Income Tax Ordinance 1979

  1. Sections 57 & 62 — an assessee has a right to file revised return along with the documents and, the Income Tax Officer considering the evidence on record produced may pass an order of assessment. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. AKLASC 2016 SCR 846 (B)
  2.  S. 65- General allegation of violation – No definite information was available for proceedings u/s 65 – the order was without jurisdiction. Deputy Collector Excise v. A. Hamid 1993 SCR 363 (D)
  3. S. 65 – Whether there were some definite informations available with Income Tax Authorities to initiate proceedings -is a question of fact and same cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction- proper remedy is appeal to the Appellate Authority. Deputy Collector Excise v. Abdul Hamid 1993 SCR 363 (G)
  4. S. 65(2) — There must be definite information or the previous sanction of the Inspecting Assistent Commissioner for initiating the proceedings for making additional assessment. Deputy Collector Excisev. Abdul Hamid 1993 SCR 363 (C)
  5. Clause 118-A — Payment of income tax including turnover tax — Exemption from — All industrial units which commenced commercial production between 1.7.1988 to 30.11.1990 stood exempted from the payment of Income tax. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (A)
  6. Section 134(5) — Challan not filed with memorandum of appeal its effect of — Challans showing the depositing of appeal fee before filing the appeals — The fact that the concerned respondents failed to file challans along with the memorandum of appeal cannot be regarded violation of section 134(5) of the Ordinance because the intention of the legislature is that the appeal fee should be deposited before filing of an appeal or at least within the period of limitation. Commissioner of Income Tax and another  v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and another 2001 SCR 453 (C)
  7. S. 134(5) — Appeal fee deposited in State Bank of Pakistan — Instead of depositing the same in Azad Kashmir Council account is a non-compliance of section 134(5) of the Ordinance and is not a bona fide mistake rather a patent negligence on the part of the respondents. Commissioner of Income Tax and another  v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and another 2001 SCR 453 (D)
  8. S. 134(5) — Appeal fee — Question decided by Tribunal — In some of the appeals, the appeal fee was deposited and the challans accompanied the relevant memorandums of appeals; in others, although the appeal fee had been deposited within the prescribed period of limitation but the challans could not be filed due to oversight by the concerned assesses-respondents and the same were brought on record afterwards in the High Court, while in some cases, the appeal fee was deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan — The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals on the ground that appeal fee has not been deposited in any of the appeals — The findings of the Tribunal runs counter to the record — It cannot be said that the orders of dismissal of the appeals passed by Tribunal arise out of its order as such the contention that the orders of dismissal of the appeals did not arise out of the orders of Tribunal and the appeals were not competent to the High Court is repelled. Commissioner of Income Tax and another  v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and another 2001 SCR 453 (A)
  9. S. 136(2) — If the High Court comes to the conclusion that the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly refused to refer the High Court and there are questions of law- it is incumbent upon the High Court to frame those question in specific form and give its findings-High Court u/s -136 of the Ordinance neither acts as a Court of appeal or revision; rather its jurisdiction is merely of an advisory nature. Comissioner Income Tax  v. M/s. United Builders 1993 SCR 373 (A)
  10. S. 136(5) — The matter would be resolved only if the questions of law are framed in specific form and finding of each of such question is recorded by the High Court – It is only then the appellate Tribunal would be able to pass any order. Comissioner Income Tax  v. M/s. United Builders 1993 SCR 373 (B)
  11. S. 146 — Survey — Statements were also recorded during the course of survey- knowledge of additional assessment plea of not tenable. Deputy Collector Excise v. Abdul Hamid 1993 SCR 363 (F)
  12. Under law, it is the duty of Income Tax Officer to pass order and consider the documents, part of the return. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. AKLASC 2016 SCR 846 (A)
error: Content is protected !!