1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sarfraz Ahmad, Accountant Member and |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (Trib (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 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Sarfraz Ahmad, Accountant Member and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia H. Rizvi, A.R. for Appellant.
- Najm-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.62
Parallel cases
Income from commission received from providing technical services to customers
Profit and loss account-- Expenses
Assessee returned income which was accepted, however, some additions were made out of profit and loss account-- Assessing Officer disallowed 50 % of expenses claimed which was confirmed by Appellate Authority
In view of parallel cases of same nature and line of business, where disallowance of 25 % of claim was made, Tribunal held disallowance being excessive and reduced them to 25 % .
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1995. This appeal by the assessee/appellant is directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-V, Lahore relating to Assessment Year 1990-91 dated 24-10 1991, and contests the various additions made by the Assessing Officer out of the profit and loss account expenses and claimed confirmed by the learned CIT(A) to be unjust. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a private limited company, derived commission income from providing technical services to values organisations. Return was filed to declare income of Rs.376,
886. The Commission receipts were declared at Rs.18,43,694 which being variable were accepted. However, additions were made out of the profit and loss account expenses claimed under various heads and income determined at Rs.657,
040. Aggrieved with the treatment meted out the appellant went in appal. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made under all the heads in the print and loss account expenses claimed. It is against these orders that the appellant assessee has come in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee at the time of arguing the case pressed only one addition relating to the--entertainment expenses claimed at Rs.106,928 and disallowed by the Assign Officer at Rs.50,000 which have been confirmed by the learned CFA) in the impugned orders. It is contended that the disallowance was excessive because in other parallel cases of the same nature and line of bless usually under the same head disallowance of 25 % of the claim is being made. Therefore, to disallow the claim by approximately 50% was not fair. The DR on the other hand maintains the disallowance made to be proper. After having heard both the parties, we tend to agree with the counsel of the assessee/appellant. The disallowance being excessive is accordingly restricted to 25 %. Balance is deleted. No other ground has been pressed. The appeal filed by the assessee appellant succeeds to the extent and in the manner as indicated above. C.M.S./253/Trib. Order accordingly.