| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 120 2003 SLD 120 2003 PTD 1285 (2003) 88 TAX 200 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-1225 of 2000, decision dated: 21st March, 2003. dates of hearing: 28th and 29-01-2003
S. AHMED SARWANA AND M. MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Muhammad Akram Shaikh, Sirajul Haq Memon and Hashim Padhiar for Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi alongwith DCIT Sajidullah Siddiqui for
Respondent.
Constitutional Petition No.D-1225 of 2000, decision dated: 21st March, 2003. dates of hearing: 28th and 29-01-2003
S. AHMED SARWANA AND M. MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Muhammad Akram Shaikh, Sirajul Haq Memon and Hashim Padhiar for Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi alongwith DCIT Sajidullah Siddiqui for
Respondent.
SITARA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. and another
VS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 12(12),62
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 284,285,286,287,288
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--Ss. 62 & 12(12)---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional petition---Merger of two public listed-companies-- Petitioner, the transferee company filed, its Return of income wherein the assets of transferred Company were shown as the assets of the petitioner-company in accordance with the provisions, of the Amalgamation Scheme approved by the High Court---Amalgamtion Order by the Court indicated that one company was transferred to the other on the basis of book value and the transferee Company got revalued the assets of the transferred---Difference of fair market value and sale/purchase value of the assets---Deemed income--Assessing Officer issued notice under S.62, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the transferee Company to the effect that the surplus created by the said Company being, in fact, difference in the fair market value and the assets of the Company acquired by the transferee Company at cost price/book value, why the difference of the created reserve and the written down value as per books of the transferor should not be added under S.12(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the total income of the transferee Company;--Validity---Issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer could not be said to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority---Any order restraining the Assessing Officer from asking any question or deciding any question which was within his statutory duty and power would disturb the entire system laid down by the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which the High Court refrained to do so---Petitioner, in circumstances, should file its reply to the notice supported by case-law and allow the Assessing Officer to consider the same and pass a written order with reasons therefore as required by S.62, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Principle. CIT v. Amsons Dairies Ltd. 1971 PTD 1075 = 1971 SCMR 589 and CIT v. Messrs Bufco Tanneries PLD 1966 Lah. 244; Roche Pakistan Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2001 PTD 3090; Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust v. ITO 1992 PTD 1; Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs PLD 1966 Kar. 68; Adamjee Insurance…
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