Dr. ZAFAR SAJJAD vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE-III, KARACHI Ss — 2022 PTD 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2022 PTD 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2022
Reporter: PTD
Parties: Dr. ZAFAR SAJJAD vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE-III, KARACHI Ss
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 12; Finance Act; Income Tax Ordinance

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Dr. ZAFAR SAJJAD VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE-III, KARACHI Ss.2(20), 12, 18(b), 120, 122(9), 133 & Sched.II, Part-III Cl. 1(2) proviso [as inserted by Finance Act, 2019]---Tax payer, a permanent employee of a Hospital---Salary---Clinical supplements and incentives---Show-cause notice, issuance of---Taxpayers (assessees) were aggrieved of show-cause notice issued to them to include clinical supplements and incentives received by them from their employers as part of salary---Validity---Such income of taxpayers was excluded from purview of admissible rebate, earlier it was not excluded---If it had not been admissible earlier, there would have been no need for inserting the proviso to Sched.II, Part-III Cl.1(2) to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 vide Finance Act, 2019, for exclusion such particular income---Legislative intent by not giving retrospective effect to the proviso showed that what was not excluded earlier was excluded with effect from Finance Act, 2019---Legislature was deemed to be aware of previous state of the law and if knowing that it made a change when repealing it and re-enacting some of its provisions the intention was to effect a change---Provision of proviso to Sched. II, Part-III Cl.1(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, showed intent of the Legislature and even otherwise benefit / rebate was admissible at least prior to Finance Act, 2019---Authorities below failed to appreciate correct proposition of law and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to conclude that two heads of income did not fall within the definition of salary in terms of S.12 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---High Court answered question in affirmative in favour of taxpayers and against the authorities---Reference was allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2022 PTD

2022 PTD 683 SUPREME-COURTNAUBAHAR BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Revenue Division Ministry of Finance Scope---Judgment is an autho…
2022 PTD 1860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIMAD SAMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad S.19---General power to exempt from customs…
2022 PTD 1860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIMAD SAMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad Precedent---Constitution of a larger Bench-…
2022 PTD 1860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIMAD SAMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad S.3---Power to prohibit or restrict imports…
2022 PTD 1665 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTANNAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS), RTO, FAISALABAD Ss. 3 & 7---Scope of sales tax---Determination…
2022 PTD 1010 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTANCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, RTO, FAISALABAD VS AL-SEHAR MANUFACTURER (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD S.45B---appeal---Inquiry---Scope---Com…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English