1981 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1981 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922)---‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922)---‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousuf Sharih D. R. for Appellant.
- Sh. Habib Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 19th April, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10(2hvi), (5)‑Allowance in respect of machinery‑Depreciation Expression "written down value" in S. 10(5)‑Meaning‑Depreciation on machinery purchased by assessee by raising loans from Bank 17eld, admissible to percentage of written down value thereof as pres cribed‑Order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing Income‑tax Officer to allow depreciation on machinery after adding amount of exchange fluctuation to value of assets
Held, not legal
Income tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 23(1) (v) and Third Sched., r. 18(8)(e).
Judgment & Decree
(iii) .. (iv) (v) In respect pf depreciation of any such building, machinery, plant fixtures or fittings, being the property of assessee, the allowance admissible under‑the Third Schedule (rules for computation of depre ciation allowance) ; Rule 8, sub‑rule(7) 7 "WDV" means‑‑ (a) In the case of a ship, aircraft or any other asset to which sub‑rule (3) of rule 2 applies, the original cost thereof to the assessee, and (b) in the case of other assets (i) where the asset was acquired in the income year the actual cost there of to the assessee ; (ii) where the asset was acquired before the income year the actual cost thereof to the assesses as reduced by the aggregate of the allowance for depreciation allowed to him under this Ordinance or the repealed Act in respect of assessment year for earlier years.
8. For the purposes of sub‑rule (7): (a) .. (b) . (d) . . .. (e) Where the assessee has acquired any plant or machinery (hereunder referred to as `asset' from a country outside Pakistan for installation in Pakistan for the purpose of his business or profession and, incon sequence of a change in the rate of exchange at any time after the acquisition of such assets and before full final repayment of any foreign loan, there is an increase or reduction in the liability of the assessee as expressed in Pakistan currency for making payment towards the whole or a part of the moneys borrowed by him from any person directly or indirectly in any foreign currency specifically for the purposes of acquiring the assets (being in either case the liability existing immediately before the date on which change in the rate of exchange takes effect) the amount by which the liability aforesaid is so increased or reduced during the income year, shall be added to or, as the case may be deducted from the actual cost of the asset and the amount arrived at after such addition shall be taken to be the actual cost of the assets ; (f) . (g) . (h) Since there is no such provision in the repealed Income‑tax .Act, 1922, the assessee's claim is unsustainable and has consequently been wrongly entertained and allowed by the first appellate authority. The assessee may revalue the cost of machinery consequent upon the change in the rate of exchange and as per the terms and conditions of the loan obtained from the I. D. H. P. for the purposes of its accounts but it would not have any effect on the admissibility of depreciation which would, at any rate, be allowed on the basis of Written Down Value.
10. In the result, the four appeals are disposed of as indicated above. Order accordingly.