(i)

Prime Commercial Bank Ltd v ACIT [1997] 75 Tax 1 (H.C. Lah)=1997 PTD 605

Writ decided in favour confirming that section 50(2B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as amended before 1996 does not cove ‘call deposit receipts” and that this entire sub-section applies only where funds are transferred from one person to another.

(ii)

Union Bank Ltd v Federation of Pakistan [1998] 77 Tax 125 (H.C. Lah)

Writ decided in favour confirming that section 14D of the Wealth Tax act 1963 does not apply to banking companies.

(iii)

Union Bank Ltd v Federation of Pakistan [1998] 77 Tax 127 (H.C. Lah)

Writ decided in favour confirming that Circular No. 13 of 1997 issued by CBR is ultra vires and that banking companies would pay advance tax u/s 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 after taking into account tax already deducted u/s 50(2) on government securities.

(iv)

Kawther Grain (Pvt) Ltd v DCIT [1999] 80 Tax 262 (H.C. Lah) = 1999 PTD 4028 (H.C. Lah).

Writ decided in favour confirming that expression “goods” as used in section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not cover immovable property and that writ petition is maintainable where action by a tax authority is coram non judice notwithstanding availability of alternate remedy.

(v)

Bank of Punjab v Federation of Pakistan [2000] 81 Tax 390 (H.C. Lah)

Writ decided in favour confirming that order passed u/s 53 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax is void ab initio, as law does not allow him to do so and that High Court is competent to entertain a writ petition where interpretation of law is involved.

(vi)

[1999] 79 Tax 273 (Trib = 1999 PTD 2294

The Income Tax Tribunal, Karachi on appeal by Habib Bank Limited decided the issue of limitation u/s 66A in favour and taxation of mark up/interest on accrual basis on non-performing loans against relying on its earlier judgement [1998] 77 Tax 273, but later on the said judgement was reversed by the honourable Sindh High Court in ITA No.s 279 to 281 of 1999 ITAT on my representation.

(vii)

(viii)

 [2002] 85 Tax 245 (Trib)

The ITAT accepted appeal on all the major points, like taxation of mark-up on non-performing loans on receipt basis, allowability of provisions of bad debt in the case of banks etc, except claim of diminution of value of investment on notional basis.

(ix)

2002 PTD (Trib.) 1898= (2002) 86 TAX 182(Trib.)

The ITAT accepted appeal on the issue of Provision for bad debts, interest credited to suspense account and credit of deduction of tax at source till 30^th June. The appeal on point of taxation of interest on securities on receipt basis and no application of section 24(i) failed.

(x)

(2002) 86 TAX 196(Trib.)

The ITAT rejected the reference application filed by the Tax Department on the strength of my arguments that it is devoid of any merit. The learned Members of ITAT appreciated my point of view and remarked: “the arguments of the learned AR are quite relevant and impressive”.

(xi)

(2003) 87 TAX 148 (Trib.) = 2003 PTD (Trib) 1146

The ITAT accepted appeal and vacated the order passed by the IAC u/s 66A holding that he failed to prove that taxation of income from government securities on receipt basis as per bona fide method of accounting was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

(xii)

Saitax Spinning Mills Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax [2003] 87 Tax 156(H.C. Lah.) = 2003 PTD 808 [Lahore High Court]

Appeal decided in favour as the honourable Lahore High Court held that action u/s 65 was illegal for want of “definite information”. The Court held that mere reference to a declared value by another taxpayer is not by itself definite information to become a sufficient ground to re-open a completed assessment. The idea of sanctity of a completed assessment is certainly averse to the reopening based upon conjectures and surmises.

(xiii)

Bank Al-Habib Limited v Central Board of Revenue [2004] 90 Tax 9 (H.C. Lah.) = 2004 PTD 2294 [Lahore High Court]

Writ allowed and the decision of the Central Board of Revenue of not approving special reserve of the bank was held unlawful being violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

(xiv)

2005 PTD (Trib.) 474 = PTCL 2004  CL 461

Appeal allowed ordering the deletion of addition of Rs. 26,260,445 under Rule 5(c) of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the plea that since Insurance Act 2000 repealed the 1938 Insurance Act, any reference to the repealed Act would be construed as reference to new Act in view of section 8 of General Clauses act of 1897.  The ITAT confirmed the view that with effect from assessment year 2000-01 that reference of Insurance Act 1938 in Rule 5(c) of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance will be construed to be that of Insurance Act 2000 as per section 8 of the General Clauses Act 1897.

(xv)

Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Companies Zone III, Lahore v Muslim Insurance Co. Ltd. Lahore 2004 PTD 2707 [Lahore High Court] = [2004] 90 Tax 266 (H.C. Lah.)

Case decided in favour as the honourable High Court dismissed all four department appeals in view of ratio settled by apex court in PLD 1997 SC 700=1997 PTD 1693 holding that computation of income profits and gains from insurance business and tax payable thereon were two different concepts altogether. It is reaffirmed that for the year under review benefit of reduced rate on dividend income cannot be denied to insurance companies.

(xvi)

[2005] 91 Tax 484 (Trib.) = 2006 PTD (Trib.) 356

In the case of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd, the Tribunal adjudicated all the issues in the favour of the bank except diminution in the investment which was held not an allowable expenditure on accrual basis.

(xvii)

[2005] 91 Tax 517 (Trib.) = 2006 PTD (Trib.) 288

In the case of Kohinoor Energy Limited, the Tribunal allowed appeals on many issues and major relief secured in respect of allowability of expenses against interest income. The Tribunal also ordered adjustment of depreciation allowance against interest income and deleted additional tax u/s 88 and ordered passed u/s 52/86. The taxation of interest income upheld holding that exemption available to the company is only in respect of sale of electricity. The issue of application of section 12(9A) was remanded back.

(xviii)

2005 PTD (Trib) 2041 = (2006) 93 TAX 80 (Trib.)

In the case of Soneri Bank Ltd, the Tribunal allowed appeals on all the    major issues and rejected departmental appeals. For this first time in any case, the Tribunal accepted that in case of concessionary loans given to employees, section 24(i) of the Income Tax ordinance, 1979 [parallel to section 21(k) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001] does not apply as no expenditure in incurred and claimed for this amount by the employer. It declared earlier judgement to the contrary in Hong Kong Shanghais Bank as per incuriam.

(xix)

2005 PTD (Trib) 2161 = (2005) 92 TAX 128 (Trib.)

The Full bench accepted the plea that Tax Department cannot disallow expenses between exempt capital gains and taxable income on prorate basis, and that it is duty bound to ascertain actual expenses, if any, to be disallowed relatable to exempt income.

(xx)

[2005] 92 Tax  162 (Trib.) = 2006 PTD (Trib.) 1800 = 2005 PTR 151 (Trib.)

The ITAT accepted all the appeals by the appellant except those related to excess perquisites and concessional loans. All the departmental appeals dismissed, except on the issue of bad debts where the Tribunal remanded the case with specific instructions to the assessing officer “for its reappraisal strictly in accordance with express statutory stipulation/judgement of Karachi High Court (1976) 34 TAX 158 (H.C.Kar.)”.

(xxi)

[2005] PTR 123 (Trib.) = 2006 PTD  (Trib.) 1292

The ITAT accepted the well-established rule of judicial propriety that when a matter is pending before a High Court, the lower forums should not pre-empt the jurisdiction by passing a contrary order. The ITAT rejected the plea of the Department that in the light of (2005) 92 TAX 162 (Trib.) = 2005 PTR 151 (Trib.) a larger or full bench should be constituted. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the issue of provisions of bad debt and also declared addition u/s 24(i) as unlawful.

(xxii)

(xxiii)

(xxiv)