Deeming provision

2025 SCMR 1521 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 120(1)(a) & 120(1)(b)Deeming provisionEffectTwo distinct deeming provisions are contained in sections 120(1)(a) and 120(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Two provisions are directly, and intimately, linked and occur with an immediateness that is instantaneous but such immediacy is not simultaneity

Two clauses apply consecutively, the one following the other in the sequence set out in the provision

Word "and" which links the two must be understood in such sense

It does not only mean that both clauses apply to the return

It establishes also the order in which they occur

That is the very (and only) basis for the "imagining" required by section 120(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and having so imagined, the subsection moves immediately to section 120(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Return is deemed to be an assessment order issued to taxpayer on the date the return is filed

Again, there is as a matter of fact no such thing

Yet, by alchemy of the deeming provision, it must be imagined to be so and this second deeming is then bolstered by the words "for all purposes of this Ordinance"

Provision of section 120 (1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requires first that it be imagined that the Commissioner did something that in fact he did not do, i.e., "made" an assessment and then, him having so acted, requires secondly that the return be imagined to be an order on the assessment so made and issued to the taxpayer on the very date it was filed.

2019 CLD 659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Deeming provisionConstructionScope

For construction of a deeming provision, which was a legal fiction, firstly attempt had to be made to ascertain the purpose for which said provision was created.

2016 PTD 622 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Fiscal lawDeeming provisionScope

Effect of a deeming provision in a taxing statute is that it brings within the tax net a gain or benefit which ordinarily would not have been treated as cash income

Deeming provision brings within the chargeability income not actually accrued but which supposedly to have accrued notionally.

2012 PTD 1076 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

5.129 (4)Decision in appealLimitationDeeming provision

Since there was no deeming provision in S.129 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for time-barring of order in case of failure of First Appellate Authority to pass orders within time limit prescribed in S.129(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance. 2001, deeming time-barring of his order will not be sustainable in law.

2010 PTD 1127 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Deeming provision

Deeming provision in a statute cannot spill over to other provisions in a statute and is to be construed strictly within the four corners of its objects.

2010 PTD 1127 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Deeming provisionEffectEffect of deeming provision is restricted to the section to which it is attached

Deeming provision cannot be interpreted or enlarged to other provisions of the statute.

2010 PTD 1127 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 132(2A)Disposal of appeals by appellate TribunalLimitationDeeming provision

Since there was no deeming provisions in S.132(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for deeming relief in case of failure of Appellate Tribunal not to pass orders within six months of filing of appeal the contention of taxpayer for deeming relief was not sustainable in law

Deeming relief and limitation period in case of failure of the Appellate Tribunal to pass order within six months of filing of appeal was misdirected and not sustainable in law and was rejected by the appellate Tribunal.

2009 PLD 107 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 5 & 11Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionInquiry by Tribunal

Provincial Government appointed Tribunal for making inquiry into release and utilization of government money and public funds during financial years, 2006-07 and 2007-08 for running print and electronic campaign of political advertisement

Validity

Purpose of Tribunal was to conduct inquiry by members who possessed requisite investigative skill as .well as financial knowledge to fulfil terms of reference

Nothing was on record to persuade to doubt competency, independence and integrity of members of Tribunal

Large amount of Rs.2.37 billion having been expended from public exchequer on advertisements and coincidently general elections 2008 was also on the cards and subsequently held within the same period, that was the reason why two specific financial years were chosen for inquiry

No illegality and infirmity having been found in notifications issued by Provincial Government nor inquiry being conducted by the Tribunal so constituted could be construed to be illegal or invalid

High Court declined to restrain the Tribunal from holding inquiry in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.