| Case ID |
2e042411-e5ba-4e88-a48d-8c5baa642976 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.As. Nos.4324/LB, 4997/LB to 5000/LB of 2005, 1 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 07, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 19, 2012 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ruled on various appeals concerning the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of 'definite information' for the amendment of assessments under Section 122(5) of the Ordinance. It stated that mere disagreements with higher court decisions do not constitute 'definite information'. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Appeals regarding the validity of expenses incurred by banks and clarified that the nature of expenses, whether capital or revenue, should be determined based on their actual usage and purpose. The Tribunal also confirmed that provisions for bad debts and other liabilities should be recognized appropriately without arbitrary disallowances from the tax authorities. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals and granted relief to the taxpayer. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the appeals filed by Prime Commercial Bank Limited against the assessments made by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The case highlights critical aspects of tax law, particularly the need for 'definite information' when amending tax assessments. The Tribunal's decision underscores the principle that disagreements with judicial interpretations cannot be used as a basis for tax assessments. Furthermore, it discusses the classification of expenses as either capital or revenue, a significant topic for businesses seeking tax deductions. The Tribunal's rulings reinforce the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and ensure that taxpayers are treated fairly under the law. This case is pivotal for financial institutions and tax practitioners as it sets a precedent for handling similar tax disputes in the future. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN,
SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
OTHERS,
PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, LAHORE
|
| Respondents |
OTHERS,
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, L.T.U., LAHORE
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 1197 = 2013 PTD 1335
|
| Other Citations |
2007 PTR 279 (Trib.),
2010 PTD 705 (Trib.),
2013 PTD (Trib.) 246,
2002 PTD (Trib.) 1898,
(2002) 85 TAX 245 (Trib.),
(2003) 87 TAX 193 (Trib.),
(2004) 90 TAX 116 (Trib.),
1993 PTD (Trib.) 472,
2004 PTD (Trib.) 344,
I.T.A. No.106/LB/2000,
Collector, Sahiwal and 2 others v. Muhammad Akhtar 1971 SCMR 681,
Baby-own v. Income Tax Officer 1997 PTD 47,
CIT v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2009 PTD 1392 = 2009 SCMR 1279,
Central Insurance Co. and others v. CBR Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232 = 1993 PTD 766,
Saitax Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2003 PTD 808,
2003 PTD (Trib.) 1189,
2006 PTD (Trib.) 356,
2006 PTD (Trib.) 1292 R.A. No.349/LB of 2002,
I.T.As. Nos.1012 and 1014/IB of 1995 dated 18-7-2006,
CIT v. Oriental Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. 1992 SCMR 763,
2006 PTD 2678,
2005 PTD (Trib.) 2041,
Abu Bakar Siddique and others v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 2187 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
13(7),
21(k),
60A,
67,
120,
122(5),
124A,
150,
171
|