PAK PANTHER SPINNING MILLS LTD. versus THE CIR, ZONE-III, LTU, LAHORE
Sections 113 (2) (b) Proviso, 120 (3), 221 and 205 FBR Circular No. 3 dated 2009 7 17 2009 The least taxpayers on the income of some persons claimed that it was because of depreciation. Had declared gross loss before termination and other non-deductible expenses, with the default surcharge in accordance with the provisions of Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, were not taxed in 2001, the Revenue reported. Instead of net loss was announced as shown by the return while depreciation was claimed Profit taxpayers ross aggregate error at No. 29 of return. Was declared null and the total loss was reached when taxpayers charged sales depreciation under the - sales expenses loss such loss eliminated the gross loss \ situation the taxpayers minimized tax jurisdiction Did not give the right to claim a car exit when sales determined the cost of sales before making an estimate, which changed the situation to ross gross profit, in which case the previous retirement applied. The charge due to depreciation was always a "non-cash" item if an organization approved of a gross loss before accounting for depreciation. It comes in sheets, to conclude about the inability to pay of the enterprise is not entirely unjustified. In such a situation, the minimal tax would have made it possible for the businessman to be exempt from the minimum tax payment where the gross loss before the depreciation was calculated if the depreciation charge There was a total loss after the reduction, which
