Summary: U/A 184(3)--- Summary Pending

Summary: [Scope of section 23 (initial allowance) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001]---The case concerned the interpretation and scope of section 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO) in relation to the eligibility for initial allowance deduction.The central issue of the case revolved around whether the respondent, a taxpayer, could claim a deduction of initial allowance for a depreciable asset (specifically, a building) that was being put to use by the taxpayer for the first time in a tax year. The petitioner argued that the phrase "first time in a tax year" implied that the asset, in this case, the building, must be used for the first time in its entire existence. However, the respondent taxpayer contended that the phrase referred to the first time use of the asset by the taxpayer in that particular tax year, regardless of its previous usage by others.The Supreme Court examined the language of section 23 and the context of the provision. It noted that section 23(1) of the ITO pertains to allowing a deduction (initial allowance) for eligible depreciable assets that are placed into service in Pakistan for the first time in a tax year. The Court emphasized that the key consideration was whether the asset was being used by the taxpayer for the first time in that specific tax year.The Court also highlighted that sub-section (5) of section 23 defines "eligible depreciable asset" and excludes certain assets like previously used plant or machinery from this definition. However, the exclusion did not extend to a previously used building, making it an eligible depreciable asset as per the provision.Based on this analysis, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had ruled in favor of the respondent taxpayer. The Court concluded that the taxpayer's entitlement to initial allowance depends on whether they have put the eligible depreciable asset (building) into use for the first time in the given tax year. Any history of usage of the asset prior to its ownership by the current taxpayer is not relevant to this determination.

Summary: (a) Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2013)- -S.6-Written statement-Delay in filing written statement-Effect-Respondents filed a suit for partition wherein the petitioners filed a written statement after 30 days of their first appearance-Trial Court dismissed the respondents' application for striking off the defence of petitioners, however, Appellate Court accepted the same-Contention of petitioners was that since time was granted by the Trial Court for filing the written statement, thus the petitioners could not be penalized due to act of the Court-Validity-Mandate of S. 6 of Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, was very clear and unequivocal as a categoric duty had been cast upon the defendant with regard to filing the written statement within the stipulated time and the Court was not invested with the power to extend such period-Since the consequence of non-fulfilling the provision of law was also given thus the mandate of introducing such a penal provision would be frustrated if the argument was accepted-Constitutional petition was dismissed. (b) Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2013)- -S. 6-Written statement-Delay in filing written statement-Mandatory provision-Scope-Section 6 of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, provides a period of 30 days to a defendant for filing the written statement which starts from the date of first appearance of defendant before the Court-Under subsection (2) of S. 6, penalty has been provided if the written statement is not filed within the stipulated time and in case of such default, the Court "shall"strike off the defence of the defendant as a consequence of which he shall also not be allowed to lead his evidence. (c) Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2013)- -S. 6-Written statement-Delay in filing written statement-Mandatory provision-Scope-Use of word"shall" in S. 6 gives a clear indication that the provision is mandatory in nature and has to be adhered to by the courts in letter and spirit and no exception can be created. Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad and others 2021 SCMR 328 and Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and others v. Murree Brewery Company Limited (MBCL) and another 2021 SCMR 305 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 745/2021, dated 23 -08 -2021, U/s 365 -B/376/420/468/471/34 PPC, PS Koral, Islamabad.

Summary: Bail Before Arrest in FIR No. 522/2021, dated 08 -11 -2021 U/s 380 PPC. P.S Khanna, Islamabad.

Summary: Petitioner operates a ladies parlor at E -11. She is aggrieved that AC Saddar has without any alleged reason or order sealed her Saloon and has later registered a FIR for immoral activities against the saloon. Seeks de -sealing.

Summary: ICA in WP 2097/2020: Quo Warranto: A retired employee of National Bank Challanges appointment of Res No. 05 as president National Bank.

Summary: ICA in WP 3205/2020: Quo Warranto: Against the respondent No. 05 to 09 as Chairman / director and slection of respondent NO. 10 on independent director be declared illegal. National Bank of Pakistan (NBP)

Summary: ICA in WP 3725/2020: Quo Warranto: Against appointment of president National Bank.