2002 PLP 2739 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus Messrs SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2739 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus Messrs SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2739 (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 2002 PLP 2739 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem 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: 2002 PLP 2739 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus Messrs SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th January, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13(1)
Question whether Tribunal was right in holding that the taxes payable could be termed as levy of surcharge was answered in the affirmative. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 257 rel. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our consideration and reply:-- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the taxes payable can be termed as levy of surcharge?
2. The Income Tax Officer calculated surcharge on the profits worked out after deducting the dividend distribution i.e. on the taxes worked out leviable on the amount retained by the Company. The contention of the appellant that surcharge should be worked out on the basis of un-retained income was not granted. The First Appellate Authority maintained the treatment meted out to the assessee and attempted to distinguish the case from the earlier view declared by the Tribunal in various cases. However, the Tribunal on further appeal directed that the surcharge should be charged in accordance with their earlier view.
3. A Karachi Bench of the Tribunal in Re; CIT v. Messrs Facto Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi, appears to have treated the issue for the first time, which was unsuccessfully challenged in reference by the Revenue. The judgment of the High Court maintaining the view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court -of Pakistan while hearing a number of similar appeals in a case reported as Re: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. (PLD 1993 SC 257).
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue agrees that the issue in hand having finally been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the answer to the question needs to be given in the affirmative. Accordingly answered in affirmative. C.M.A./M.A.K./C-180/L Reference answered.