1990 PLP 885 (PTD)
Messrs SHAMIM BROTHERS LIMITED Versus THE C.I.T. CENTRAL, KARACHI
| Citation | 1990 PLP 885 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Haziqul Khairi, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SHAMIM BROTHERS LIMITED Versus THE C.I.T. CENTRAL, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922)‑‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 885 (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 1990 PLP 885 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Haziqul Khairi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 885 (PTD) (Messrs SHAMIM BROTHERS LIMITED Versus THE C.I.T. CENTRAL, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaikh Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.10(2‑A) [as substituted by Finance Act, (XI of 1966) and subsequently amended by Finance Ordinance, (XXI of 1972))‑‑‑Outstanding trading liabilities, which had been allowed as deductions in the charge years 1961 and 1963 could be treated as income under S.10(2‑A). Ali Athar for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Ali Athar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1990. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑The following question has been referred by the Tribunal in respect of assessment years 1969‑70 and 1972‑73. "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal had rightly held that, trading liabilities, which had been allowed as deductions in charge years 1961 and 1963 could be treated as income under section 10(2‑A) as substituted by Finance Act, 1966 and subsequently amended by Finance Ordinance, 1972." In the years 1961 and 1963 the respondent had incurred trading liabilities amounting to Rs. 49,345 which were allowed as deduction but they remained outstanding during accounting year 1971‑
72. While making assessment for the year 1972‑73 the Assessing Officer added back this amount under section 10(2‑A) treating it as income of the previous year. The respondent had pressed that the liability was incurred and allowed as a deduction long before section 10(2‑A) was added by Finance Act, 1966 as amended by the Finance Act, 19
72. The Tribunal ruled that Section 10(2‑A) as substituted by Finance Ordinance 1972 had retrospective effect. Similar question came up for consideration in ITR 18/81, Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. The Commissioner of Income‑tax. The learned counsel for the parties have pressed the same arguments which were agitated in that reference. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel in that case we had answered the question in the affirmative. Following the judgment in the case of Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited we answer the question in the affirmative. M.BA./S‑625/K Question in affirmative answered.