Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.6032/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2006. versus I.T.A. NO.6032/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2006.

Sections 27, 2 (2) (20), 22, 29 (5), and 30 Capital Gain Company share distribution were considered to be the difference between shareholders' transfer of capital assets and market value of shares. Was considered. In the capital, it said that it drew on the provisions of section 27 read with section 29 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, where a company would divide its shareholders into a dividend with a profit on a shareholder owned by it. Assets were also distributed. Shareholders, the Company did not receive anything from its shareholders and such transaction did not fall within the purview of Section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, if the company sells the shares to the shareholders, it receives the income tax Would have been obligatory to do Treating the distribution of dividends in shares, such as the sale of shares to the shareholders, was completely illegal and if the interpretation of the provisions of section 27 is enhanced, the tax officer on the provisions of section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 If the revenue held by the company is accepted, the distribution of the dividend by the company to the bonus share, the right shares or even the shareholders will also have to receive large profits in the hands. There was no justification for the company to sue for new opposition consideration before the Appellate Authority's order was vacated and the appellate tribunal canceled the assessment order and directed to accept the version announced. advocates from Harnai lawyer