Summary: Article 247. Anti Corruption law applicability to tribal Areas

Summary: #NAME?

Summary: Art. 199 of Constitution of Pakistan. Placement of person on Schedule-IV list, Amendment in ATA 1997 not extended in PATA. proper remedy before provincial Government. Appeal with 30 days.

Summary: S. 117 W.P Land Revenue Act, 1967.Power and jurisdiction of Revenue Officer, in area of PATA, where settlement operation is not complete. A Revenue Officer, can demarcate the land, even if, the settlement operation not initiated for a specific area, but where the Land Revenue Act is enforced.

Summary: The tax exemption granted in the year 2010 under Clause 126F of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to the taxpayers of certain areas of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA and PATA, whose business suffered on account of internal strife, could only have been intended for the taxpayers falling under the domain of ?normal tax regime? whose profitability while doing business in the affected areas had diminished in the past on account of an external factor i.e. political strife that affected the profitability of doing business there. The exemption was never meant for the taxpayers like the petitioners whose businesses fall within the domain of ?final tax regime? for whom the question of experiencing loss of business opportunity on account of internal strife does not arise. They made their presence in the affected area only when they had in their hands a business opportunity to make profits and gains in the form of contracts to be executed there----In June 2010, the government of Pakistan invoked Section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to grant tax relief to taxpayers in certain areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA, and PATA, whose businesses suffered due to internal strife. This relief was provided through exemptions listed in the Second Schedule of the Ordinance, particularly through Clause 126F, which exempted profits and gains derived by taxpayers in the affected areas for three years starting from 2010.Several companies, including private and public limited ones, with business operations in Lahore or Multan and deriving income from construction contracts, sought refunds for taxes deducted from payments made towards fulfilling contracts in affected areas. They believed they were entitled to exemptions under Clause 126F.However, the Additional Commissioner of Inland Revenue disallowed the exemption, arguing that companies operating under the 'final tax regime' were not intended beneficiaries of Clause 126F. The matter escalated through appeals and references to higher authorities and courts.The court held that Clause 126F was meant for taxpayers under the 'normal tax regime' who suffered financial losses due to adverse business conditions in affected areas. It clarified that companies under the 'final tax regime' did not face such circumstances since they only entered affected areas upon securing contracts, without being affected by prior adverse conditions.The court emphasized that the intent of the exemption was to aid businesses directly impacted by adverse conditions, not those entering affected areas for profit opportunities. Commissioner of Income Tax Peshawar Vs. Islamic Investment Bank (2016 SCMR 816): This case likely deals with income tax matters and may have provided relevant legal interpretations regarding tax liabilities and exemptions.Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 582): This case appears to involve a dispute between Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and the Federation of Pakistan, possibly concerning legal or regulatory issues within the textile or manufacturing industry.Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division Vs. Khurshid Ahmad (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 545): This case probably deals with tax matters, specifically regarding legal interpretations of tax laws or disputes related to tax liabilities.Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (NLR 1992 Tax 186): This case likely involves Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and the Federation of Pakistan, possibly concerning tax-related issues within the sugar industry.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the exemption under Clause 126F was not applicable to taxpayers under the 'final tax regime', and directed the income tax department to recover wrongly refunded amounts.

Summary: The creation and variation of the limits of districts was not governed by the Constitution but by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967. No bar existed in the Constitution which prevented the limits of districts, whether in relation to a Provincially Administered Tribal Areas or not, from being changed without a constitutional amendment. Variation in the limits of a district did not affect the PATA status of an area, therefore, the tribal areas of one district would remain tribal areas even after they became a part of another district in PATA----It outlines the historical background of the district reconstitution in 1976, followed by subsequent notifications modifying administrative divisions. Various legal provisions, including the West Pakistan District Re-constitution Ordinance, 1960, and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, are discussed. Several legal arguments are presented, including whether the government's actions were ultra vires, adverse to public interest, based on mala fide intentions, or in violation of constitutional mandates regarding tribal areas (PATA). The court's analysis highlights the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to tribal areas, district reconstitution, and the applicability of laws to tribal areas. The court's decision emphasizes that district boundaries can be changed administratively, unlike provincial boundaries, which require constitutional amendments. It rules that laws applicable to tribal areas in Swat District also apply to tribal areas incorporated into Kohistan District based on prior extensions of laws and regulations. The judgment references the case of The Collector Customs vs. Abdul Jabbar (PLD 2005 SC 247) to support the argument that laws applicable to tribal areas in Swat District would also apply to tribal areas incorporated into Kohistan District. Furthermore, the court's decision draws on the case Superintendent, Land Customs, Torkham (Khyber Agency) to establish that the extension of laws to tribal areas in Kohistan is consistent with legal precedents and administrative practices.

Summary: Since the scope of PATA forum viz a viz pending disputes is highlighted, therefore, needs publication.

Summary: S.247(3) Constitution of Pak:Exemption of FATA & PATA from advance tax & Sales Tax on imports

Summary: Defamation Ordinance 2002 was promolgated when Art.247(3) was held in abeyance,therefore by its own dint is applicable to PATA

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Jurisdiction of Prevention of corruption Act 1997 in FATA and PATA.