1991 PLP 914 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD.
| Citation | 1991 PLP 914 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD. |
| Primary Law | Finance Ordinance (XXV of 1980) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 914 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Finance Ordinance (XXV of 1980) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 914 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 914 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalifa Salahuddin for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Sched. I, Part III, para. A
Provision for taxation being "retained income" as requirement of working capital was not liable for surcharge. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. etc. 1988 PTD 66 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Sindh Alkalies (Pvt.) Ltd. I.T.C. No. 374 of 1990 fol. Nasrullah Awan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case the surcharge is leviable on amount of taxes payable?" The aforesaid question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court I in the case of Commissioner, Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. etc. 1988 P T D 66 and was answered in affirmative and after considering authorities on the subject it was held that the provision for taxation is retained income as requirement of working capital and is not liable for surcharge. The aforesaid authority was followed by this Bench in I.T.C. No.374/90 (Commissioner of I Income tax v. M/s. Sindh Alkalies (Pvt.) Ltd.) Following the earlier decision the question is answered in affirmative. M.BA./C-218/K Order accordingly.