gototop
Skip Navigation LinksMTBA > Updates > Direct > DT Case Laws

Direct Tax Case Laws

  • Year:    Rows:    Sorting:    Section:     Keyword:   
  • 29 Nov 17 176, 177, 214C 2017 LHC 3361 ICA 855 of 2014 Chenone Stores
    Selection by Commissioner u/s 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 declared intra vires.
    A provision of law, being inconsistent with a fundamental right, envisaged in Article 8 of the Constitution, can be declared void, but remains on the statute book, therefore, cannot be struck down.
    Under Section 177 record can be called only for conducting audit after being selected by Commissioner or FBR, Whereas, under Section 176 record can be called for obtaining information or evidence from any person, as is evident from the caption of the Section.
    Taxpayer raise objection against stereotype reasons given in the notices for selection before CIR or Taxation Officer and in case of adverse decision, alternate remedy under Section 7 of FBR Act, 2007 is available. Constitutional jurisdiction could not be availed without resorting to departmental remedies.
    Explanations shall have retrospective effect till 01.07.2010 because the provisions of law being interpreted, clarified and so declared through the Explanations have attained current shape after amendment through Finance Act, 2010 having effect from the date ibid.
    Refresh Page
  • 19 May 17 21(c), 120, 122(5A) ATIR accepted the CIR Appeals opinion make after examination of record
    Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue showed confidence on opinion of CIR(Appeal) which formed by him after examining of documents.
    Refresh Page
  • 13 Apr 17 138, 139, 140, Rule 136(2) FTO Recommendation against illegal recovery without jurisdiction
    1. Notice U/S 138 is mandatory before going to attach assets of a Taxpayer U/S 140 for recovery of tax (if any).
    2. Tax due (if any) from company /firm cannot be recovered from the Director /Partner directly without establishing 1st that the due tax is not recoverable from the company /firm.
    3. Only the officer having proper/valid/lawful jurisdiction over a taxpayer can initiate recovery proceedings against that taxpayer.
    4. Compelling the persons holding assets (i.e. Banks/Revenue etc.) of the taxpayers, for illegal recovery, tantamount to harassment and act of personal vendetta and reflecting administrative excesses of the department.
    5. Officers involving in illegal action against the taxpayers are personally liable for Damages and costs of case along with defamation & loss of respect.
    6. Act of misreporting of facts by the officers before the High Forums is illegal.
    7. Holding the amounts of tax recoveries (if any) in an unofficial manner is an act of Highhandedness & illegal.
    8. Services of notice is mandatory mere keeping in files is not sufficient for any proceeding/action.
    9. Keeping & maintenance of proper records and order-sheets/note-sheets is also compulsory.
    10. Delay in disposal of taxpayer’s applications is not justified.
    11. If the order was supplied by the taxpayer and was not received officially, continuing recovery proceedings are not justified. It was the commissioner who was obliged to confirm the authenticity of appellate order.
    Refresh Page
  • 28 Mar 17 137, 138, 140 LHC Call for explaination of bank attachment notice
    Lahore High Court called for explanation from Chairman FBR about legal status of single bank attachment notice u/s 140 belonging to number of taxpayers and sent it to 26 different banks. Meanwhile stay has been granted from recovery and case adjourned for 31.03.2017.
    Refresh Page
  • 21 Mar 17 124, 161, 205, Rule 44(4) ATIR Determination of default is mandatory
    DCIR failed to point out any discrepancy or single default from the record produced by the taxpayer before him. When justaposed with original order it is evident that the impugned order is mere repetition of the original order. Departmental appeal dismissed.
    Refresh Page
  • 20 Mar 17 221 ATIR Trib is empowered to rectify its order
    Tribunal is empowered to rectify its order, provided material of primary importance, which was placed or available on record, has escaped consideration.
    Refresh Page
  • 13 Mar 17 214C, 177, Circular No.1(177) S (IDT-FATE)/2015 FTO IRIS system needs to be upgraded
    Assuming the jurisdiction and printing of bar code on the notices/orders at same time by two different units shows that IRIS is not working properly and it needs to be revisited and looked into by the FBR.
    FBR is directed to look into the issue and take remedial measures to improve the system and report compliance within 60 days period.
    Refresh Page
  • 07 Mar 17 53, 114, 115, 153(1)(c), 169, Clause 126F Second Schedule SC Exemption 126F KPK not permitted to FTR
    Exemption of Clause 126F of Part I of Second Schedule is only applicable on taxpayers falling under the domain of "normal tax regime" doing business at KPK and FATA. The taxpayers whose business fall within the domain of "final tax regime" for whom the question of experiencing loss of business on account of internal strife does not arise. Petition dismissed.
    Refresh Page
  • 24 Jan 17 177, 214C, Audit Policy 2015 Audit 2014 Nestle Pakistan Judgment High Court
    FBR shall rectify the defects pointed out, hereinbefore, in the impugned Audit Policy 2015 and in the policies to be issued in future. High Court pointed out certain directions to incorporate in the rules or policies.
    Refresh Page
  • 09 Jan 17 161(1B), 152(5) ATIR directed to specify every transaction for default of withholding
    Assessing officer is required to specify each and every transaction on which default was committed by the taxpayer in deduction of tax at source. ATIR vacated the orders and remanded the case.
    Refresh Page
  • 23 Dec 16 Section 18 Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 FTO No aurthority can assume jurisdiction during the matter pending with FTO
    There is no requirement of issuing directions by the Ombudsman to stop the proceedings to the department in present of the section 18 of Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013. Section ibid is self explanatory that no court or aurthority shall have jurisdiction to entertain the matter pending with or decided by the Ombudsman. Chairman FBR is advised to look into the matter and have an enquiry conducted against the defaulting officers/officials.
    Refresh Page
  • 31 Oct 16 121(1)(d), 177 ATIR Set Aside expartee order of audit
    Departmental appeal is accepted and order of CIR(Appeals) set aside and remand the case to the Revenue for afresh re-examination after affording proper opportunity.
    Refresh Page
  • 01 Jul 16 116, Income Support Levy Act 2013 2016 LHC 1862 Income Support Levy Petition dismissed
    W.P. No.19763 of 2013 decided on 17.06.2016
    Income support levy introduced through Finance Act 2013 in the first place does not act discriminately in classifying persons into two categories. Petition dismissed.
    Refresh Page
  • 12 May 16 22, 23, 66 of Income Tax Act, 1922 1981 PTD 210 HC ITR 31 of 1973 Expartee assessment on another date
    Question of Law:
    "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer could resort to S. 23(4) of the Income-tax Act only on 2-12-1971 and not on any subsequent date on which no notice had been given to the respondent."
    The Income-tax Officer has acted illegally in making ex parte assessment on a date which was not fixed for hearing without furnishing the assessee with requisite notices.
    Refresh Page
  • 11 May 16 111, 122 98 TAX 81 ATIR ex partee amendment date is not date of fixation
    It is confirmed that ex parte assessment was made on 6-10-2006, which is the date when neither the case was fixed for hearing, nor any notice regarding appearance was issued to the assessee. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned CIT (A) has rightly cancelled the order placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court reported as 1973 PTD 283.
    Refresh Page
  • 10 May 16 63 of ITO.1979, 121 1995 PTD 1159 ex partee amendment order date is not date of fixation
    The date of hearing was fixed for 21-1-1987 while the ex parte assessment was passed on 24-1-1987. In these circumstances we set aside the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 and remand the case back to the I.T.O. with direction that the assessee should be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard before framing the assessment.
    Refresh Page
  • 09 May 16 161, 205, 218, Circular 7(2) Concost Steel ATIR Clear 15 days for service of notice
    The department has failed to issue notice as provided in rule 44(4) and without issuance of notice, the proceedings initiated under section 161/205 by the department is illegal.
    ACIR has clearly violated the CBR Circular No.7(2) dated 01.02.1994 by not providing 15 clear days before making estimation/assessment, hence orders of both the authorities below are not sustainable.
    Refresh Page
  • 06 May 16 66 of ITO, 1979 High Court Service of notice by someone else
    In a case where a person has to comply with provisions as stringent as those of Section 66(1) of the Act are contented to be, he would authorise, explicitly or impliedly, a mere domestic servant to receive notices as his agent. The Posts and Telegraph Rules authorise the delivery of registered articles only to the addressee or his agent authorised in writing.
    Refresh Page
  • 05 May 16 218 2010 PTD 1271 ATIR service of notice us 218 through all means
    Service through courier service has been provided under the law but this could not be read in isolation; if we go through the sequence of this section in which different modes of service have been provided, one cannot overlook mode provided under section 218(2)(a), which states that notice personally served upon the representative of a person shall be treated as proper service.
    The Department ought to have adopted mode of service provided in section 218(2)(c), where procedure for service of notice as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure has been laid down that in case of failure to serve the notices in the prescribed manner, service of notice could be made through affixture.
    Refresh Page
  • 04 May 16 218, 128(5), 133(4), Circular No.7(2) 2012 LHC 511 HC Clear 15 days for service of notice
    The CBR Circular No.7(2) dated 01.02.1994 manifests that three opportunities of clear 15 days should be offered to the assessee before making estimation/assessment and assessment orders in violation of CBR Circular was not tenable in law.
    Jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 133(4) of the Ordinance ibid is of advisory nature clearly distinct and distinguishable from its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The purpose of reference therefore should be only to resolve problematic and debatable legal question instead to get a decision for or against a party.
    Refresh Page
  • 03 May 16 121(1)(d) ATIR Service of notice after change of unit
    Before transfer of unit the taxpayer was complied with the notices but after that he failed to attend the audit proceedings which was compelled the taxation officer to amend the assessment under section 121(1)(d). It was the duty of the CIR(A) to adjudge the matter and consider the evidence of the taxpayer furnished before him or remand the same before the taxation officer he could not execute.
    Refresh Page
  • 03 May 16 86 of ITO, 1979, 218 ATIR service of demand notice other than original assessee
    1986 PTD 188 Trib. Lahore
    An advocate/A.R. appearing before the ITO in the assessment proceedings is not entitled to receive a demand notice and any service of demand notice made on an advocate/AR cannot be termed to be a valid and proper service. even by a power of attorney, the assessee cannot authorise his Advocate/A.R. to accept service of demand notice.
    Refresh Page
  • 02 May 16 111, 121(1)(d), 174(2) 2015 PTD 2042 Trib expartee assessment in Section 121
    2015 PTD 2042 Trib expartee assessment in Section 121 Assumption of jurisdiction is dependent ons ervice of notice on an assessee, service of notice on the assesee shall be a condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction.
    Impugned order is not a speaking and best judgment order. The additions were made on ad hoc, lump sum and without assigning any plausible reasoning. Taken up the difference of sales and purchases in the sales tax returns and income tax return and subjected the same to additions on account of suppressed sales and on account of purchases additions on account of suppressed sales was made without mentioning any relevant section or clause which action is not permissible under the law.
    The issuance of a specific notice under section 111 is a pre-requisite for making addition under section 111(1). Even otherwise amendment under section 111(1)(d) made by Finance Act, 2011 being a charging provision cannot be applied retrospectivly.
    The assessing authority had acted in a lumpsum manner by disallowing the expeses under section 174(2) without even mentioning the methodology or specific heads of expenditure. It was the responsibility of the assessing authority to point out any specific instance or substantiating his allegations with evidence that the expenditure is liable to be added back.
    Refresh Page
  • 29 Apr 16 65D, 175, 177, 180, Article 199 Section 175 Islamabad High Court
    Section 175 contemplates the power to "enter and search premises". The powers enumerated can only be exercised "in order to enforce any provision of the Ordinance (including for the purpose of making an audit of a taxpayer or a survey of persons liable to tax). Powers under clause (a) to (e) of Section 175(1) cannot be exercised in a vacuum or independently. The powers as such are ancillary powers, which can only be exercised for enforcing any other provision and not otherwise.
    Powers u/s 175(1) are definitely in the nature of encroaching upon, or any infringe the rights of privacy and liberty of a taxpayer. The powers are definitely coercive and consequently are to be exercised with great care and circumspection. In case if a taxpayer refuses to provide documents to a Commissioner and the latter has exhausted all the other modes for seeking access to such documents, only then powers u/s 175, if exercised, would be justified, otherwise it would amount to abuse of the powers conferred there under.
    There is no cavil to the proposition that a mere notice or a show cause notice is not an adverse order and, therefore, a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution would not be competent. The exception to this general rule is a grievance relating to the notice or show cause notice suffering from want of jurisdiction. Director (H.Q.s), Intelligence & Investigation IR, Islamabad is not conferred with powers under section 65-D. The respondent first has to be conferred with powers u/s 65-D (through section 177 or 180) and only then resort can be made to powers u/s 175 and not vice versa.
    The impugned notice was, tehrefore, palpably without jurisdiction. Moreover, the impugned notice was definitely an adverse order as the actions completed therein were, inter alia, an infringement of the right to privacy, dignity and liberty of the petitioner. The instant petition is, therefore, held to be maintainable.
    Refresh Page
  • 18 Apr 16 127, 138 HC Recovery is not permissible during decision of First Appeal
    Lahore High Court (LHC) issued directions to the Federal Board of Revenue''s (FBR) field formations that recovery proceedings of income tax demand shall remain suspended till first appeal filed by the petitioner is decided by the Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeals.
    The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I), Lahore is directed to decide the petitioner''s aforementioned appeal and/or stay application with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till such time the appeal filed by the petitioner is decided, the operation of the impugned notice dated 29.02.2016 shall remain suspended. With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
    Click on below link to read complete news dated 11-04-2016 published in Business Recorder.
    http://www.brecorder.com/pakistan/industries-a-sectors/taxation/181:pakistan/34614:income-tax-demand-recovery-proceedings-to-remain-suspended-fbr-told/?date=2016-04-11
    Refresh Page
  • 29 Mar 16 FTO Ordinance 2000, Section 2(3) FTO findings on FBR systemic inefficiency
    Where systemic inefficiency of tax functionaries falling in the category of tax maladministration as defined in Section 2(3) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000 is evident, the Federal Tax Ombudsman is fully competent under the aforesaid Ordinance to look into the same on his own motion even when no complaint is filed before him.
    The Complainant in this case is actually alleging systemic inefficiency on the part of FBR while dealing with decisions whether or not to file purposeless appeals against the taxpayers. It is the Complainant’s contention that by choosing to file appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, the concerned tax officials made a wrong decision involving avoidable waste of time, effort and scarce financial resources. The Complainant also claims that during the course of appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court, the representative of FBR admitted that as a result of its inability to proceed further in these cases, a revenue loss of Rs. 5 billion was estimated to have taken place, whereas the actual loss was much higher.
    Refresh Page
  • 11 Mar 16 20, 21(L) ATIR Purchase disallowed Section 21L dismissed
    Section 21(l) can only deal with the expenses debatable to P&L Account. A careful reading of all the provision of Section 21 shows that that entire section deals with expenses debitable to profit and loss account and even if it is to cover trading account, it will touch only deductions like rent, wages, fuel, commission, interest, Salary (relating to manufacturing cum trading account) and purchases cannot be termed as deductions, by any stretch of imagination, within the meaning of Section 21.
    Refresh Page
  • 02 Feb 16 Article 19A, FTO Section 32, FOI Ordinance Section 3, 8, ITO Section 134A, Sales Tax Act Section 47A 2016LHC61 LHC REPORTED
    Representation u/s 32 to President of Federal Tax Ombudsman Act, 2000 is not available and permissable against the decision passed in terms of section 21 of the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002.
    Section 8 of FOI Ordinance exclusions can be seen as an attempt to protect the integrity and viability of the decision making process.
    The expression under section 8(c) of FOI Ordinance "any intermediary opinion or recommendation" thus interpreted does not include the opinion given by ADRC to the Board under a dispute resolution mechanism, which is otherwise statutory in nature and recognized in various enactments.
    Article 19-A guarantee to the citizens for giving access to information/documents held by Government and its agencies, this Court is not ready to accept that every intermediary opinion or recommendation on a departmental file will fall into the category of excluded documents.
    Honourable Court also held that in order for a matter to be referred to ADRC it has to be pending before the Appellate Authority, which means that the matter is under litigation between the Revenue and the tax payer and pending before an adjudicatory forum does not fall under the exclusions of section 8(g) and (h) of the FOI Ordinance being considered record to the personal privacy of an individual.
    The basic purpose of the Freedom of Information Act to "....ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."
    Refresh Page
  • 12 Dec 15 214C, 177 FTO Mal Administration show cause without jurisdiction
    1) DCIR issued show cause for audit without go through of tax return; 2) DCIR issued show cause without satisfaction of jurisdiction over the case; Hon'ble FTO gave finding that officer was lacking in professional competence for which he needs to be sensitized and directed to concerned supervisory officers to take notice of this maladministration.
    Refresh Page
  • 30 Oct 15 120(1), 122, 122(1), 122(9), 111(1)(b) Bank documents for loan are not definite information Trib
    The declaration made before the bank authorities cannot be termed as definite information" as such declaration was filed with banks was merely for the purposes of obtaining financial assistance/loans and this cannot be termed as `definite information' for the purposes of invoking the amending provisions of law. A declaration or an admission made before a third party can at best be considered as an information on the basis of which the assessing officer is empowered to start investigation and to find out as to whether that information is correct or not.
    Refresh Page
  • 03 Sep 15 161, 205, 221 Double Assessment under section 161 not permissible 2015 LHC 4844
    Writ is maintainable if the liability in the show cause notice is palpably unlawful or show cause notice is ultra vires, without jurisidction or with mala fide intent, such action is to be nipped in the bud. Even otherwise, if the dispute arises between the parties in respect fiscal right based upon a statutory instrument the same can be easily determined in writ jurisdiction.
    Refresh Page
  • 17 Aug 15 122, 177, 214C, Article 7, 77, 260 LHC Audit Tax Year 2011 Parametric Selection
    Selection of Audit Cases of Tax Year 2011 through Parametric basis in which it is held that Member (Audit) will examine the risk parameters in his personal capacity and in case of negative finding, summon the taxpayer for audi alteram partem and will pass speaking order within 60 days.
    Refresh Page
  • 22 Jun 15 3B of Punjab Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1997 Section 3B Agricultural Income Tax Suspension order HC Multan
    Stay Order granted by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench on 18-06-2015 on the ground that Section 3B was inserted through Punjab Finance Act, 2013 and therefore it is not applicable to prior years being retrospective effect.
    Refresh Page
  • 06 Jun 15 2(13), 2(13A), 131, 132, 133, 209, Filing of appeal by Commissioner against order of Commissioner (Appeals) is neither ministerial nor administrative act
    It has been held by Lahore High Court that Filing of appeal by Commissioner against order of Commissioner (Appeals) is neither ministerial nor administrative act. A Commissioner cannot file appeal against his own order passed as Commissioner (Appeals).
    Refresh Page
  • 03 Jun 15 3B of Punjab Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1997 Stay on Agri Income by HC on Section 3B
    Stay granted in regard of Provincial Agriculture Tax on the plea that Section 3B was inserted through Punjab Finance Act, 2013 and therefore it is not applicable to prior years being retrospective effect.
    Refresh Page
  • 02 Jun 15 122(5A), 122(5AA) 122-5A without Jurisdiction writ petition dismissed
    Writ Petition in pursuance of the judgement of Tribunal in which held that Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 122(5A) in presence of Section 122(5AA). Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ held that writ is not maintainable, where petitioner seeks interpretation of a provision to hold that show cause notice is without jurisdiction.
    Refresh Page
  • 11 May 15 41, 111(1)(b) ORDER ATIR on Agriculture Income sec 111 and 41
    ATIR held that "Khasra Gardawari" is only credible document maintained by the Revenue Department to establish that who is actually cultivating the land as "Mustajir/Muzara".
    Assessing officer has not jurisdiction to tax on any portion of amount relates to opening balance in wealth statement which utilized/invested for investment purposes in current year.
    Refresh Page
  • 09 May 15 133, 153, 161, 165 Ex Partee order 161 is valid
    High Court Lahore PTR No. 338 of 2013 – 25-02-2015 - CIR vs M/s Islam Steel Mills
    Held in light of Bilz Judgment reported as [2002 PTD (Supreme Court) 1] that department is merely under an obligation to make a reference of the details of the supplies and payments made and to point out that they are prima facie covered by section 161 of the Ord. and it is then for the taxpayer to discharge the onus as to why deductions were not made.
    That the IRO as well as the Commissioner were within their right to pass an order to that effect and the Tribunal has committed an error of law by setting aside the orders, validly passed by the forums below.
    Refresh Page
  • 02 May 15 161, 205, 120(1), 149, 153(1)(a)(ab), 177, 122C, 236A, 236C Section 177 is pre requisite for notice of 161
    2015 PTD (Trib.) 654 Composite reading of Sections 161, 177, 120 & 122C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clearly revealed that these sections were interconnected. Direct invoking of Section 161 without audit under section 177 constituted fishing and roving inquiry and had the effect of increasing the taxable income assessed under Section 120 being violation of over-riding effect of Section 120(1) and (1A) and action u/s 161/205 was not sustainable.
    Refresh Page
  • 18 Apr 15 114(4), 121, 131, 218, 239, 61, 63 Notice served to someone irrelevant person
    101TAX139 = 2009PTD2219 = 14VOL2TF125
    Ex-partee assessment on invalid service of notices to someone irrelevant person, hence assessment order is without jurisdiction and patently illegal being framed contrary to provisions of law, Principle of natural justice and fair play and thats why uphold the decision of Commissioner(Appeals) by the Tribunal as Annulled.
    Annulment of assessment merely on the ground of invalid service of notice does not debar the Revenue, subject to limitation, to do the needful de novo after meeting the legal requirements especially valid service or notice on the assessee/taxpayer.
    Right of protection of law and treating in accordance with law -- Obedience to the Constitution and law was the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he could be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan -- To enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inviolable right of every citizen of Pakistan wherever he could be and of every other person for the time being in Pakistan -- In particular no action detrimental to life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person would be taken except in accordance with law.
    Refresh Page
  • 17 Apr 15 114, 116, 120, 121, 121(1), 122, 122(5), 122(5A), 174, 177 121 and 122 cant applied simultaneously
    Provisions of section 121 and 122 of the Ordinance cannot be applied simultaneously, also because the criteria and reasons for invoking both provisions are totally different. The combined notice issued under section 121 and 122 is liable to be declared null and void.
    Refresh Page
  • 09 Apr 15 2nd Schedule Part III HC Principal Rebate permissible
    Honourable High Court held that Principal/administrative is rightfully claimed 75% rebate under clause (2) of Part III of 2nd Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
    Refresh Page
  • 03 Apr 15 41, 111,122 Agricultural Income Tribunal Latest Judgment 18-12-2014
    Landmark judgment of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue on Agricultural Income held that if taxpayer pay the tax under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, even then the liability of Provincial Government for taxation on agricultural Income Tax remained intact and it would tantamount to double taxation which is not permissible under the law.
    Refresh Page
  • 01 Apr 15 122(5A), 122(5AA) Add Commissioner not jurisdiction for 122-5A
    Appellate Tribunal Lahore held that Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue has not jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 122(5A).
    Refresh Page
  • 31 Mar 15 122, 209 HC Jurisdiction Challenged under section 209
    Order sheet of High Court Lahore, Multan Bench in which jurisdiction of Commissioner challenged under section 209 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
    Refresh Page
  • 03 Dec 14 0 LHC 161 STAY - SWB HONDA POINT
    Misc
    Refresh Page
  • 17 Nov 14 122C, 127 DT 122C appealable after expiry of 45 days
    Interpretation of Peshawar High Court dated 26-06-2014 on Section 122C (Provisional Assessment) and 127 (Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals).
    Provisional Assessment Order becomes Assessment Order after lapse of 45 days and then against Assessment Order assessee can file appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).
    Refresh Page
  • 15 Nov 14 221, WWF DT ATIR - Order of Punjab HC will Prevail regarding WWF
    Single Bench Judgment of Lahore High Court "East Pakistan Chrom Tannery Pvt. Ltd Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" (2011 PTD 2643) regarding declared amendments made in WWF Ordinance, 1971 in years 2006 and 2006 unconstitutional and this judgment will prevail in the province of Punjab and as well also supercede the Sindh HC Judgment in a Division Bench (2013 PTD 969) held the said amendment in law as constitutional.
    Refresh Page
  • 14 Nov 14 17, 32, Constitution of Pakistan 189, 201 DT SC Order of high court is enunciate on sub ordinate forum
    According to the Article 201, the orders of High Court will bind on sub-ordinates forums of its jurisdiction.
    Article 201. Decision of High Court binding on Subordinate Courts.- Subject to Article 189, any decision of a High Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all courts subordinate to it.
    Refresh Page
  • 25 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 189-2014 Ms Brother Sugar Mills Ltd ITA 1146 lb 2011
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 24 Sep 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1882014MsTCLLabourHireCoITA765lb2014
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 23 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 187-2014 Ms Toyota Walton Motors ITA 463 lb 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 22 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 186-2014 Saifullah Khan W.P. No. 3535 of 2011
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 20 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 185-2014 Mr Adnan Mahmood ITA 382 of 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 19 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 184-2014 WP 1425 of 2010
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 18 Sep 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1832014MsDeansAssociatesitano736lb2010
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 15 Sep 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1822014MsZarcoExchangeCoitano703lb2014
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 13 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 181-2014 Ms Metecno Pakistan ita no 87 lb 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 13 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email_ 180-2014 Mr Ali Imran Hussain ita no 1207 lb 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 11 Sep 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1792014MsA.H.Yitano544lb2014
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 10 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 178-2014 Mr Muhammad Atif Zubair ita no 396 lb 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 09 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 176-2014 Ms Cheema Brothers Corporation ita no 606-A lb 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 09 Sep 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1772014MrMuhammadJavidAnwaritano2499lb2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 08 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _176-2014 Ms Cheema Brothers Corporation ita no 606-A lb 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 06 Sep 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1752014MsMCBBankLtditano375lb2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 05 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 174-2014 Ms Shaukat Ali and Co ita no 1878 lb 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 04 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _173-2014 Ms Coca Cola Exports ita no 1004 lb 2011
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 03 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 172-2014 Mr Sohail Nisar ita no 225 lb 2014
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 02 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 171-2014 Tax Reference 39 of 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 01 Sep 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 170-2014 CM 84P of 2014 in TR 67P of 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 30 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 169-2014 Haji Farooq Nabi ITA 1925 lb 12
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 27 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 168-2014 Abacus ELS Pvt Ltd ITA 2398 lb 13
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 26 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 167-2014 Ms Rajput Builders ITA 2116 lb 12
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 25 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 166-2014 Ms Media Times ITA 940 lb 14
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 23 Aug 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1652014MsPlasticansPvtLtdITA1991lb12
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 22 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 164-2014 Ms Al Raheem Traders ITA 1882 lb 13
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 20 Aug 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1632014MsChenabRerollingMillsITA1203lb14
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 19 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 161-2014 Muhammad Saeed ITA 1560 lb 11
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 18 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 160-2014 Ms Faisal Asad Textile ITA 1192 lb 13
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 16 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 159-2014 Ms Salman Enterprises ITA 1173 lb 13
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 15 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 158-2014 Ghulam Rasool & Co ITA 1988 lb 12
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 13 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 157-2014 Ms Myco Surveys ITA 2017 lb 12
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 12 Aug 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1562014AbacusConsultingTechnologyITA10981097lbof14
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 11 Aug 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1552014ITA13771378lbof10
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 06 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 153-2014 Dept Vs Taxpayer ita 1125 lb of 2011
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 02 Aug 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 150-2014 Said Akbar
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 28 Jul 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1492014TaxpayerVsDeptitano1069lbof2010
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 25 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 148-2014 Ms Shabbir Ahmed Adda Sheikh ita no 11 lb 14
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 23 Jul 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1472014MsQMertCoporationPvtLtditano776lb14
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 22 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 146-2014 Ms Pak Arab Pipe Line Co
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 21 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 145-2014 Ms HESCO
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 18 Jul 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1442014MsHumanResourceServices
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 15 Jul 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1442014MsHumanResourceServices
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 14 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 143-2014 W.P. _ 5047 of 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 12 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 142-2014 Pakistan Tobacco Co ITA NO 813 & 815 LB OF 2010
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 10 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 140-2014 ITA NO 291 LB OF 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 09 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 140-2014 ITA NO 291 LB OF 2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 08 Jul 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1392014ITANO794LBOF2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 07 Jul 14 0 Direct Tax Case Email _ 138-2014 ITA NO 759 LB OF 2013
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
  • 05 Jul 14 0 DirectTaxCaseEmail1372014JawaidMasoodBhattiITA725AND726KBOF2012
    Tag Line will be added soon
    Refresh Page
1 2 3 4 5 6