P L D 1977 Lahore 1 (PLP)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE‑Applicant Versus MESSRS UNIVERSAL LIFE AND GENERAL. INSURANCE Co. LTD.‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1977 Lahore 1 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Hussain and Gul Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE‑Applicant Versus MESSRS UNIVERSAL LIFE AND GENERAL. INSURANCE Co. LTD.‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Income tax Act (XI of 1922)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1977 Lahore 1 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income tax Act (XI of 1922)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1977 Lahore 1 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mushtaq Hussain and Gul Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1977 Lahore 1 (PLP) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE‑Applicant Versus MESSRS UNIVERSAL LIFE AND GENERAL. INSURANCE Co. LTD.‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Haq for Petitioner.
- Munawar Akhtar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 8th March 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10‑Expenditure on establishment and salaries of staff Assessee, an Insurance Company, incorporated in May 1958, and certificate of Registration granted in January 1960 and also registered under Companies Act, 1913‑Expenses claimed, although incurred prior to grant of Certificate of Insurance, relatable to business of assesses‑Held, allowable irrespective of whether insurance law did or did not permit assessee to carry on that business.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑Messrs Universal Life and General Insurance Co. Limited, Lahore is, as is evident from its very name, a company carrying on his business of insurance. It was incorporated on the 9th of May, 1958, but the certificate of registration under the insurance law was not granted till the 1st of January, 1960. Dealing with the assessment for the years 1959‑60 and 19611‑61, the Department declined to allow the expenditure on establish ment and salaries of the staff during the period preceding the grant of certificate of registration by the Controller of Insurance. The company appealed successfully to the Tribunal.
2. The Commissioner of Income‑tax felt aggrieved and moved the 'Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this Court "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred before actual commencement of the insurance business were revenue expenses and permissible in the hands of the assessee?"
3. It has been submitted before us that since the company had been authorised to conduct insurance business only with effect from the date on which the certificate was granted by the Controller of Insurance, any amount spent by it before that cannot be treated as expenditure on the business of the company because it could not transact any business before that date.
4. We are afraid we cannot see eye to eye with the submissions so vehemently made by the learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income‑tax. The Income‑tax Department is concerned with the income of a person whether it has been earned lawfully or unlawfully. Consequently, the allowance o account of expenditure has also to be made irrespective of whether it was made during the period income was being lawfully earned or unlawfully. There was nothing to stop the assessee from carrying on business of insurance A even before it received the certificate of insurance and in such case he might make himself liable under the insurance law for penal action, but such a consideration would be alien to income‑tax and the law applicable to it.
5. It is not denied that the expenses claimed by the assessee were relatable to the business and, therefore, they have to be allowed irrespective of whether the insurance law did or did not permit the assessee to carry on that business.
6. It has not been submitted before us that the company had not been registered under the Companies Act. On the contrary, the admitted position is that it had been so registered. That being so, it had become a juristic person and competent to carry on a business.
7. In these circumstances, we have no option but to return the answer to the question imposed in the affirmative. The costs shall be borne by the. Department. S. Q. Reference answered in the affirmative.