QUALITY CASTING (PVT.) LTD. VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER (COMPANIES), LAHORE

2002 P T D 2549

[Lahore High Court]

Before Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ

QUALITY CASTING (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive

versus

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (COMPANIES), LAHORE and 3 others

I.T.A. No.77 of 1997, decided on 11/04/2002.

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S.12(18)---Accrual of income---Share deposit money---Provisions of S.12(18) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Applicability---Share deposit money could not be taken as a loan to be covered by the mischief of the provisions of S.12(8) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Provisions would not be attracted unless there was a loan received by the assessee and it was so claimed---Where any of the two requirements were not answered, provisions of S.12(18) of the ordinance were not attracted.

Messrs Micropak (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 2001 PTD 1180 rel.

Kh. Ibrar Majal for Appellant.

Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondents.

ORDER

NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.---Learned counsel for the appellant states that the issue in hand already stands resolved by a judgment of this Court now reported as re: Messrs Micropak (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (2001 PTD 1180). Further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 24-10-2001 rejected the appeal against that order filed by the Revenue as Civil Petitions Nos.981-L of 2001, 984 and 988-L of 2001.

2. In that order to which one of us (Naseem Sikandar, J.) was party, it was inter alia found that the share deposit money could not be taken as a loan to be covered by the mischief ,of the provisions of section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It was also found that at the relevant time the provisions of section 12(18) did not attract unless two conditions were answered. First, that there was a "loan" received by an assessee and secondly, that it was so claimed. Where any of the two requirements were not answered, it was held that these provisions were not attracted.

3. Learned counsel for the Revenue has attempted to distinguish the case in hand. However, we will readily agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid judgment of this Court as maintained by the Hon'ble apex Court stands on all fours and answers all the issues raised in their appeal.

4. For the various reasons stated in the above order of this Court in re: Messrs Mircopak (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) this appeal shall be allowed.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./Q-14/L

Appeal allowed.