Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN REVENUE AUTOMATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD versus C.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD

Section 20 ??????? Income earned from the business Head tax deductible in computing income received in the form of salary and wages stated that it has kept a regular record of salaries and wages. Payment by cross check The tax officer was provided full details of the twelve months' salary. None of the tax withholding provisions were cited nor a large refund was made. Such expenses were properly made for the purposes of his business and if he did not have to incur this expense, he would not be able to do business which was purely for the services of the clients as these expenses Were raised to get the revenue of That there was no personal element to any expenditure, especially when the taxpayer company was a public concern and was audited twice through an independent course and none of the auditors made such a reduction. Did not indicate. That no specific reduction was identified in any of the payments. And the tax was not deducted where the salary was below the threshold. The legitimate amount was not rejected on a percentage basis. Land Revenue has been remanded so that details can be analyzed. Which of the payments was below the threshold \ r \ n

Related judgments — Inland, 2013

• BANK AL-HABIB LIMITED, MULTAN v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., MULTAN 2013 PTD 1083
• I.T.As. Nos.1393/LB and 1409/LB of 2010, decided on 30th March, 2012 2013 PTD 1159
• C.I.T. (LEGAL DIVISION), LTU, ISLAMABAD v. ZHONGXING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1165
• 2013 PTD 1169 2013 PTD 1169
• 2013 PTD 1178 2013 PTD 1178
• C.I.R. (LEGAL), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI v. MOINSONS (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI 2013 PTD 1181
• ABDUL RASHEED, Prop. Modern Steel House, Layya v. C.I.R., R.T.O., MULTAN 2013 PTD 1186
• MALIK ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-III), ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1189

All Inland judgments of 2013 →

ask a advocate free from Kamokey lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes