| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 104 2005 SLD 104 2005 PTD 1607 (2005) 91 TAX 93 |
Sindh High Court
I.T.A. No. 915 of 1999, decision dated: 9-02-2005. dates of hearing: 14th, 15-04-5th 6th, 12-05-2004 and 7-02-2005
SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
Khalid Anwar for Appellant. Muhammad Farid for
Respondents
I.T.A. No. 915 of 1999, decision dated: 9-02-2005. dates of hearing: 14th, 15-04-5th 6th, 12-05-2004 and 7-02-2005
SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
Khalid Anwar for Appellant. Muhammad Farid for
Respondents
Messrs PAK SAUDI FERTILIZERS LIMITED
VS
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 50,50(4),80,80C,136,143,143B,SecondSched ,PartIV,Cl.9
Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)
Section: 4(1),5(1)
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 182,211,222,223
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 136 Appeal to Nigh Court Interpretation of agreement is a question of law. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 50(4), 80 C, 136, 143 B & Second Sched., Part IV, Cl. (9) -Sales of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 4(1) & 5(1) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 182, 211, 222 & 223 Agreement for distributing and marketing products of Manufacturing Company after its purchase by Marketing Company Deduction of advance Income Tax by Marketing Company on payments made to Manufacturing Company for such purchase Claim of Manufacturing Company to be assessed under S.80 C of Income Talc Ordinance, 1979 Appellate Tribunal rejected such claim as no supplies as envisaged by S.50(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were involved Validity Question decided by Tribunal was, whether. Manufacturing Company was not entitled to benefits of S.80 C of Ordinance upon such deductions made from its payments by Marketing Company Such exercise would involve interpretation of agreement between the parties, which was a question of law Only question of law decided by Tribunal would be appealable before High Court Present appeal did raise questions of law decided by Tribunal Agreement in question involved an outright purchase of products of Manufacturing Company by Marketing Company to distribute and market same All essential elements of a contract of agency were missing in such agreement between parties Such agreement envisaged outright sale of products of Manufacturing Company to Marketing Company Advance tax deducted under S.50(4) of the Ordinance upon payment made by Marketing Company would qualify Manufacturing Company to claim benefits of S.80 C thereof for disputed year High Court accepted appeal and, set aside the impugned order. Rehmatuallh Khan v. Government of Pakistan 2003 SCMR 50; Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland v. Seven Up Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. 2002 CLD 77; Coca Cola Beverages Pakistan v. Abdul Hameed Chaudhry 2001 YLR 568; Pakistan Paper Corporation v. National Trading Company Ltd. 1983 CLC 1695; Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. Rehanuddin PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 63; World Wide Trading v. Sanyo Electric…
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