Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION), KARACHI versus NOVARTIS PHARMA (PAKISTAN) LTD.

Assessing Officer assessed the tax deduction on payment made by Assisi as payment of expenses to the distributing company for distribution of its products in accordance with Section (4 (A&A) and distribution? distribution agreement) Property paid in connection with the sale of services to an agent designated as commissioned or compensated as a commission after the payment of the term means the word compensation means the expense incurred. The records show that the two payments had different meanings for such words, distribution for such services. The distribution company did some work in connection with the distribution of the Mappani products, and a special fee was paid for the expenses related to the inspection, which was paid for by the inspection officer. Tax deducted under section 50 of the Tax Ordinance, cannot be treated as expenses paid by the 1979 Assessment. The Commission answered the question in favor of the High Core rt Respondent.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• DELTA CLIMATE CONTROL AND ENGINEERING LTD. 2009 CLD 880
• MUHAMMAD SALMAN v. State 2009 PCrLJ 881
• MUHAMMAD NAVEED v. TEEJAYS EXCLUSIVE (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director 2009 CLC 883
• ABDUL REHMAN v. PRESIDENT HABIB BANK LIMITED 2009 PLC(CS) 888
• MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN QAZI v. FEDERATON OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue 2009 PLC(CS) 891
• PAKISTAN INSULATIONS (PVT.) LTD. v. RANHILL ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS DDFC GROUP OF COMPANIES through General Pakistan Operations Manag 2009 MLD 892
• MUHAMMAD MOIN v. STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN 2009 CLD 899
• YAQOOB ALI v. State 2009 PCrLJ 903

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

us immigration advocates from Jhal Magsi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes