2002 PLP 226 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus GULZAR-UL-HAQ
| Citation | 2002 PLP 226 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus GULZAR-UL-HAQ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 226 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 226 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 226 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus GULZAR-UL-HAQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
This judgment will dispose of P.T.R. Nos. l l and 12 of 1993.
2. Through these applications under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax Zone-A, Lahore claims that following question of law had arisen out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 16-10-1990 recorded on departmental appeal:-- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a partner's share income should be computed in the manner laid down by section 69(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for the purpose of calcuiating maximum tax liability as provided by clause (a) of the provisions to paragraph (a) of Part-I of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979." . ./3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we arc of the view that the controversy- raised in the aforesaid question stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in re: Commissioner of Income-tax West Zone Karachi v. Anweraly Haji * Noor Muhammad (1992 PTD 347). The apex Court in that case found that the share of super tax allowable to a partner was to be in the same proportion as his A share in total income: That the remaining share of the partner in that context was not artificial, restricted and purposive. Learned counsel for the revenue has attempted to distinguish the facts in hand. However, we '`are not persuaded to agree. The controversy raised in the issue as said earlier is clearly covered by the ratio settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid judgment.
4. Therefore, we will refuse - to entertain the applications. Dismissed. C.M.A./M.A.K./C-120/L??????? Applications dismissed.