PAKISTAN HOTELS DEVELOPERS LTD., KARACHI versus D.C./TO.XII AD LTU, KARACHI
Claims for deduction of Articles 20, 21 (n), 22, 23, 34, 37 (5) and 131 denied the taxpayers, a public company engaged in the hotel business, through mutual agreement and consortium. It has decided to expand the existing premises accordingly. The banks said that the entire financial cost of the extension should be borne by the bank's taxpayers and it was stated that the landowner had contracted with the landowner to purchase the land for expansion and he The landowner is paid as a large sum of money and the parties agree that if the balance was not paid on or before the due date, the balance will be forfeited. Before the implementation of the agreement, the consortium agreed to finance up to Rs 1,200 million through repayable finance facilities. S the funds and the implementation of an agreement for the purchase of land not only in taxpayers funds on the basis of the given U-tax, but were paid in advance Years. Appointed an architect to develop the money; and the site plan, and said that the site plan was submitted for approval of the municipal and building authorities and other charges were also paid when taxpayers took all steps in their power. When raised, a member of the consortium refused to approve the financing facility and since the financing facility was not approved and he did not receive the taxpayer, the balance of the sale of the land was not paid by the taxpayers. So, according to the contract of sale in large quantities sincerely
