1990 PLP 406 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus Messrs BANK OF TOKYO LTD.
| Citation | 1990 PLP 406 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Allahdino Memon, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus Messrs BANK OF TOKYO LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 406 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 406 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Allahdino Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 406 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus Messrs BANK OF TOKYO LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K. Salahuddin for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.10 & 62‑‑‑Finance Ordinance (XXV of 1980), Sched. 1, Part .III, para. A, Explanation (a)‑‑‑Retained income‑‑‑Current liability‑‑‑Income‑tax liability payable for relevant assessment year can be included for the purposes of working out retained income for levy of surcharge. Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. 1988 P T D 66 fol. Waheed Farooqui for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑The respondent a non‑resident company is engaged in banking business. For the assessment year 1978‑79 it declared an income of Rs. 24,92,361 in which the Assessing Officer made certain additions out of the profit and loss expenses and assessed the income at Rs. 26,30,901 creating a tax liability of Rs. 1,08,
416. A surcharge of Rs. 1,70,841 was levied on the tax payable by the respondent. The levy of surcharge was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals), which was accepted. The Department filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, but the order of the Appellate Commissioner was maintained. The department then filed an application under section 136(1) of the Income‑tax Ordinance, and the following question has been referred for our consideration: ‑‑ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the tax liability or the tax payable is the requirement of working capital and was not liable to surcharge?" This question came up for consideration in Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. 1988 PTD 66 where after examining the relevant provisions of law and authorities quoted in it, it was observed that the Tribunal was justified in holding that "Income‑tax liability payable for relevant assessment year could be included for the purposes of working out retained income for levy of surcharge". The learned counsel or the parties have raised same contentions, which were raised and considered in the aforestated judgment. We respectfully follow the judgment in Pakistan Tobacco Co.'s case and answer the question in the affirmative. M.B.A./C‑143/K Reference answered in affirmative.