COMMISSIONER (LEGAL) versus EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.
Section 3 Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Sections 3, 67, 99, 100A and Fourth Schedule RR 5, 6A and 9 Income Tax Rules, 2002, R13 Income Tax Ordinance (XSXI 1979 of 1979) ), Section 24, 26, and Fourth Schedule RR 5, 8 Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), Section 10 (7), and the insurance company's first business income taxability scope deduction by the insurance business and the usual business. The two classes were treated differently. In the case of insurance business, profitability and profitability cannot be applied as per the procedure laid down in the fourth schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Runs will count the profits, because it would be special provisions prevail over general provisions. The fourth schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance did not discuss any expenditure forecasts in 2001; the insurance company would be taxed as a unit, therefore, against the insurance business and the usual business exempt income. Unrecognized costs will not be estimated. Like other insurance business profits, the insurance company's major profit or profit income, was adopted by the Federal Board of Revenue in 1988 as the concept of one unit route, as the insurance business income and its revenue count. Will be considered. The special provisions of section 99 read with the rules contained in the fourth schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 cannot be considered equal to the number and taxability of the section of the Income Tax Ordinance of the section of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The fourth schedule of its profits and benefits is contrary to the concept of working under its principles.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
