1991 PLP 859 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE "B", KARACHI Versus Messrs GRINDWHEEL (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1991 PLP 859 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE "B", KARACHI Versus Messrs GRINDWHEEL (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 859 (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 1991 PLP 859 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 859 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE "B", KARACHI Versus Messrs GRINDWHEEL (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Sched. 1, Part III, para. A [as amended by Finance (Amendment) Ordinance (Il of 1978), S. 2]
Income-tax liability payable for relevant assessment year could be included for purposes of working out retained income for levy of surcharge. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 PTD 66 fol. Shaikh Haider for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
The Income-tax Officer determined total income of the respondent assessee at Rs.20,58,
857. For the purpose of levy of surcharge in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, Part III, section 4, the Income-tax Officer considered Rs.10,29,429 being the provision for tax liability as retained income and hence excluded the said amount for calculating the surcharge. The department was, however, dissatisfied and it made a reference to the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence the following question has been referred by the learned Tribunal for our opinion: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provision made for payment of taxes could be considered as retained income for purposes of levy of surcharge."
2. Both the learned counsel have pointed out that the question referred to us has already been determined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 P T D
66. The relevant observations which appear at page 83 of the report are as follows:-- "(17) For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question referred to hereinabove in para. 1 is that the Tribunal was justified in holding that income-tax liability payable for relevant assessment year could be included for purposes of working out `retained income' for levy of surcharge."
4. Since the question has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case are fully covered by the said judgment we also answer the question accordingly and in the affirmative and for the same reasons as stated in the judgment of the learned Division Bench. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.BA./C-214/K Reference answered.