2002 PLP 509 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES ZONE-I, LAHORE Versus Messrs AIR TRAVEL CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 2002 PLP 509 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES ZONE-I, LAHORE Versus Messrs AIR TRAVEL CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 509 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 509 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 509 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES ZONE-I, LAHORE Versus Messrs AIR TRAVEL CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Tubasum Maqsood Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to sustain the legal objection against the maintainability of appeal. The order of the Tribunal was recorded on 10-11-1996 when the provisions of reference to this Court under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 existed. Section 136 was amended with effect from 1-7-1997 to provide for an appeal to this Court. Before that date no appeal laid before this Court. It was for that reason that the Revenue made an application seeking a reference to this Court of certain questions of law under the previous provisions which A was refused by the Tribunal on 19-5-1997.
2. The Revenue was obliged to file an application for reference before the Tribunal under section 136(1) instead of directly approaching this Court under the appeal provisions which were non-existent on the date when the order of the Tribunal was rendered.
3. Dismissed. C.M.A./M.A.K./C-136/L Appeal dismissed