1991 PLP 1830 (SCMR)
Mrs. T.P. BHANDARA — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER (CAPITAL GAIN TAX) LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1830 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs. T.P. BHANDARA — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER (CAPITAL GAIN TAX) LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Capital Gain Tax Rules, 1964 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1830 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Capital Gain Tax Rules, 1964 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1830 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1830 (SCMR) (Mrs. T.P. BHANDARA — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER (CAPITAL GAIN TAX) LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Tariq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989.
- Mian Tariq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29-3-1988 passed in W.P.No.295 of 1988)
R. 7
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Capital Gain Tax fixed by Authorities after determination of fair market value of plot in dispute was contested by petitioner in Constitutional petition on basis of comparison of that plot with other property located in its- vicinity
Plot in dispute admittedly was commercialised, possessing a distinguished feature as compared with other property located in the vicinity
Authorities were of the view that declared sale price of plot did not disclose transaction between vendor and vendee correctly, but declaration was made simply to reduce tax liability
Constitutional petition, held, was rightly dismissed by High Court and no question of interference arose in the case
Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the dismissal of her writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The question involved in this case whether the capital gain tax is to be made on the basis of the prevalent market value or on the status of the vendor and the vendee. The petitioner contested the case on the basis of comparison of her plot sold with other property located in the vicinity thereto. The plot in question admittedly was commercialised, possessing a distinguished feature as compared with other property located in the ' vicinity. The departmental authorities were of the mind that the declared sale price did not disclose the transaction between the vendor and the vendee correctly but declaration was made of the sale price with the only aim to reduce the tax liability and thus they were justified to determine the fair market value for the imposition of the tax. Thus the writ petition of the petitioner was correctly dismissed by the High Court. No question of interference, in such a decision by this Court, therefore, arises. Thus finding no force, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1084/S Petition dismissed.