Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)-------S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Intra Court appeal---Constitutional petition---Appellant impugned order whereby appellant's Constitutional petition was disposed of, withdirection to the competent authority to consider and decide application of appellant within aperiod of eight weeks---Contention of appellant, inter alia, was that impugned order was passedsummarily without considering legal and factual points of the matter---Validity---Perusal ofimpugned order revealed that direction to decide application of appellant / petitioner within aperiod of eight weeks was passed in accordance with law and appellant had been granted anopportunity of hearing as well---No reason existed to interfere in the impugned order---Intracourt appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: A hospital whilst being an enclosed structure is undoubtedly a building, however, by no stretch of imagination can it be considered to fall within the definition of a factory or workshop, as it is not a building where goods are manufactured, repaired or assembled. Therefore, the petitioner-hospital is only entitled to depreciation allowance at the general rate of 5% instead of 10% as provided under Entry I of the Third Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979----The case involves a petitioner, a public limited company operating a hospital named "Shifa International Hospital," which claimed a 10% depreciation allowance for the hospital building in its income tax return. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax allowed only a 5% depreciation allowance. The petitioner appealed, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the appeal, allowing the 10% depreciation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld the decision. However, the Income Tax Department challenged the decision before the High Court, which ruled that the hospital did not qualify as a "factory" or "workshop" under the Income Tax Ordinance, therefore, only allowing a 5% depreciation allowance. The petitioner argued that similar to a nursing home declared as "plant" in Indian judgments, the hospital should be considered a "factory" or "workshop" for the purpose of depreciation allowance. However, the court found that the ordinary meanings of "factory" and "workshop" don't encompass a hospital, which primarily provides healthcare services, not manufacturing or assembly. The court also noted that while Indian judgments may provide insight, they are not binding in Pakistan, and the legal provisions and factual contexts differ. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the High Court, stating that the hospital qualifies for a 5% depreciation allowance, not 10% as claimed by the petitioner.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: While taxpayer was entitled to 90% adjustment of input tax, however, since the format of the sales tax return did not have a column/option for 90% adjustment, therefore, Appellate Tribunal rightly held that no loss to revenue had been caused by adjustment of 100% input tax instead of 90% input tax, as the remaining amount could be subsequently adjusted. Taxpayer could not be deprived of legitimate right to adjust input tax and Department could only at most claim penalty for lapse in procedure. Reference was answered, accordingly. (a) Sales Tax Act, 1990: ----S. 8-B(1), SRO 647(1)/2007, dated 27.06.2007----Adjustment of input tax against output tax---Scope and limitations---Exemption of solvent extraction unit---Respondent, a composite unit having both a solvent section and a ghee section, claimed 100% input tax adjustment for the solvent section, whereas the department contended that under S. 8-B(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, read with SRO 647(1)/2007, a registered person could not adjust input tax beyond 90% of output tax for the tax period---Appellate Tribunal set aside orders passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, holding that the respondent met the conditions of the SRO for most tax periods and was entitled to full input tax adjustment---Held, that tax adjustment for November 2009, September 2010, January 2011, and July 2011 did not meet the SRO conditions, but as no revenue loss was caused, the taxpayer could not be deprived of its legitimate right to adjustment---Reliance placed on M/s. Hafeez Ghee & General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appellate Tribunal Decision, 2013). (b) Sales Tax Act, 1990: ----Sixth Schedule, Serial No. 24---Exemption of cooking oil and vegetable ghee from sales tax---Federal Excise Duty applicability---Department’s contention that supplies of ghee and edible oil were not excluded from the purview of SRO 647(1)/2007 was rejected, as sales of cooking oil and vegetable ghee were exempt under Serial No. 24 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Only Federal Excise Duty at 16% was chargeable on these commodities under S. 3 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, read with its First and Second Schedules. (c) Federal Excise Act, 2005: ----S. 2(21a), S. 3----Federal Excise Duty in sales tax mode---Scope of levy and collection---Appellate Tribunal concluded that while sales tax was not chargeable on cooking oil and ghee due to exemption under Serial No. 24 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990, Federal Excise Duty at 16% applied to such commodities as per the Federal Excise Act, 2005---No loss of revenue occurred due to 100% adjustment of input tax, as the taxpayer was entitled to subsequent adjustments under the tax framework. (d) Tax Procedure & Compliance: ----Procedural lapse in input tax adjustment---Legitimate tax entitlement and penalties---Respondent had sought 100% input tax adjustment due to the lack of separate columns for 90% and 100% adjustments in the prescribed tax return form---Held, that although the taxpayer did not strictly follow the procedural requirements, no revenue loss occurred, and at most, the department could claim a penalty for the procedural lapse rather than disallowing the tax adjustment. ----Disposition: Tax Reference No. 07 of 2013 was decided against the department, and in favor of the respondent. Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative (against the department), while Questions No. 2 and 3 were held not to arise from the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was upheld, confirming that the respondent was entitled to 100% input tax adjustment, and the department's contentions regarding tax limitation and inapplicability of exemptions were rejected.