground that there is no business may be allowed to the appellant. (3) That the learned CIT Appeals has erred in not directing to allow the claim of expenses when there was merely a temporary lull in the business. (4) That without prejudice to above the learned CIT Appeals has erred in not directing to allow the expenses which were incurred by the appellant, as tenant burden borne by the own whole computing the property income of the appellant specially the following expenses. 1.Electricity expenses Rs.355,145 2. 4 Salary and Allowances Rs.541,235 (5) That without prejudice above the learned CIT Appeals has erred in not directing to allow such expenses which the appellant is obliged to incur to maintain its status of the company. 1. Audit fee Rs.10,000 2. Chambers of Commerce & Industry fee Rs.1,000 3. Legal & Professional charges Rs.20,000 (6) That the appellant craves permission to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing of…
🔒
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