Summary: Facts:The Commissioner of Inland Revenue challenged a High Court of Sindh decision regarding an income tax assessment against Packages Limited for the assessment year 1997-98. The dispute centered on the timeliness of a show cause notice issued under sections 66 and 66A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.---Issue:Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order under section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was time-barred.Whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding against the department in light of the cited case law (2008 PTD 1316).Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declining leave to appeal, and imposed costs of twenty thousand rupees on the petitioner.----Reasoning:The Court found that the show cause notice dated 23 May 2011, issued for reassessment, was time-barred as it was issued more than thirteen years after the original order dated 16 March 1998 by the Deputy Commissioner, surpassing the four-year statutory limit. A subsequent notice dated 12 June 2013 was also found irrelevant and time-barred. The Court emphasized the importance of the Federal Board of Revenue acting fairly and within legal bounds, criticizing the wasteful use of judicial resources on frivolous litigation.----Rule:The decision hinged on the interpretation of section 66-A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which stipulates a four-year period for issuing a notice by an Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax from the date of the Deputy Commissioner's order.

Summary: Background: The appellant, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the District Criminal Court, Sadhnoti, Pallandri. The conviction was later converted to rigorous life imprisonment by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, along with a compensation of three hundred thousand rupees. Both the appellant and the complainant challenged this judgment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the death sentence was justified or should have been reduced to life imprisonment. 3- Whether there were mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduction in the sentence. 4- Whether the High Court erred in converting the death sentence to rigorous life imprisonment. 5- Whether the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.PC, should be extended to the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Prosecution's Case: The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through material, eminent, and primary evidence, including eyewitness testimonies that were consistent on material points despite minor discrepancies. --Death Sentence Justification: The Court held that the High Court lawfully converted the death sentence to rigorous life imprisonment. The presence of mitigating circumstances, such as the lack of premeditation, justified this reduction. The High Court's decision was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and circumstances, which did not support the maximum penalty of death. --Mitigating Circumstances: The Court agreed with the High Court's assessment of mitigating circumstances, such as the absence of premeditation and minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which warranted a lesser sentence. --High Court's Decision: The Supreme Court found no fault in the High Court's decision to convert the death sentence into life imprisonment. The conversion was in line with legal principles and the facts of the case. --Section 382-B, Cr.PC: The Court extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.PC, to the appellant, which mandates that the time already spent in custody should be deducted from the sentence. The appeal filed by the convict-appellant was dismissed, and the sentence of rigorous life imprisonment awarded by the High Court was maintained. The appeal filed by the complainant seeking restoration of the death sentence was also dismissed. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.PC, was extended to the appellant, deducting the time already spent in custody from his sentence. -----Citations/Precedents: Maqsood Ahmed & others vs. Muhammad Razzaque & others [2009 SCR 38]: The necessity of proving the execution of a document with at least two attesting witnesses. Muhammad Asif vs. The State [PLJ 2008 SC 390]: The need for independent witnesses in the presence of motive and recovery. Noor Muhammad and another vs. State [PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 897 (DB)]: The importance of recovery evidence and the presence of independent witnesses. Ghulam Hussain and others vs. The State [PLJ 1981 Cr.C (Lahore), 429]: The impact of improvements in witness statements. Zabir Maqsood alias Kashif Maqsood vs. The State [2013 SCR 642]: Criterion for conviction based on Qisas. Abdul Rashid & others vs. Abdul Ghaffar & others [2001 SCR 240]: Trustworthiness of ocular evidence and the significance of minor variations between witness statements and medical evidence. Muhammad Khurshid Khan vs. Muhammad Basharat & another [2007 SCR 1]: The burden of proof when the accused admits to a different manner of the deceased's death.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 131/2020 dated 10 -07 -2020 U/s 489 -F PPC. P.S Margalla, Islamabad.

Summary: Description:

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 537/2021 dated 09 -06 -2021, U/s 302/365/201/34/109 PPC. P.S Koral, Islamabad.

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR NO. 213/2019, dated 11 -09 -2019 U/s 489 -F PPC. P.S Secretariate, Islamabad.