COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, LAHORE versus SARENA INDUSTRIES AND EMBROIDERY MILLS (PVT.) LTD.
Section 122 (5A), 113 and 128 (5) of the Asset Amendment and the taxpayer claim to have collected the minimum tax on the business from all sources under section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 That no extortion was claimed by the taxpayers as the machinery was imported and leased back. As such, the First Appellate Authority rightly eliminated the increase due to taxable profit on the asset settlement because no accumulated depreciation was claimed. And the issue of least taxation was not contested, so there was no justification for receiving the minimum tax. The correct applet authority observed that according to the lease agreement, the importing machinery was leased to the leasing company and there was no depreciation data in the audited accounts. As ordered by the tax officer in the body order. And according to the fixed asset schedules in the audited accounts, the machinery also increased and subsequently the growth was reduced. And deposit depreciation had nothing to do with the machinery being imported during the year. And furthermore, because of the tax receipts examined without record, it is deleted that the first appellate authority had given full justification in view of the legal and facts of the case and no interference was required. The first appellate authority order was upheld by the Tribunal and the Department of Appeals was dismissed.
