Restriction of dis-allowance
Restriction of dis-allowance legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Revenue authority contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in restricting the disallowance made out of salaries paid to the employees; that S.21(m) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clearly stated that no salaries expenses could be allowed if the amount paid other than cheque exceeded Rupees ten thousand, and that entire amount was to be disallowed rather than restricting the same
Taxpayer contended that First Appellate Authority was justified in restricting the disallowance exceeding Rupees ten thousand paid other than crossed cheque; and correctly worked out the disallowance to be made
Validity
While calculating the income from business the deduction should not be allowed, if salary exceeding Rupees ten thousand was paid other than by a crossed cheque
Admittedly in the present case salaries were paid in cash and exceeded Rupees ten thousand, therefore the same could not be allowed as business expense under the provision of S.21(m) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
First Appellate Authority mis-interpreted the law and restricted the disallowance made by the Taxation officer
Section 21(m) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was enacted purposely to thwart fraudulent or sham transactions
Section 21(m) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 might be read in conjunction with main S.21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which unequivocally stated that "no deductions shall be allowed in computing the income from Business", if any salary paid or payable exceeded Rupees ten thousand per month other than through crossed cheque
First Appellate Authority misinterpreted the law by restricting the disallowance
Salaries paid to employees in cash were not allowable expenditure
Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated, wherein it, had restricted the disallowance and that of Taxation Officer was restored
Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
"Restriction of dis-allowance", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939684
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Restriction of dis-allowance"
2013 P T D (Trib
C.I.R., LD, LTU, KARACHI Versus Dr. ZULFIQAR H. TUNIO, Proprietor Laser — Inn Aesthetic Centre, Karachi
Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan1983 C L C 1897
MESSRS ALLY BROTHERS & COMPANY‑Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1986 M L D 1264
Before Sajjad Ali Shah and Mamoon Kazi, RASOOL BUX and 12 others‑‑Petitioners Versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND, COMMISSION AND JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1971 Karachi 778
IMPERIAL DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS, KARACHI — Appellants Versus SAFDAR ALI — Respondent
Court:P L D 1961 (W
MUHAMMAD AZEEM AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS‑Defendants
Court:2017 C L C 450
Mst. RUKHSANA SAJJAD — Appellant Versus Syed MUHAMMAD AREEB — Respondent
Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)1981 C L C 738
Raja MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑ — Appellant Versus Mst. MISRI JAN‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1984 C L C 521
GUL RAHIM KHAN alias KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN alias NAEEM MUHAMMAD -Respondent
Court: PeshawarP L D 1982 Karachi 89
MRS. NAWAB DIN AHMED AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus FAIZUR REHMAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS)‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑ S. 13‑Ejectment proceedings‑Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908‑Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Not applicable in terms to proceedings before Rent Controller and applicable only to extent provided for by Ordinance itself‑However, where no procedure provided just and convenient to apply principles of laid down by such Code..‑Interpretation of statutes.1993 C L C 1042
ARSHAD BERKI and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SUB‑JUDGE (RENT CONTROLLER) MIRPUR,
Court: Azad J&K