Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 258 2003 SLD 258 2003 PTD 2846
Lahore High Court
Companies Tax Reference No. 111 of 1997, decision dated: 31st July. 2003hearing DATE : 3rd June 2003
NASIM SIKANDAR, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant, Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for
Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES, ZONE III, LAHORE

VS

Messrs HAFIZ ABDUL WAHID & BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 136,136(2)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]......S. 136(2) Reference to High Court by the Tribunal at instance of appellant Tribunal maintained order of Appellate Authority by making reference to their previous order passed in the case of assessee, whereby they had adopted view of Appellate Authority Validity In absence of findings in previous case as referred to m impugned order, High Court could not judge legality of such findings If Tribunal wanted to make reference, then at least in statement of case, they should have reproduced such findings High Court refused to answer referred questions. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) -- S. 136 Question of law Only a question of law if duly raised before and ruled upon by Tribunal, could be said to have arisen out of order of Tribunal. JUDGMENT NASIM SIKANDAR, J. The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax/ Wealth Tax Companies Zone III, Lahore has referred the following questions of law under section 136(2) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which statedly arise out of their order recorded on 9 8 1995: (1) "Whether under the circumstances and on the facts of the case the learned ITAT was justified to hold that credit sales cannot be treated as supplies for the purpose of application of section 80 C when tax had already been deducted under section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979? (2) "Whether the learned ITAT was justified to reply on its order No I.T.A. No.540/LB of 1986 87, dated 29 9 1987 which involved the question of penalty under section 108 for default in submission of statement under section 143, while deciding the issue of applicability of section 80 C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the circumstances of this Case? 2. The assessee/respondent is a private limited company and at the relevant time derived income from the sale of seamless pipes. For the assessment years involved viz. 1991 92, 1992 93 and 1993 94 it appears that after rejecting the returned version the Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the sales which were bifurcated into two. Receipts on which tax had been deducted under section 50(4) were found covered by the…
🔒
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