Find a Lawyer

Income‑tax Case No. 6 of 1978, decided on 3‑2‑1986.

‑‑‑S. 15‑BB‑‑Finance Ordinance, (XXI of 1972)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 279‑‑Exemption from Income‑tax‑‑Retrospective amendment of section 15‑BB of Income‑tax Act made by Finance Ordinance, 1972, held, ultra vires of Legislature.

Commissioner of Income‑tax (East), Karachi v. Ibrahim D. Ahmed 1982 P T D 130 rel.

‑‑‑S. 15‑BB‑Finance Ordinance (XXI of 1972)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 279‑‑Exemption from payment of Income‑tax‑‑Levy of Income‑tax on dividend received out of income of Industrial undertaking, held, was not exempt from tax under section 15‑BB of Income‑tax Act, 1922.

Commissioner of Income‑tax (East), Karachi v. Ibrahim D. Ahmed 1982 P T D 130 rel.

Ali Athar for Applicant.

Sheikh Haider for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1986.

‑‑In this Income‑tax reference and Income‑tax Case No. 6 of 1975, the following common questions have been referred to this Court for answer.

(1) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that the retrospective amendment of section 15‑BB made by Finance Ordinance, 1972 was not ultra vires of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan, 1972 (The year be read as 1972).

(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in upholding the levy of income‑tax on dividend received out of the income of Industrial undertaking exempt from tax under section 15‑BB of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 "

2. Mr. Ali Athar learned counsel for the applicants states that these questions have been effectively dealt with and answered in Income‑tax Reference No. 51/1972 (Commissioner of Income‑tax (East) Karachi v. Ibrahim D. Ahmed reported in 1982 P T D 130, by a Division Bench of this Court.

3. Mr. Sheikh Hailer learned counsel for the respondent has no R cavil with this statement. He, however, states that the department has filed petitions for Special Leave to Appeal which have been granted and the appeals are pending. However, no other arguments have been advanced before us, nor do we find any sufficient reasons to differ from the decision in the said case. Since no other arguments have been advanced before us, therefore, for the same reasons we answer these questions as decided in the said case. We may however, mention that these two references relate to the assessment year 1970‑71 and 1971‑72 and being prior to the 21st December, 1971, will be governed by the judgment mentioned above.

4. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. Questions answered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.