2001 PLP 1406 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus ALPHA MIAN & CO., LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1406 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus ALPHA MIAN & CO., LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1406 (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 1406 (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 1406 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus ALPHA MIAN & CO., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.136
Reference to the High Court
Scope
Question of fact-- Registration of a firm or existence or execution of partnership deed were necessarily a question of fact. In re: Malik & Company 1974 PTD 142; The Commissioner of Income-tax, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Zamindara Flour Mills, Lyallpur 1970 SCMR 530 and Ratanchand Darbarilal v. C.I.T. (M.P. (1985) 155 ITR 720 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of C.I.T., Lahore. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:‑‑ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee‑firm was entitled to registration for the charge years 1968‑69, 1969‑70 and 1970‑71."
2. For the assessment years 1968‑69, 1969‑70 and 1970‑71 the respondent‑firm filed an application for renewal of registration which was refused on 29‑6‑1973. The Assessing Officer held that since registration of the firm for the immediate preceding year was not renewed/granted it did not fulfil the requirements of subsection (3) of section 26‑A. of the late Act, 1922. The learned Tribunal by relying upon a judgment of this Court in re: Malik & Company 1974 PTD 142 allowed registration holding that in the preceding year the registration for the firm could not be availed for the reasons which were not material.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are not persuaded to answer the question as framed. In re: The Commissioner of Income‑tax, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Zamindara Flour Mills Lyallpur 1970 SCMR 530, it was held by the apex Court that the existence or the execution of partnership was necessarily a question of fact. The Supreme Court of India in re: Ratanchand Darbarilal v. C.I.T. (M.P. (1985) 155 ITR 720 supported the proposition that registration of a firm was necessarily a question of fact.
4. That being so, as said above, we will decline to answer the question. M.B.A./38/L Reference declined: