Home Maxims & Terms Residual commission meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Residual commission

Residual commission legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2012 PTD 316 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss.233 & 122(5A)Brokerage and commissionUpfront commissionResidual commission

Taxpayer contended that residual commission fell within the domain of subsection (1) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and was assessable under the Presumptive Tax Regime on the basis of provisions of subsection (3) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 whereas upfront commission, being subject matter of subsection (2) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not assessable under Presumptive Tax Regime because S.233(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provided for Presumptive Taxation in respect of only those commission receipts which fell within the ambit of subsection (1) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Entire income earned by the taxpayer whether falling within the domain of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was the commission income

Subsection (2) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 having treated the amount retained by the agent as commission or brokerage paid by the principal, the amount mentioned in subsection (2) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was thus imbued with all the characteristics of the amount mentioned in subsection (1) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and had to be treated as an integral part of the amount mentioned in subsection (1) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the purpose of taxation

Taxation Officer did not take cognizance of the revised assessment under S.122(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and on the first page of the amended assessment order referred to the assessment under S.122(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and held to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Contention of the taxpayer that the Taxation Officer based his proceedings entirely on the order passed under S.120(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not found to be correct

Omission of subsection 233(2) in S.233(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 did not support the case of the taxpayer because the amount falling within the domain of subsection (2) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was also to be treated as an integral part of the amount assessable under subsection (1) of S.233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Order of First Appellate Authority was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and appeal filed by the taxpayer failed.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Residual commission", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124933884

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Residual commission"

PTD 2012
I.T.As. Nos.612/IB and 543/IB of 2009, decided on 2nd August, 2010.

2012 P T D (Trib

SHEIKH COMMUNICATION, Proprietor Ehsan Elahi Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-II), R.T.O., FAISALABAD

Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan
PTD 2008
Complaint No. C-884-K of 2006, decided on 17th October, 2006.

2008 P T D 351

Messrs STAR LINK (GLAMOUR SHOPPING MALL), through Messrs Tahir Law Associates, Sukkur Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Court: Federal Tax Ombudsman
PLD 1988
Judicial Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1988, decided on 21st April, 1988.

P L D 1988 Karachi 446

MUHAMMAD FIKREE and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus FIKREE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD and 8 others‑‑Respondents

Court: --S. 4‑‑Succession‑‑Deceased Muslim survived by six daughters aria one grandson and a granddaughter of eels predeceased son‑‑Entitlement of grandson and granddaughter of predeceased son to inheritance of deceased‑‑Extent of‑‑Property of deceased to be distributed amongst such heirs in accordance with Shariat‑‑Provisions, of S.4, Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, would not be attracted where deceased Muslim had been survived by daughters and children of his predeceased son‑‑Sot. and daughter of predeceased son could not be excluded from inheritance as deceased at the time of his death had left behind no male issue‑ Grandson and granddaughter of deceased would be entitled to inherit the residue left after assigning shares of sharers‑‑Shares of six daughters of deceased would jointly be 2/3 and residue 1/3 would be inherited by son and daughter of predeceased son of deceased.‑ Muhammadan law.
PTD 1988
N/A

1988 P T D 1047

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CALCUTTA Versus Mrs. O.M.M. KINNISON through her Executors and Trustees

Court: Supreme Court (India)
YLR 2000
Civil Revision No. 716 of 1987, decided on 12th April. 2000.

2000 Y L R 2029

KHAIR DIN through Legal Heirs — Petitioner Versus EAMMAD SHARIF others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 1990
Writ Petition No. 498 of 1990, decided on 9th April, 1990.,

1990 M L D 1931

KHADIM NADIM MALIK, ADVOCATE‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through President of Pakistan and 2 others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2010
Writ Petition No. 67-R of 2010, decided on 6th April, 2010.

2010 Y L R 1352

SAGHEER MUHAMMAD KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB — Respondent

Court: Lahore
PLC(CS) 2003
Civil Appeal No. 1895 of 2000, decided on 16th December, 2002.

2003 P L C (C

Capt. (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary and 81 others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 1993
Appeals Nos. 29 and 34 of 1992, decided on 10th November, 1992.

1993 P L C (C

WAHEED AHMED and another Versus CHIEF SECRETARY and others

Court: Service Tribunal Sindh
PLD 2004
Civil Revision No. 1642 of 1999, heard on 23rd April, 2004.

P L D 2004 Lahore 585

MUHAMMAD NAZIR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus AHMAD DIN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: