1991 PLP 912 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI Versus BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN LIMITED
| Citation | 1991 PLP 912 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI Versus BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN LIMITED |
| Primary Law | Finance Ordinance (XXV of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 912 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Finance Ordinance (XXV of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 912 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 912 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI Versus BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalifa Salahuddin for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Sched. I, Part III, Para. A, Explanation(a)
Income Tax liability for relevant assessment year could be included for purpose of working out "retained income" for levy of surcharge. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited 1988 PTD 66 f
61. Shaikh Haider for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
This reference under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Companies-III) Karachi has arisen in the following circumstances: The assessee for the year under reference was subjected to surcharge amounting to Rs.7,82,
517. It may be pointed out that the assessee was also charged on un-retained income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner 'of Income Tax(Appeals) who vide his order dated 3-2-1985 restricted the surcharge to 10 per cent on the difference of income returned and income assessed and dividend declared. Income Tax Officer concerned filed appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which vide its order dated 8-1-1989 confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. As the department's request to make a reference to this Court in this regard was declined by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the Commissioner of Income Tax has made the following reference to this Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned I.TA.T., is justified in holding that the amount of tax paid by the assessee should be treated as retained income for meeting the working capital requirement of the business and that no surcharge is leviable on such taxes which are not in assessee's hand:" Both Mr. Shaikh Haider and Mr. Khalifa Salahuddin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have invited our attention to an earlier judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited 1988 P T D 66, wherein a Division Bench of this Court while determining a similar question had held as follows: "For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question referred to hereinabove in para-1 is that the Tribunal was justified in holding that income tax liability payable for relevant assessment year could be included for purpose of working out `retained income' for levy of surcharge:' As we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Division Bench, we for the same reasons as stated in the said judgment, answer the question accordingly in the affirmative. M.BA./C-225/K Reference answer in the affirmative.