Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
PENSION OF EXCHIEF JUDGE SUPREME APPELLATE COURT: In the matter of Civil Review No 6 of 2015 in SMC No 15 of 2010 heard on 12th April 2016 Supreme Court Judges Leave Pension and Privileges Order (Presidential Order No 2 of 1997)
Summary: Summary pending
ALI ASSOCIATES THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR VS NOOR HUSSAIN
Summary: Summary pending.
Messrs SHAH STEEL INDUSTRY and others VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division
Summary: Summary Pending
MUHAMMAD AHMED VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others
Summary: Summary Pending
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and otherss VS MUHAMMAD AHMED and 2 otherss
Summary: Summary Pending
Institute of Space Technology (IST) VS Husnain Riaz etc
Summary: Summary Pending
MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY VS FBR ETC | MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY VS Federal Board of Revenue and others
Summary: The central issue in both petitions is the interpretation of section 174(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which specifies the duration records must be maintained. The petitioner argued that they are not required to produce records beyond the prescribed period. The court holds that the tax authorities may proceed with their actions and notices but cannot compel the petitioners to produce records that they are not required to maintain beyond the specified period, which is five years. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming that they are not obligated to provide records beyond the period specified in the law and that the tax authorities must respect this limitation when requesting documentation for tax-related matters---In these two petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners challenge notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement and Collection Division-02, Large Taxpayer Unit, Lahore. The notices requested the submission of the annual statement of withholding taxes for the tax year 2003, as well as a reconciliation statement as per rule 44(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, along with evidence of payment of claimed deductions. The notices were issued due to discrepancies in tax deductions during the tax year 2003.One of the petitions also relates to a demand to produce records for the tax year 2004 for audit purposes. The petitioner in this case argued that the record-keeping requirement beyond a period of five years under section 174(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was not applicable.The central legal question in these petitions revolved around the interpretation of section 174(3) of the Ordinance, 2001, which mandates taxpayers to maintain records for five (later amended to six) years. The petitioners contended that they were not obliged to maintain records beyond this period and, therefore, could not be compelled to produce them.The court found that while the tax authorities could proceed with their actions based on the impugned notices, the petitioners could not be forced to produce records that were not required to be maintained beyond the specified period. The court emphasized that section 174(3) does not prescribe penalties for failure to maintain records beyond the designated time frame.In summary, these petitions were accepted by the court, allowing the tax authorities to continue their actions based on the notices. However, the tax authorities could not compel the petitioners to produce records that were not mandated to be maintained beyond a five-year period as per section 174(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Present: Umar Ata Bandial Sajjad Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar JJ Civil Appeals Nos 26 to 29 of 2015 (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 26042014 of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar passed in TR No 5P8P/2013) Civil Appeal No 16 of 2016
Summary: Summary pending
MANZOOR BUTT THROUGH LRS VS MAHMUD SUFI
Summary: Summary pending.