1989 PLP 830 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL ZONE B', KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM SULEMAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 830 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL ZONE B', KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM SULEMAN |
| Primary Law | Foreign Exchange Repatriation Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R 104] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 830 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Foreign Exchange Repatriation Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R 104] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 830 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 830 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL ZONE B', KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM SULEMAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Foreign Assets (Declaration) Regulation, 1972 [M. L.R. 105) Amount repatriated and declared under M.L.Rs.104 & 105 not being revenue but capital remittance was not liable to tax. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mst. Marian Bai Ahmed I.T.C.37/79; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mustafa Gokal I.T.C. 21/79 and Commissioner of Income -tax v. Mst. Khatoon Bai I.T.C. No.74 of 1979 fol. Sheikh Haider for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The respondent is an individual who was drawing income from various sources including dividends and interest. During assessment year 1973-74 the respondent declared as casual income certain foreign remittances under M.L.Rs.104 and
105. These amounts were repatriated after 31st March, 1972. The Income Tax Officer, therefore, included them in the total income of the respondent as according to him the exemption could be granted if the remittances were made into Pakistan on or before 31st March, 1972. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also upheld the said order. The respondent challenged that order before the Tribunal and it was held that the said amount was not chargeable to tax in Pakistan as the repatriated amount did not have the character of income liable to be assessed under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal discussed the facts of the case minutely as under. We, therefore, think that the receipts not being taxable in character could not be included, in the total income of the assessee and so we delete the amount included in the assessee's income." The department filed application under section 66 (1) raising the following question, which was dismissed: (1) Whether upon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to the exemption from Income; Tax under M L R 104/105 in spite of the fact that he/she failed to remit the funds to Pakistan before the specified date? (2) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the repatriated amount %as net liable to tart under the Income Tax Act 1922? It has now filed application under section 66(2). It is pertinent to note that the finding of fact that the repatriated amount was not in the nature of income has not been challenged by the Department. It seems clear that only that amount which was repatriated as a capital will be charged to tax. Similar question came up for consideration in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mst. Marian Bai Ahmed, I.T.C. 73/79, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mustafa Gokal I.T.C 21/79,Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mst Khatoon Bai I T C 74/79 where the finding was given that the' amount repatriated and declared under M L R 104/105 not being revenue but capital remittance was not liable to tax. We have taken this view in all the' aforestated cases and do not find any ground to allow this application. The application is therefore dismissed. M.B.A./C-108/K Application dismissed.