1985 PLP 508 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX (WEST ZONE), KARACHI Versus A.J. HARTSHORM
| Citation | 1985 PLP 508 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin and Ibadat Yar Khan, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX (WEST ZONE), KARACHI Versus A.J. HARTSHORM |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax ct (XI of 1922)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 508 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax ct (XI of 1922)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 508 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Naimuddin and Ibadat Yar Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 508 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX (WEST ZONE), KARACHI Versus A.J. HARTSHORM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Athar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 10th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 7‑Superannuation Fund in U. K. ‑ Assessee's contribution to‑Perquisite to employee‑Whether such contribution forms part of assessee s total income‑Held, assessee s contribution to superan nuation Fund in U. K. was not perquisite to its employees and for that reason was not to be included in total income of assessee. A. J. Hartshorn v. Commissioner of Income-tax (West Zone),Karachi 1984 PTD 53 fol. Waheed Faruqui for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J.‑The following question of law sing out , on the order of the Income‑tax Tribunal dated 16th January, 1974 has been referred to this Court for answer under section 66(1) of the Income‑tax Act, 1922. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the employer's contribution to the Superannuation Fund in the U. K. was not perquisite to the employee and as such not to be included in his total income?" This question though worded differently was referred to this Court in Income‑tax References Nos. 474, 475, 476 and 477 of 1972, between the same parties, which related to assessment years 1967‑68, 1968‑69, 1969‑70, 1970‑71, and was decided in the negative because la those cases the finding of the tribunal was that the pension plan maintained in the United Kingdom was income which accrued to the applicant, and was liable to be included in the applicant's taxable income but in the present case, the Tribunal has taken a contrary view and, therefore, the question has been framed in above terms and reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income‑tax. Since this question already stands answered in the aforesaid cases the decision wherein is reported as A. J. Hartshorn v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (West Zone), Karachi (1984 P T D 53) and since we find no valid reasons to take a different view moreso when no fresh arguments are advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, we answer the question in affirmative, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. B. A. Question answered in affirmative.