2019 PLP 1994 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs EDUCATION EXCELLENCE LTD.
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1994 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ayesha A. Malik and Shams Mehmood Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs EDUCATION EXCELLENCE LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1994 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1994 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ayesha A. Malik and Shams Mehmood Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1994 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs EDUCATION EXCELLENCE LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asjad Saeed Advocate, for the Applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 133 & 113
Adjustment of excess amount of tax paid
Scope
Taxpayer, while filing the return of income, had claimed adjustment of minimum tax brought from tax years 2011, 2012 and 2013
Additional Commissioner had observed that as the appellant had not paid any tax under normal tax regime, therefore, the credit under S. 113(2)(c), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not available
Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) had rejected the appeal of taxpayer
Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal of taxpayer and held that S. 113(2)(c), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was applicable in loss cases or zero tax payable cases
Findings of Appellate Tribunal were rooted in law
Reference application was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
This income tax reference is filed under section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) seeking opinion of this Court on two questions of law stated to have arisen out of the order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore.
2. The issue involved in the case was the entitlement of the respondent tax payer to seek adjustment of minimum tax of Rs.37.028 Million in respect of tax years 2011, 2012 and 20 l3 under section 113(2)(c) of Ordinance. The Additional Commissioner disallowed the credit to the tune of Rs.35.232 Million. The appeal filed by respondent tax payer before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was also dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, however, came to the conclusion that section 113(2)(c) of the Ordinance is beneficial in nature and was meant to reduce the burden of taxation in cases where losses have been suffered by the taxpayer. While accepting the appeal of the respondent taxpayer, the Appellate Tribunal .Inland Revenue accordingly declared that Section 113(2)(c) of the Ordinance is also applicable in cases where losses have been suffered and that benefit thereof cannot be disallowed to the respondent taxpayer.
3. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue are rooted in law and, therefore, the questions framed by the appellant do not raise and legal issue requiring us to render our opinion thereon.
4. This reference application is accordingly dismissed. SA/C-12/L Application dismissed.