2004 PLP 1993 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus Messrs FINE MOOT INTERNATIONAL
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1993 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus Messrs FINE MOOT INTERNATIONAL |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1993 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1993 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1993 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus Messrs FINE MOOT INTERNATIONAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 32(3) & 136(1)‑‑‑Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.216(3)(a)‑‑ Reference to High Court‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Tribunal directed that while computing income of assessee, CIF sales be adopted‑‑‑Contention of assessee was that Tribunal was not justified to give such directions in spite of provisions of S.32(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and R.216(3)(a), when assessee's trading results were discarded by Income Tax Officer‑‑‑High Court declined to answer such questions as same were not questions of law. The Commissioner of Income Tax Zone, Gujranwala v. Messrs Anwar Enterprises, Silakot 1999 PTD 1329 fol.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2001. NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The following questions of law have been framed for our consideration and reply:‑‑ Question of Law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that while computing the income of the assessee, CIF sales be adopted? (2) Whether learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in giving the above directions to adopt CIF/sales in spite o provisions of subsection (3) of section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Rule 216(3)(a) when the assessee's trading results are discarded by the Income Tax Officer?"
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that both questions already stand considered by this Court in a judgment reported as 1999 PTD 1329 re: The Commissioner of Income Tax Zone, Gujranwala v. Messrs Anwar Enterprises, Sialkot. In similar set of facts, we concluded that the questions referred by the Tribunal were not questions of law needing our opinion.
3. For the various reasons stated in the judgment, we will declined to answer both the questions which propose the proposition considered by us in the said judgment.
4. Answer declined. S.A.K./C‑13/L Answer declined.