1994 PLP 498 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI Versus Messrs MERCANTILE FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 498 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid C.J. and Shoukat Hussain Zubedi, J |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI Versus Messrs MERCANTILE FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | (a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), (b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 498 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), (b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 498 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid C.J. and Shoukat Hussain Zubedi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 498 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI Versus Messrs MERCANTILE FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing. 31st March, 1993.
- 2. We have heard Mr. Shaik Haider, Advocate for the Department. The questions referred to for our opinion are already covered by reported decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The first question relating to the addback claimed by the Assessee Insurance Company on account of provision for taxation is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Phoenix Assurance Company. Limited, reported in 1991 PTD 1028. The second question relating to addback of outstanding Trading liability under section 10(2A)of the Income Tax Act is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Central v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Company Limited, (1989 PTD 142). Both the decisions have been against the Department.
Headnotes / Summary
First Sched., R. 6 & S.10(7)
Provision for taxation or taxation reserve being not expenditure, Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to exclude same from the profit and loss appropriation account approved by the Controller of Insurance under the Insurance Act, 1938. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Phoenix Assurance Company Limited 1991 PTD 1028 fol.
S.10(2A) & First Sched., R. 6
Expenditure-- Provision of S.10, Income Tax Act, 1922 can be applied only for the purpose of excluding expenditure other than which may be allowed under S.10 for computing the profits and gains of the business
Application of S.10 of the Act is for limited purpose and provision of S.10(2A), cannot be applied under this garb. Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Company Limited 1989 PTD 142 fol. Shaik Haider for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, C.J.
In this reference application under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, the following questions have been referred by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion: Question for the years 1972-73,1973-74 and 1974-75. '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 of Rs.1,23,856 (Rs.76,692 and Rs.81,360 for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75) claimed by the assessee-company on account of provision for taxation or taxation reserve?" "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition of outstanding Trading liability of RsS9,185 (Rs.82,754 for the year 1973-74) under section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that section 10 is not applicable in the case?"
2. We have heard Mr. Shaik Haider, Advocate for the Department. The questions referred to for our opinion are already covered by reported decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The first question relating to the addback claimed by the Assessee Insurance Company on account of provision for taxation is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Phoenix Assurance Company. Limited, reported in 1991 PTD 1028. The second question relating to addback of outstanding Trading liability under section 10(2A)of the Income Tax Act is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Central v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Company Limited, (1989 PTD 142). Both the decisions have been against the Department.
3. In the circumstances, following the aforesaid decisions, the questions are answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. M.B.A./C-308/K Reference answered.