ITO provisions and Section 4B: SC urged to harmonise definition of ‘income'
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was asked to harmonise the definition of income given in various provisions of Income Tax Ordinance and the Section 4B.
Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the super tax was imposed on the banks, companies and industries whose income was more than Rs500 million. He questioned that if a company does not have this much income then how this levy could be imposed.
A five-member CB, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan on Tuesday heard 354 petitions filed against Section 4B and 182 against the Section 4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Word 'tax' in ITO, Article 260: SC judge seeks accurate definition
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing a number of taxpayers, concluded his arguments against the judgment of the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The lawyers appearing on behalf of other taxpayers adopted his arguments.
Makhdoom said the levy has been imposed in a discriminatory manner without any adherence to the provisions of Article 25 of the constitution. Tax cannot be imposed, more than once, on the income of an assessee under the guise of Entry 47 of 4th Schedule of the constitution.
Justice Aminuddin observed that the super tax is levied on the income and not the losses.
Makhdoom argued that the government cannot impose the super tax on the final income of a company which has already been taxed. He submitted if I (petitioner) am not allowed liability, depreciation, amortisation and brought forward allowance in the annual income then the result of it will be that grossly it may be deemed income but in fact the individual will be facing losses.
Justice Amin remarked that calculation of tax is on the basis of the formula given in Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance.
Makhdoom said generally the income of a person is his total gain minus the total expenditure. He said that if the Court came to the conclusion that the super tax was imposed for the social welfare of a class then the government would have to inform how much money collected under Section 4B. He said that the tax is imposed on a certain number of persons, adding the purpose in the law has been identified but it was not informed that whether objective has been achieved or not? The tax on social welfare can be imposed by the provinces and not the federal government. If the tax is oppressive and inequitable then it is against Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution, Makhdoom argued.
Advocate Waqar Rana, who also represented a number of taxpayers, contended whether the notification of speaker National Assembly is not justified. He then apprised that he fully adopts the arguments of Makhdoom Ali Khan.
Imtiaz Siddiqui, also a taxpayers' lawyer, has challenged the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Section 4B. He asked the bench to direct the federal government to submit a statement on how much funds collected in terms of super tax and how much money was spent on the social welfare of FATA temporary displaced persons.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court granted on Friday the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. On the request of the Justice Department, the judiciary had put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The top court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants DOGE affiliates access to Social Security Administration records. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny the request. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2025 The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group filed suits to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. "Elon Musk may have left Washington DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that SSA had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training. They demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems". "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that the Commissioner Inland Revenue has jurisdiction under Section 221(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The 24-page judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, set aside the impugned judgments of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Islamabad High Court (IHC). It held; 'the tax references out of which these matters arise shall be deemed pending in the respective High Courts and the questions of law raised therein decided in accordance with law and consistently with this judgment.' Section 122 (5A) ITO: Power granted to IR commissioners is not without boundaries: ATIR 'CPLA 431-L/2023 involves questions of law other than the one decided by this judgment. This leave petition is returned to the office to be fixed in the ordinary course before an appropriate Bench,' it also said. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed heard the department (FBR) petitions against the LHC and IHC decisions. Babar Bilal appeared in CPLA Nos.4583 to 4585/2023. The judgment noted that the matters relating to the deemed assessment order (and indeed, the deemed amended assessment order) fall only and always within the first part (of Mehreen Zaibun Nisa), with all ensuing 'inevitable corollaries' applying accordingly. One of these is that the deemed orders of both kinds must be regarded as orders 'passed' by the Commissioner within the meaning, and for the purposes of, Section 221(1). 'The Commissioner therefore has the jurisdiction to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record'. The judgment decided the question; 'Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance to amend, in exercise of the power thereby conferred and, in the manner, and to the extent therein stated, what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. 120 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record?', in favour of the Commissioner and against the taxpayers. The High Courts had answered the question in the negative. The Department urged that both the courts erred materially in this regard. The taxpayers pray that the impugned judgments be upheld as having reached the correct conclusion in law. The judgment confirmed that the error made by the High Courts was to conflate the two deeming provisions into one. It was on account of this mistake that both judgments, whose reasoning run in parallel, concluded that there was no application of mind by the Commissioner and that the mistake always lay where, and by whom, in fact made, i.e., the taxpayer. However, once this unfortunate fusing is unpacked, and what the subsection actually does and require is realized, the mistake becomes apparent. Had the subsection only contained the deeming required by clause (b), then there could be merit to what the learned High Courts concluded. In such a situation, the only 'state of affairs' required to be imagined would be the deemed issuance of an assessment order. It could perhaps then be said that the deeming did not reach or touch any mistake to be found as a matter of fact in the return, and hence the deemed assessment order did not deal with any such thing. In this situation the attribution of the mistake, being outside the scope (or beyond the limit) of the legal fiction could be said to lie where, and by whom, actually made as a matter of fact. But that of course is not the case. There is also the (precedent) deeming required by clause (a). Once that is kept in mind then the inevitable conclusion is that there was, as a matter of law, a (deemed) application of mind by the Commissioner. Since it operated (as it could only) on the return, an inevitable corollary is that it is the whole of it, mistakes and all, that is the assessment (deemed) to have been made. And it is the (deemed) assessment so made that then results in the (deemed) issuance of the assessment order. In our view, it is only in terms of this bifurcation that subsection (1) can be properly understood and applied. A rolling up of the two clauses into one, with respect, led to the error into which both the learned High Courts fell. Thus, in the principal LHC judgment much emphasis was placed on s. 221(1) requiring that the order be 'passed' by the Commissioner. The matters before the Supreme Court arose under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in relation to the jurisdiction, under subsection (1) of Section 221, of the Commissioner to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and thereby amend what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. Most of these matters come from the Lahore High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 27.04.2022. That decision disposed of eight tax references that had been filed by the Commissioner and was followed in all the other matters in the said High Court by various orders of different dates. Islamabad High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 20.09.2023 which disposed of tax references filed by the Department. Both High Courts reached the same conclusion on the question now before the Court and therefore, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by this judgment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Suthra Punjab neglects low-income areas
Like many projects of the Punjab government, the Suthra Punjab project too has been reserved for affluent areas. Despite the passage of four months, its scope could not be extended to the entire province, due to which the residents of low-income areas are still forced to dispose of garbage on their own. The Punjab government had launched the Suthra Punjab project for garbage collection and sanitation in the province four months ago however, the project is practically limited to advertisements, billboards and expenditures on the vehicles and uniforms of sweepers from the solid waste management companies. Till date, the sanitation system in the low-income areas of Lahore, including Wagah, Nishtar, Ravi, Samanabad, Data Ganj Bakhsh Town and other areas, remains deplorable. Except for a few posh areas of the city including Gulberg Town, Raiwind, Jati Umra and Adda Plot, garbage collection has not been started in downscale areas. Abdul Rahim, Muhammad Nasir, and Noman Naeem, three locals from Harbanspura, Nishtar Colony and Baghbanpura confirmed that more than four months had passed since the project had started -- however, the Suthra Punjab project team had still not visited their areas. 'Even today, we pay monthly charges to private garbage collectors. Although main roads in our areas are cleaned, there is no sanitation system in the streets, neighborhoods and small areas. The private garbage collector charges Rs200 to Rs500 per month from each household. We are not getting any benefit from this project, which appears operational only in government advertisements,' lamented the locals. According to information available to the Express Tribune, the outsourced Suthra Punjab program is a long-term project costing more than Rs190 billion. Under this project, garbage is to be collected from the doorsteps of citizens across all cities of Punjab. In this regard, the government has also implemented a garbage tax. However, in Lahore, despite a budget of Rs20 billion, door-to-door garbage collection has been initiated in residential areas from only 100 out of 274 union councils due to the unavailability of machinery, inattention of officers and other reasons. Moreover, the deadline for garbage collection across all 274 union councils, set for March 30th, could not be met either. According to Mian Sohail Hanif Bhandara, an urban planner, the government has started the Suthra Punjab project without an effective strategy hence more than four months have passed yet the results are yet to been seen. 'The garbage collection operation has been outsourced after dividing urban and rural areas. Due to this distinction, cleaning is done on a daily basis in a few areas, while some areas are cleaned weekly and others do not even have an effective sanitation system. If the government had started phase-wise work on the project, effective results would have been seen. Unless the solid waste companies, in collaboration with the municipality and corporation, formulate an effective plan for garbage collection, the Suthra Punjab project will not be fruitful,' assessed Bhandara. Chief Executive Officer Lahore Solid Waste Management Company (LWMC) Babar Sahib Deen claimed that on the instructions of Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, the Suthra Punjab program was successfully underway to provide garbage collection services in rural areas as it is provided in cities. 'Several complaints have been received regarding non-collection of garbage in some areas of Lahore, and these complaints are being addressed,' said Deen.
