PTD 2007

2007 PLP 2012 (PTD)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX Versus SARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Appeals Nos. 1498 to 1500 of 2005, decided on 22nd May, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. Abdul Hameed Dogar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 2012 (PTD)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. Abdul Hameed Dogar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ
Parties COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX Versus SARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR
Primary Law Income 'Car Ordinance (XXX1 of 1979)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2012 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Income 'Car Ordinance (XXX1 of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2012 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. Abdul Hameed Dogar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2012 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX Versus SARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Income 'Car Ordinance (XXX1 of 1979)

Representation

  • Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal against the judgment, dated 9-9-2001 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in F.A.O. Nos. 175-177 of 000).

S. 19

Income from property

Liability of tax

Decision of appeal by High Court while relying upon judgment of Indian Supreme Court reported as 1991 PTD 286

Validity

Question discussed in said judgment was different from issue involved in appeal before High Court i.e. whether tax would be charged on total lease money of each plot received in advance in a year or same would be charged proportionately on each plot per year in respect of plot leased out by assesses

Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment and remanded case to High Court for its decision afresh in accordance with law. K.S. Krishna Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh 1991 PTD 286 distinguished.

Judgment & Decree

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

After hearing learned counsel we are of the opinion that learned High Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of K.S. Krishna Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh (1991 PTD 286 Supreme Court of India), but the issue discussed therein is different from the issue involved in this case namely whether the Tax is to be charged on total lease money of each plot received in advance in the year in which such lease mousy was received by the respondent or it is to be charged proportionately on each plot per year in respect of the plot leased out by the respondent etc. When we confronted learned counsel for parties with this distinction, they both agreed for remand of the case to the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar for fresh decision of the appeals in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Appeals arc allowed, impugned judgment is set aside, cases are remanded to the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar for decision afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of six weeks after receipt hereof. S.A.K./C-11/SC Case remanded.