2001 PLP 1409 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus Messrs PUNJAB FLOUR MILLING CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1409 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus Messrs PUNJAB FLOUR MILLING CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1409 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1409 (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 1409 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus Messrs PUNJAB FLOUR MILLING CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Taxes payable could be treated as retained income for the purpose of levy of surcharge. C.I.T. v. Messrs Facto Sugar Mills Ltd:, Karachi and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 257 ref. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑The. Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our consideration and reply:‑‑‑ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that taxes payable can be termed as retained income for the purpose of levy of surcharge."
2. The Income‑tax Officer calculated surcharge on the profits worked out after deducting the dividend distribution i.e. on the taxes worked out leviable on the amount retained by the Company. The contention of the appellant that surcharge should be worked out on the basis of unretained income was not granted. The First Appellate Authority maintained the treatment meted out to the assessee and attempted to distinguish the case from the earlier view declared by the Tribunal in various case's. However, the Tribunal on further appeal directed that surcharge should be charged in accordance with their earlier view.
3. A Karachi Bench of the Tribunal in re: C.I.T. v. Messrs Facto Sugar Mills Ltd. Karachi appears to have treated the issue for the first time, which was unsuccessfully challenged in a reference by the Revenue The judgment of the High Court maintaining the view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while hearing a number of similar appeals in a case reported as re: Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 257.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue agrees that the issue in hand having finally been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the answer to, the question needs to be given in the affirmative.
5. Accordingly answered in affirmative. M.B.A./C-40/L Reference answered.