COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IV, LTU versus PHARMEVO (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
Sections 21 (c) and 13 (7) deductions are not allowed to interest-free loans to employees Further Appellate Authority Revenue has claimed that under Section 13 (7) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 The difference between the benchmark rate was that the loans provided to the employees at any interest were justified and the taxpayers paid cheap free loans to the employees who were able to recover the installments and, for example, the profit on the loan. 8 of Employees allowed by the benchmark rate. Income tax was taxable under section 13 (7) of the Ordinance 2001. That the taxpayer had failed to produce evidence regarding the inclusion of such amounts in the salaries of the employees and that the taxation officer had rightly increased the amount, the amount of the loans was irrevocable as per the provisions of section 21. Expenditures (c) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 Taxpayers claimed that because employees were provided free of charge loans, which were in the form of permits, which would otherwise be included, after the included benchmark interest @ 8%. , Taxes on salaries remain below the threshold. ; That he had no obligation to deduct tax. And that there was no justification for the disallowance made by the tax officer of section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (c), which had been rightly excluded by the appellate authority previously, free of interest loan. Was accepted by the acceptor. A permit was made in terms of section 13 (section 7) of section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which was an acceptable tax, but without establishing the fact that the tax officer, upon joining the interest, Salaries Worth
