| Case ID |
38910ec9-0a61-409f-a7f8-afaa867c644b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.A. No. 279/LB of 1991-92 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 08, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 27, 1992 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue dismissed the reference application filed by the applicant regarding the application of a flat rate of 10% on their income tax assessment. The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish their status as a wholesaler and that the application of the gross profit rate was justified based on the facts of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for clear evidence to support claims of a different gross profit rate, and since the applicant could not provide such details, the decision to apply a 10% rate was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the determination of whether the applicant was a retailer or wholesaler was not a question of law but of fact, thus dismissing the petitioner's request for a reference to the High Court. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the application of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, specifically Section 136(1), concerning the determination of gross profit rates for tax assessments. The applicant challenged the application of a flat rate of 10% based on comparisons with other cases where lower rates were applied. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of being a wholesaler, which was crucial in determining the appropriate gross profit rate. The Tribunal referenced various precedents and highlighted the importance of establishing the nature of the business involved. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision to apply a 10% gross profit rate, emphasizing that the resolution of such issues relies heavily on factual determinations rather than legal questions. This case serves as a significant reminder of the evidentiary burden placed on taxpayers in tax assessments and the necessity for clear documentation to support claims of differing profit margins. Understanding the nuances of tax law and the implications of gross profit rate assessments can greatly impact businesses and their financial planning strategies. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member,
A.A. Zuberi, Accountant Member
|
| Lawyers |
Zia Ullah Kiyani for Applicant,
F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1993 SLD 110,
1993 PTD 970,
(1993) 68 TAX 21
|
| Other Citations |
(1967) 65 ITR 242,
RA. No. 78 of 1963-64,
(1964) 10 Taxation 71,
Pokardas Dwarkadas v. CIT, Karachi, Sindh and Baluchistan (1960) 2 Tax Supp. 156,
(1973) 27 Tax 89,
N.M. Khan and another v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner of Pakistan 1970 SCMR 158,
Malik Muhammad Hayat Khan v. Subedar Yar Muhammad Khan PLD 1966 SC 612,
(1957) 31 ITR 28,
Uberoi Cooperative Sports Ltd., Sialkot v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi (1973) 27 Tax 218
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
|
| Sections |
136(1)
|