COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED, ISLAMABAD
Sections 24 (11), 21 (c), 20, 12, 122 (5a), 127 (6) and Ordinance of 120 Companies (XL VII of 1984), Section 234 (3) International Accounting Standard No. 19, paragraph 133 and 137 Integables voluntary taxpayer claimed that the expenses of a separation scheme on such scheme are considered to be unacceptable asset taxpayer that such expenditures would be included in the definition of salary included in section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 And section 24 (as included in section 24) cannot be considered an immovable asset in any way. 11) Income Tax Ordinance 2001, that such expenditure was incurred only for the purpose of business and can be deducted from income at the same time under Section 20 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001. That the taxpayer had not had the benefit of such expenses for more than a year. That the expenditure on salary cannot be exempted only under section 21 (c) or (m) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The unacceptable nature of such expenditures was merely speculative and the accounting standards and tax laws related to the treatment of such expenditures were in full agreement with each such assumption that such expenditures were therefore inadmissible. It is likely that such expenses will be extended to the company for more than one year. And given that the taxpayers themselves said that the benefits of the voluntary separation scheme would be the same in the coming years, there is no ambiguity with regard to the fact that the benefits of the voluntary separation scheme cost taxpayers for a period. Will go Under the Voluntary Separation Scheme, employees employ more than one year's worth of expenses
