2001 PLP 2257 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA Versus Messrs WAQAR TRADING COMPANY, SIALKOT
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2257 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA Versus Messrs WAQAR TRADING COMPANY, SIALKOT |
| Primary Law | (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2257 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2257 (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 2257 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA Versus Messrs WAQAR TRADING COMPANY, SIALKOT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.136
Question whether Tribunal was justified in directing that while computing the income of the assessee, C.I.F. sales be adopted was not a question of law and High Court declined to answer the same. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Enterprises, Sialkot 1999 PTD 1329 rel.
Ss.136 & 32(3)
Question whether Tribunal was justified in giving the directions to adopt C.I.F. sales in spite of provision of S.32(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 when the assessee's trading results were discarded by the Assessing Officer was not a question of law and the same was declined to be answered by the High Court. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Enterprises, Sialkot 1999 PTD 1329 rel. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.--‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal framing following questions of law for our consideration and reply.‑‑ (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that while computing the income of the assessee C.I.F. sales be adopted? (ii) Whether learned Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in giving the above directions to adopt C.I.F. sales in spite of provisions of subsection (3) section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 when the assessee's trading results are discarded by the Income‑tax Officer?
2. At the outset the learned counsel for the Revenue agrees that the issue in hand already stands resolved by a Division Bench of this Court m a case reported as 1999 PTD 1329 Re: Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Anwar Enterprises, Sialkot. Through that judgment, it was concluded that similar questions framed and referred at the instance of the Revenue were not questions of law needing our opinion.
3. Following the rule of consistency, we will also hold that both questions as framed are not of law and, therefore, decline to answer them. C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑79/L Answer declined.