Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX versus KHAIRUL HAYAT AMIN & CO. LTD.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 22, 30 and 136 (2) Revenue from business or profession Interest income Revenue from business income or other sources Assisi did not work on any business during the relevant year and the loan Interest income on the basis of loss and advancing losses against adjusting interest income against business loss, the Assigning Officer refused to adjust the amount representing loss of business from this loss and against this income. The adjudication that was not obtained from the business was first confirmed by the Appellate Authority The Appellate Tribunal of the Assistant Order instructed the appraisal officer to treat the business interest as income based on last year's assessment; No evidence to start. Assuming lending in this manner was the acquisition of debt, which was the business of the main label, to be reviewed under section 22 of the E Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the appellate tribunal's legitimate discrimination order not only misrepresented the evidence and material on record. And was based on neglect, but also a violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. In the absence of the fact that the SCC is conducting money lending, the interest income cannot be considered as a business income so as to be taxed under section 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Under section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which exclusively included interest income under income from other sources, the appellate tribunal found unnecessary material and non- Pakistan, top advocate family court from Dera Murad Jamali lawyer