Home Maxims & Terms Nature and purpose meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Nature and purpose

Nature and purpose legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2012 PTD 1815 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss. 177(1) & 214CSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 25(2) & 72BFederal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Ss. 46(1) & 42BAudit selectionNature and purpose

Audit selection was non-reactive and not default driven, but a neutral process to assess the performance and efficiency of the tax system

Any taxpayer was identified and selected for audit because he fell in the objective selection criteria, which was designed to check the compliance and health of the tax system and for no other reason

Audit was rooted in impartiality, neutrality and objectivity and it was for this reason that Audit had a wide scope of inquiry and engulfed the entire "tax affairs of a person or a taxpayer."

2012 PTD 1815 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss.177 (1) & 214CSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 25(2) & 72BFederal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Ss.46 (1) & 42BAudit, selection forNature and purpose

Selection for audit was not an "adverse order" but a neutral function required to survey the compliance of the tax system

Selection for audit was not an investigative tool targeting a person/taxpayer on the basis of the tax return filed by him.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Nature and purpose", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124938832

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Nature and purpose"

CLC 1986
First Rent Appeals Nos. 286 to 298, 300 and 377 of 1982, decided on 22nd December, 1985.

1986 C L C 889

ABDUL RAHMAN‑‑Appellant Versus S.A. MATIN and another‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
MLD 1992
F.RAs. Nos.600, 642, 649, 688 and 736 of 1983, decided on 30th March, 1992.

1992 M L D 1690

Mrs. ZAREEN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAB and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
PLD 1978
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 111 of 1976, decided on 26th February 1978.

P L D 1978 Supreme Court 78

ABDUL BARI‑‑Appellant Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Respondent

Court:
MLD 2012
2012-April-23

2012 M L D 1426

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD YAR and 3 others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PCRLJ 1990
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 219 of 1989, decided on 30th August, 1989.

1990 P Cr

Mst. TAUQIR FATIMA Petitioner Versus IQBAL MEHDI SHAH and another‑‑Respondents)

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 1990
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.227 of 1989, decided on 10th September 1989.

1990 P Cr

MUSSARAT JABEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. KHALID NAWAB and another‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
MLD 1992
Criminal Miscellaneous No.409 of 1991, decided on 14th November, 1991.

1992 M L D 1460

Mst. HASSENA — Appellant Versus Mst. MINI and another — Respondent

Court: Karachi
PTD 1966
These tests have again been referred to as the principles formulated in determining the question as to whether a given item of expenditure is a capital or a revenue expenditure in State of Madras v. G. J. Coelho ((1964) 53 I T R 186) already referred to. In a still more recent decision of the Supreme Court given in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. I,td. v. Commissioner of Income‑tax ((1964) 54 I T R 21 (Sh. N)), decided on 21st October, 1964 (not yet fully reported (2), it has been observed

1966 P T D 233

S. F. ENGINEER (A FIRM) AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, BOMBAY CITY I

Court: Bombay (India)
YLR 2013
Civil Revision No.64-P of 2013, decided on 5th April, 2013.

2013 Y L R 1523

MUSLIM GUL and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MIR BADSHAH and 23 others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
CLC 1991
Writ Petition No.1036 of 1983, decided on 12th February, 1991.

1991 C L C 790

MANZOOR‑UL‑HAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB and others ‑‑‑ Respondents

Court: Lahore