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

Profession

Profession legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2025 PTD 1249 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Profession

Meaning.

2025 PLC(CS) 951 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Profession

Meaning.

1961 PTD 24 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA Judicial Precedent

Income from profession-Advocate appearing in criminal trial on condition moneys were paid for a charitable trust to be created by him-Moneys received-Trust created-Moneys whether taxable in hands of assessee-Rule of overriding obligation

­Whether applies-[Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakar Das Bhargava (1953) 24 I. T. R. 275 reversed].

1961 PTD 217 MADRAS-HIGH-COURT-INDIA Judicial Precedent
S. 10 (2) (xv)-Profession­

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of profes­sion-Surgeon-Expenses for tour abroad to study latest technique in surgery.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Profession", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/38816

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Profession"

PTD 1995
Income Tax Reference No. 311 of 1978, decided on 3rd February, 1993

1995 P T D 242

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LALLUBHAI NAGARDAS AND SONS

Court: 204 I T R 93
PTD 1996
D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 125 of 1981, decided on 11th May, 1993.

1996 P T D 591

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHAGWAN BROKER AGENCY

Court: 212 I T R 133
PLD 1999
Writ Petition No.20056 of 1997, heard on 2nd December, 1998

P L D 1999 Lahore 244

SIEMEN PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 3 & Second Sched., Entry No. l as substituted by Punjab Finance Act (IX of 1997)‑‑‑Professions Limitation Act (XX of 1941); Preamble‑‑‑Levy of tax on professions, trades, callings and employments ‑‑‑Principles‑‑‑Taxable event in tax leviable on professions, trades, callings and employments is the factum of being in the trade, profession, calling and employment, rate of taxation must, therefore, necessarily be relatable to that event and not to the income earned by a person‑‑‑Second Sched., Entry No. 1, Punjab Finance Act of 1977, therefore, would not purport to levy tax. on the basis of income‑tax paid by a company‑‑?Tax on professions, trades, callings and employments beyond the limit of Rs.50 as fixed by Professions Limitation Act, 1941 was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority.
PTD 2001
Tax Cases Nos.2091 to 2094 of 1984 (References Nos. 1549 to 1552 of 1984), decided on 19th February, 1998.

2001 P T D 3622

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus INTERNATIONAL CLEARING AND SHIPPING AGENCY

Court: 241 I T R 172
PTD 1997
D.B. Income-tax Reference No.80 of 1981, decided on 2nd March, 1994.

1997 P T D 1354

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PRAKASH NARAIN

Court: 213 ITR 182
PLD 1958
Writ Petition No. 186 of 1957, decided on 3rd July 1958.

P L D 1958 (W

MEHTAB JAN and another‑Petitioners Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE RAWALPINDI‑Respondent

Court:
CLC 2001
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑1183 of 1999, 209, 252, 741, 742, 802, 901 to 913, 1691, 2040, 2126 to 2128 of 1995, 250, 332, 1031, 1032 of 1996, 835 of 1997, 669 and 670 of 1999, decided on 27th April, 2000;

2001 C L C 148

through Chief Executive‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through

Court: Karachi
PTD 1999
N/A

1999 P T D 1070

SIEMEN PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PTD 1973
Tax Case No. 131 of 1965 (Reference No. 62 of 1965), decided on 21st February 1969.

1973 P T D 232

DR. P. VADAMALAYAN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, MADRAS

Court: Madras (India)
PLD 2019
N/A

P L D 2019 Lahore 429

Dr. RIAZ QADEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT, SARGODHA and others — Respondents.

Court: High Court