2001 PLP 2306 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus Messrs RURAL FOOD PRODUCTS, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2306 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus Messrs RURAL FOOD PRODUCTS, RAWALPINDI |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2306 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2306 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2306 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus Messrs RURAL FOOD PRODUCTS, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Question of academic interest‑‑ Scope‑‑‑When answer to a question will not result into any change in the tax liability of an assessee, the issue raised would be of academic interest only and High Court would not answer such question ‑‑‑Assessee/company, in the present case stood liquidated and no legal person remained in existence, answer to the question even in favour of the Revenue would not change the situation as far the tax liability of the assessee/company was concerned‑‑ High Court declined to answer the question. Shafaqat Mehmood Chohan Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Shafaqat Mehmood Chohan Petitioner. Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Respondent NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:‑‑‑ "Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold that the income received by the assessee from the hire of its factory was the income from business notwithstanding that clause (d) of subsection (2) of section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 specifically provides that income from the hire of machinery alongwith building is to be computed as 'income from other source'?"
2. The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset states that since the respondent Company stands liquidated in the year 1994, any answer to the question will be of any academic interest only. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue insists that a question of law having been framed by the Tribunal it needs to be answered.
3. We will not agree. It is by now well‑settled that this Court does not answer questions of academic interest only. Where an answer to a question will not result into any change in the tax liability of an assessee, the issue raised would of an academic interest only. In the present case, since the A respondent‑assessee already stands liquidated and as such no legal person stands in existence, any answer to the aforesaid question even in favour of the Revenue will not change the situation as far the tax liability of the respondent company is concerned.
4. Therefore, we will decline to answer the question. C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑82/L Answer declined.