Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Department vs AssesseePTCL 1993 CL. 71 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
• Department vs AssesseePTCL 1993 CL. 23 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Deorah & Co vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1442 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-06-23Read full judgment →
• Daud through Legal Heirs vs Syed Wali Raza and 7 others1993 MLD 1798 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
• Dais Muhammad and 7 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Dabinovic (Monaco) Sa.M. Authorised Agent of Nafin Naviera-Y1993 MLD 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• D.S. Railways Etc. vs P.L.C.K.L.R 1993 Labour & Service Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• D.S. Dalal vs State Bank of India and others1993 SCMR 2204 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
• Crient Straw Board & Paper Mills Limited vs Commissioner of Income-K.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 17 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Messrs1993 CLC 2217 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-03
  summary suitleave to defendlimitation periodservice of summonssubstituted servicepromissory noteCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses a summary suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of a loan, alongside an application by the defendants for leave to appear and defend. The core legal questions involved whether the application for leave to defend was time-barred due to service by publication, and whether a defendant can challenge the maintainability of a summary suit before obtaining leave to defend. The court held that the ten-day limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend does not begin upon mere publication unless summons in Form 4 accompanied by a copy of the plaint are properly served. Consequently, the defendants' application was found within time without requiring condonation of delay. Furthermore, the court held that the defendants made out a prima facie case for leave to defend given the nature of the underlying documents, granting them permission to defend upon furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ten-day limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend a summary suit start running from the date of publication when summons and a copy of the plaint are not served in Form 4?
  • Can a defendant challenge the maintainability of a summary suit before obtaining leave to defend?
  • Is an application for condonation of delay required when the limitation period for leave to defend has not commenced due to improper service?
  • Does Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply strictly to negotiable instruments or other loan documents as well?
  Read full judgment →
• Controlling Authority, N.W.F.P. Board of Technical Education, Peshawar and another vs Abdul Salam Secretary, N.W.F.P. Board of Technical Education (Presently Chairman of the Board)1993 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-15
  upgradation of postapproval of Controlling Authorityservice lawpromotionvested rightswrit petitionrecovery of excess pay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court decision granting a Constitutional (Writ) Petition in a service matter involving the N.-W.F.P. Board of Technical Education. The respondent, serving as Secretary in BPS-18, was promoted to BPS-19 following the Board's decision to upgrade the post. However, when submitted for approval, the Controlling Authority refused approval and declared the promotion null and void, directing refund of excess pay. The High Court had held that promotion did not require formal approval under Section 15 of the Ordinance and created vested rights. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that upgrading a post and appointing an incumbent to the upgraded post differs from mere internal promotion. Under Section 15(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1972, appointment to the post of Secretary expressly requires approval of the Controlling Authority, which overrides the Board's general administrative powers under Section 10. The Court allowed the appeal but noted that recovery of excess pay received by the respondent would not be enforced.

  Questions settled

  • Does the upgradation of the post of Secretary and appointment thereto require approval of the Controlling Authority under Section 15 of the N.-W.F.P. Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1972?
  • Do the general administrative powers of a statutory board under Section 10 override specific statutory provisions requiring approval of a Controlling Authority for key administrative appointments?
  • Is a show-cause notice under Section 12(5) mandatory when the Controlling Authority simply refuses approval under Section 15 without conducting an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Controller of Insurance vs Pakistan International Insurance1993 PLD Karachi 72 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Controller of Insurance vs Pakistan International InsuranceK.L.R. 1993 Tax and Custom Cases 98 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Consolidation) Sajjad Ali Khan and others vs Ejaz Hussain and others1993 MLD 1937 · Board of Revenue · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Consolidation) Muhammad and others vs Mst. Sattan and others1993 MLD 1946 · Board of Revenue · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Consolidation) Chief Administrator of Auoaf vs Munawar Hussain and others1993 MLD 1940 · Board of Revenue · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Bhatti vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Consolidation) Ahmad Khan and others vs Noor Hussain and another1993 MLD 1947 · Board of Revenue · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Committee of Administration, Fauji Foundation vs Collectorate of Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore and 3 others1993 SCMR 2264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-21
  excise dutyexport rebatediscriminationproduction capacity rulesadministrative adjudicationremandtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an adjudication order demanding payment of excise duty from the appellant, Fauji Textile Mills Ltd. The appellant contested the demand on grounds of limitation under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and alleged discriminatory treatment compared to other textile mills that received favorable adjustments for export rebates. The core legal question was whether the demand was time-barred and whether the appellant was subjected to unlawful discrimination regarding the adjustment of export rebates against yarn capacity liabilities. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) had issued a directive allowing other mills to adjust excess export rebates against yarn capacity liabilities. Confronted with this evidence of disparate treatment, the state counsel conceded that the CBR should re-examine the appellant's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudication and subsequent orders, and remanded the matter to the Central Board of Revenue for a fresh decision on the validity of the demand, ensuring consistency in the application of fiscal policies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a demand for excise duty is time-barred if not issued within the period prescribed by Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?
  • Can a taxpayer claim discrimination if the revenue authority applies different standards for export rebate adjustments to similarly situated entities?
  • Is the Central Board of Revenue required to ensure consistency in the application of fiscal directives across similar industrial cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth-Tax vs Gaju1993 PTD 1269 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth-Tax vs Brij Mohan Thapper1993 PTD 1270 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-07-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Vasudeo V. Dempo and another1993 PTD 196 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs V.M. Shah1993 PTD 664 · Bombay High Court · 1990-06-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sri Chintamani1993 PTD 831 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Taraben R. Patel1993 PTD 539 · Kerala High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Manorama Dew Birla1993 PTD 1358 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Brij Ram1993 PTD 1536 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-08-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Shervani Charitable Trust1993 PTD 660 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-01-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sheo Kumar Gupta1993 PTD 1590 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs S.K. Golecha1993 PTD 528 · Rajasthan High Court · 1989-10-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs S. Jindal1993 PTD 481 · Kerala High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Ramnarayan Bhojnagarwala1993 PTD 489 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Rama Shanker Gupta1993 PTD 647 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Rakesh Kumar Agarwal1993 PTD 552 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1991-03-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Prithvi Raj & Co.1993 PTD 1375 · Delhi High Court · 1991-07-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs MRS. Vimla Tulsidas and others1993 PTD 659 · Bombay High Court · 1990-06-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Mrs. Ratna Bose1993 PTD 1528 · Calcutta High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Manoranjan Banik and others1993 PTD 1512 · Gujarat High Court · 1993-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Gyanchand Jain1993 PTD 577 · Patna High Court · 1992-04-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Govind Prasad Kanud Ia1993 PTD 544 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Girdhari Lal Saraf1993 PTD 661 · Rajasthan High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Chhotelal1993 PTD 1543 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-07-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Bowring Institute1993 PTD 500 · Kerala High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Bharat Charity Trust1993 PTD 1310 · Calcutta High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs A.K. Tandon and others1993 PTD 558 · Delhi High Court · 1991-12-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central. Zone Karachi vs M/s. CaptainPTCL 1993 CL. 285 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Indianapolis Power & Light1993 PTD 315 · Supreme Court of United States · 1990-01-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax vs M/s. Habib Sugar Mills Ltd.1993 PLD Supreme Court 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-19
  retained incomesurchargeincome tax liabilityadvance payment of taxworking capitalassessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an amount provided by a company in its accounts to discharge its income tax liability for a relevant assessment year can be treated as retained income for the levy of surcharge under Part III of the Finance Ordinance of 1977. The core legal question centered on whether assessee companies, having made advance payments under section 18-A of the Income Tax Act, were entitled to separately provide for their true tax liability as retained income for working capital requirements. The Supreme Court held that payments made under section 18-A are merely pre-payments on account rather than final tax payments, as they remain subject to regular assessment and adjustment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the amount retained in account books to meet the actual income tax liability for the relevant assessment year can legitimately be categorized as retained income, and its inclusion for working out retained income for the levy of surcharge is fully justified. The appeals of the tax department were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amount provided by a company in its accounts for discharging its income tax liability can be treated as retained income for the levy of surcharge under the Finance Ordinance of 1977?
  • Whether payments made under section 18-A of the Income Tax Act constitute actual payment of advance tax or merely a pre-payment on account?
  • Whether an assessee company is entitled to separately provide for its tax liability in its balance sheet to claim it as retained income for meeting working capital requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Malik1993 PTD 508 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-26
  income taxjurisdictionassessmentreference applicationtransfer of caseregistered office
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which annulled an assessment made against the respondent-assessee as being without jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in annulling the assessment on the point of jurisdiction where the assessee raised objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable, noting that the assessee had repeatedly disputed the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, and under Section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act, it was incumbent upon the Income-tax Officer to refer the objection to the Commissioner of Income-tax for a formal decision. The Court established the principle that when an objection to the place of assessment and jurisdiction is raised at the earliest opportunity, the assessing officer must adhere to the statutory procedure of referring the matter for a determination rather than proceeding unilaterally.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income-tax Officer is bound to refer an objection regarding jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act?
  • Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in annulling an assessment on the point of jurisdiction when the assessee disputes the territorial jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity?
  • Whether the High Court can sit in appeal against the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in permitting an assessee to raise a jurisdictional plea for the first time?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs National Typewriter Co.1993 PTD 37 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Sandesh Ltd.1993 PTD 425 · Gujarat High Court · 1964-10-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Sandesh Ltd1993 PTD 425 · Gujarat High Court · 1964-10-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs M/s. PhoenixPTCL 1993 CL. 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  non-life insurance businessprovision for taxationtaxation reserveannual accountsController of InsuranceIncome Tax Referencesbalance of profits
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave arise from a common order of the Sindh High Court concerning Income Tax References under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The respondent, a foreign insurance company carrying on non-life insurance business, had created provisions for taxation and deducted income tax provisions from its declared interest and dividend income in its annual accounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance. The Income Tax Officer disallowed and added back these amounts to the income. The core legal question was whether the Income Tax Officer was justified in deleting or disallowing the provision for taxation from the income of the assessee under Rule 6 of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the accounts submitted under the Insurance Act, 1938 are final and binding as a fait accompli, and the Assessing Officer's power under Rule 6 is strictly limited to excluding items of 'expenditure' not allowable under section 10. Since a taxation reserve or provision for taxation does not constitute 'expenditure' (defined as money paid out irretrievably), the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to probe into or alter the accounts or add back the taxation reserve.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income Tax Officer is bound by the balance of profits disclosed in the annual accounts submitted by an insurance company to the Controller of Insurance under the Insurance Act, 1938?
  • Does a provision for taxation or taxation reserve constitute 'expenditure' within the meaning of Rule 6 of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether an Assessing Officer has the power to disallow and add back a taxation reserve to the balance of profits under Rule 6 of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vighyan Chemicals Industries1993 PTD 1391 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Uttar Pradesh Financial1993 PTD 420 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Uco Bank1993 PTD 1365 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-07-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Transpek Industry Pvt. Ltd.1993 PTD 418 · Gujarat High Court · 1991-08-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shervani Sugar Syndicate Ltd.1993 PTD 1511 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shankar Trading Co. (P.) Ltd I.T.R.1993 PTD 1482 · Delhi High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S. Sivaramakrishnan1993 PTD 1412 · Kerala High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ranjit Kumar Mullick1993 PTD 556 · Calcutta High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ram Bilas Purshottam Dass1993 PTD 1424 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Rajendra Babubhai Modi, .1993 PTD 1345 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-08-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Paracha Textile Mills Limited ,1993 PTD 1208 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/s. Habib Sugar Mills Ltd.M/s. Jam Ia1993 PTD 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  retained incomesurchargeincome tax liabilityworking capital requirementsadvance payment of taxassessment year
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals regarding whether the amount provided by a company in its accounts to discharge its income tax liability for the relevant assessment year can be treated as retained income for the levy of surcharge under Part-III of the Finance Ordinance of 1977. The core legal question is whether assessee companies, despite paying amounts under section 18-A of the Income Tax Act, are entitled to separately provide in their balance sheets an amount for their true tax liability and claim it as income retained for working capital requirements. The Supreme Court held that payments made under section 18-A are not actual tax payments but pre-payments on account to be adjusted against the tax finally determined upon regular assessment. Consequently, the amount retained by a company in its accounts to meet its actual income tax liability for the relevant assessment year can legitimately be categorized as retained income and included for working out retained income for the levy of surcharge. The appeals filed by the tax department were dismissed, affirming the view of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amount provided by a company in its accounts for discharging its income tax liability can be treated as retained income for the levy of surcharge under Part-III of the Finance Ordinance of 1977?
  • Whether payments made under section 18-A of the Income Tax Act constitute advance payment of tax or merely payments made on account to be adjusted against finally determined tax?
  • Is an assessee company entitled to separately provide in its balance-sheets an amount in respect of its true tax liability and claim it as income retained for meeting working capital requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/s. Habia\B Sugar Mills Ltd.M/s. JamiaPTCL 1993 CL. 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  retained incomesurcharge levyincome tax liabilityadvance payment of taxworking capital requirementsfinance ordinanceincome tax act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals regarding whether the amount provided by a company in its accounts to discharge its income tax liability for the relevant assessment year can be treated as retained income for the levy of surcharge under Part III of the Finance Ordinance, 1977. The core legal question is whether an assessee company, despite making advance payments under Section 18-A of the Income Tax Act, is entitled to separately provide in its balance sheets for its true tax liability and claim it as income retained for working capital requirements. The Supreme Court held that payments made under Section 18-A are merely payments on account rather than advance tax proper, remaining subject to adjustment upon regular assessment. Therefore, companies are entitled to retain amounts in their accounts to meet actual income tax liability for the relevant assessment year, and such amounts legitimately fall under retained income for calculating working capital requirements and the levy of surcharge. The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amount provided by a company in its accounts for discharging its income tax liability can be treated as retained income for the levy of surcharge under Part III of the Finance Ordinance of 1977?
  • Whether payments made under Section 18-A of the Income Tax Act constitute advance payment of tax or merely payments on account to be adjusted against final assessment?
  • Is an assessee company entitled to separately provide in its balance sheets for its tax liability and claim the same as retained income for meeting working capital requirements notwithstanding payments under Section 18-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Moti Sagar Kapoor1993 PTD 1506 · Delhi High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Modi Industries Ltd. (No.4)1993 PTD 1415 · Delhi High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Modi Industries Ltd. (No.1)1993 PTD 1401 · Delhi High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Meghdoot Sales1993 PTD 1439 · Delhi High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Manickbag Garage and another1993 PTD 1381 · karnataka High Court · 1992-07-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Malaprabha Cooperative Sugar1993 PTD 1420 · Kerala High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Mahendra Kumar Bansal1993 PTD 1404 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-08-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Mahavir Prashad & Sons , .1993 PTD 1499 · Delhi High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.1993 PTD 1395 · Delhi High Court · 1992-10-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kontiki Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. -S,1993 PTD 1502 · Kerala High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Jute and Stores Ltd.1993 PTD 1281 · Calcutta High Court · 1989-08-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs J.K. Bankers1993 PTD 1489 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Indian Engineering and Commercial1993 PTD 1636 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare1993 PTD 1390 · karnataka High Court · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs G.R. Karthikeyan1993 PTD 1661 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. , . (1993 PTD 999 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-11-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Doom Dogma India Ltd.1993 PTD 1458 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-12-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Chelmsford Club Ltd.1993 PTD 1455 · Delhi High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs B.N. Agarwala & Co. S.J.C.1993 PTD 1394 · Orissa High Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Assam Travels Shipping Service , . (1993 PTD 885 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-09-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Amritlal Nihalchand1993 PTD 199 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Aizaz Mansoor1993 PTD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Additional) vs I.M. Patel & Co.1993 PTD 162 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras-II vs Banarsilal Dhawan1993 PTD 28 · Madras High Court · 1976-07-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore vs Fazal Muhammad1993 PTD 635 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies II, Karachi and others vs S.1993 PTD 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-25
  tax evasioninformer reward schemefiscal statute interpretationtax avoidancequantification of taxspecific information
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the entitlement of an informer to a cash reward under the 'Cash Reward to Informer Scheme' for providing information leading to the detection of tax evasion. The respondent, an employee of a company, provided information regarding the evasion of excise duty, sales tax, and income tax. While the authorities granted a reward for excise duty, they denied it for income tax and sales tax. The High Court directed payment for both. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the respondent was entitled to rewards where the company remained in loss despite the information provided. The Court held that the Scheme explicitly bases rewards on the 'amount of tax sought to be evaded.' Because the company remained in loss, no specific tax liability could be quantified, making the reward calculation impossible under the Scheme's formula. Consequently, the Court held that no reward is payable for income tax evasion where no tax liability is quantified, but upheld the reward for sales tax evasion where additional demand was created, regardless of whether actual recovery occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'Cash Reward to Informer Scheme' require the actual recovery of evaded tax as a condition for the payment of a reward?
  • Is an informer entitled to a reward under the Scheme when the information provided leads to a reduction in reported losses but does not result in a positive tax liability?
  • Does the term 'evasion' in the context of the Cash Reward to Informer Scheme require the quantification of the tax sought to be evaded to trigger the reward mechanism?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone C, Karachi vs M/s. AgriculturalPTCL 1993 CL. 52 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs United General Trust Ltd.1993 PTD 982 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs SMT. Ushaben Trust1993 PTD 665 · Bombay High Court · 1990-06-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Singh Transport Co.1993 PTD 985 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.1993 PTD 825 · Calcutta High Court · 1989-07-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shahnawaz Ltd. and others1993 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-26
  income taxadvance taxadditional taxretrospective operationremedial statutecurative legislationpending proceedingsassessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the amendment introduced to subsection (6) of section 18-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 by the Finance Act of 1973—limiting the charging of additional tax to a maximum period of 15 months—applied retrospectively to cases where returns had been submitted prior to the amendment but regular assessments were still pending. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the amendment, characterized as remedial and curative legislation designed to soften harsh laws, could operate retrospectively. The Court held that since the amending provision was enacted to redress an injury and did not affect vested rights or create new obligations, it applied retrospectively to all pending cases where assessment proceedings had not attained finality at the time of the amendment. The appeals filed by the Department were consequently dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to subsection (6) of section 18-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 by the Finance Act of 1973 apply retrospectively to pending assessment cases?
  • Can a remedial and curative statutory provision be given retrospective operation if it does not disturb vested rights or create new obligations?
  • Does the limitation of additional tax to a maximum of 15 months under section 18-A(6) apply to past and closed transactions finalized before the enactment of the Finance Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pfizer Ltd.1993 PTD 927 · Bombay High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd.1993 PTD 917 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-10-16Read full judgment →