1990 PLP 414 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX CENTRAL ZONE, `A', KARACHI Versus Messrs AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1990 PLP 414 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX CENTRAL ZONE, `A', KARACHI Versus Messrs AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 414 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 414 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 414 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX CENTRAL ZONE, `A', KARACHI Versus Messrs AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaikh Haider for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent (absent).
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Income tax Act (XI of 1922)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.10 read with First Sched.‑‑‑Assessee, an insurance company‑‑‑Amount claimed on account of provision for Taxation reserve is admissible expenditure under S.10 read with First Sched. Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance 1989 P T D 142 fol.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--‑‑The following question has been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Income‑tax Act, 1922; Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in ordering deletion of the add‑back claimed by the assessee company on account of provision for taxation? Although it is not conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant/department but he frankly invited our attention to the case of Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance (1989 P T D 142) in which the question similar to one referred to above was answered in the affirmative. We agree with the above decision and accordingly answer the question referred to above in the affirmative. There will be, however, no order as to costs. M.B.A./C-148/K Reference answered in the affirmative.