03-12-2015
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD BENCH, ISLAMABAD
Date of Order and hearing: 03-12-2015
APPELLANT PRESENTED BY——-MR. ZAHID MASOOD CHATHA, ADVOCATE
“ LIMITATION IN SET ASIDE CASES. [Section 124]”
“ We have heard arguments of both the parties and the case law upon by the Learned AR and have considered the taxpayer’s plea to the effect that the taxpayer is properly deducting the tax where it is obligatory as per law in due course and record produced justify discharge of the legal obligations hence proceeding initiated u/s 161/205 are unjustified. That the department should wait for the decision of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue when the tax payer preferred second appeal against setting aside of an order by the Learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) which in this case was not done and it attracts contempt proceedings against the concerned officers however this Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue warn the departmental officer to restrain themselves in future from such actions otherwise court will not spare such disobedience.”
[ITA NO. 537/IB/2013 Tax Year 2012, ITA NO. 611/IB/2015 Tax Year 2012]
21-09-2016
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD BENCH, ISLAMABAD
Date of hearing: 04-08-2016, Date of Order: 21-09-2016
Respondent by : Mr Zahid Masood Chatha, Advocate.
“CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS AS RECEIPTS BEING SUBJECT TO FINAL TAXATION”
- Appellant is a cricketer representing the country in national and international cricket events. The taxpayer has executed contract agreement with Pakistan Cricket Board and received payments on account of services provided to the said Board. The appellant declared these contract receipts and tax deducted thereon as final discharge of tax liability as provided in section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
- The Assessing Officer noted that the payments have been received by the taxpayer on account of services and tax deducted/withheld is minimum tax. The deemed orders for all the years were found erroneous so far these were prejudicial to the interest of revenue and were amended under section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
- The above amended orders were contested by the taxpayer before the first appellate authority who vide AO Nos quoted above decided the appeal in favor of the taxpayer and held that the payment received is contractual receipt and tax deducted thereon is final discharge of tax liability.
Conclusion:
“As discussed above the Learned CIR(Appeals) had relied upon these judgments and the learned DR failed to produce any adverse order of the Honorable High Court. Therefore, we are constrained to follow the earlier judgments of this tribunal on the issue and hold that the Learned CIR(Appeals) had rightly treated contractual receipt of the taxpayer and tax deducted thereon as final discharge of tax liability and as such the impugned order calls for no interference.”
[ITA No. 1118/IB/2015 (Tax Year 2010), ITA No. 1119/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2012), ITA No. 1120/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2012), ITA No. 1121/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2012)]
09-03-2012
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD BENCH, ISLAMABAD
Date of hearing 09.03.2012
Respondent Presented by : Mr Zahid Masood Chatha, Advocate.
REVISION OF WEALTH STATEMENT [SECTION 16(3]:
“The right to revise the wealth statement is unconditional with one exception that it has to be exercised prior to amendment u/s 122. Revising of the wealth statement is a substantive right provided to the taxpayer in sub-section 3 of section 116 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and exclusive authority has been given to the taxpayer for such revising as substantive right. He is well within his right to cure or amend his right to cure or amend his earlier declaration given in the wealth statement.”