2000 PLP 3672 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus FATESINHJI GINNING, PRESSING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.
| Citation | 2000 PLP 3672 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 238 I T R 148 |
| Bench Members | R. K. Abichandani and A.R. Dave, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus FATESINHJI GINNING, PRESSING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 3672 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 3672 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 238 I T R 148 bench comprising: R. K. Abichandani and A.R. Dave, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 3672 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus FATESINHJI GINNING, PRESSING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
The Revenue has made these applications suggesting the following question common to all these matters and requesting for a direction on the Tribunal to forward the statement of case under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee-company as an industrial company when the assessee was engaged in the business of ginning and processing of cotton?" A similar question had arisen in respect of the same assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1979. A Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment and order, dated March a, 1986, decided the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue following an earlier decision of this Court in CIT v Lakhtar Cotton Press Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR
503. In that decision, it was held that, where loose cotton in bulk quantity with lighter density was, as a result of pressing, converted into cotton bales and to that extent it underwent a change, the assessee-company fell within the definition of an industrial company, because it processed cotton into cotton bales and was entitled to the concessional rate of tax as provided under the law. In view of this settled legal position which was applied in the case of the petitioner-company itself, there does not arise any question as suggested by the applicant for an opinion of this Court which, as noted above, is already given. All these applications are, therefore, rejected. M.B.A./88/FC Application rejected.