2005 PLP 2285 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE Versus Messrs ATTOCK TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2285 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE Versus Messrs ATTOCK TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2285 (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 2005 PLP 2285 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2285 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE Versus Messrs ATTOCK TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Jamil Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 136
Reference to High Court showed that the question proposed in the reference application before the High Court had not arisen from the current order of the Tribunal
Such reference could not therefore, be considered by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
This Reference Application has been filed to seek consideration of this Court on the question whether the income specifically falling under section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by virtue of classification given in section 15 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 can be assessed under section 22 as income from business and profession. We note that the same question was brought before the learned ITAT for reference to us. The reference application of CIT was declined for the reason that the rectification order was no more in the field and could not be made subject of reference application. The order, dated 31-5-1997 having been set aside by the CIT(A) and was since replaced A by the subsequent order, dated 15-7-1998 passed under sections 62/132 wherefrom question as proposed did not arise from the order of the Tribunal. A bare reading of the above order declining reference to this Court shows that the question proposed in the present reference application before us does not arise from the current order of the Tribunal and cannot therefore be considered. M.B.A./C-102/L Reference declined.