Latest news with #130
Business Recorder
16-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Budget 2025-26: KCCI urges govt to expand tax net, targets 4.6mn unregistered entities
Frustrated by the rising tax burden on already compliant businesses, Pakistan's business community has called on the government to expand the tax net by bringing 4.6 million identified but unregistered industrial and commercial entities into the tax net, instead of imposing additional duties on the existing taxpayers. The demand was made through budget proposals submitted by the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) to the Ministry of Finance ahead of the federal budget for fiscal year 2025-26. KCCI noted that several businesses and individuals remain outside the tax net, despite being traceable through official data such as electricity and gas connections, vehicle and property registrations, travel and banking records. This gap results in an unfair tax regime, KCCI argues, overburdening compliant taxpayers and contributing to revenue shortfalls. 'For instance, data from the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) till June 2024, indicates that there are 4.6 million commercial and industrial electricity connections, while only 396,383 entities are registered for sales tax.' Budget FY26: Sindh CM takes step aimed at finalising proposals, allocations 'This indicates the untapped potential within the system,' the business chamber highlighted in its proposals. KCCI urged the government to utilise available datasets, such as electricity records from Wapda and KE, to identify and register these entities. The chamber was of the view that integrating them into the tax net would enhance revenue collection, reduce reliance on punitive measures like the Further Tax, and promote equity and compliance within the tax system. As of November 6, 2024, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had received 5.215 million tax returns, showing a 76% year-on-year increase from 2.959 million filed during the same period in 2023. However, despite this improvement in compliance, the FBR collected Rs9,309 billion during July-April FY2024-25—falling short of its Rs10,130 billion target by Rs821 billion. The government has already revised the FBR's annual target downward, from Rs12,913 billion to Rs12,334 billion for the ongoing fiscal year. PCDMA submits budget proposals to FBR Nonetheless, a shortfall exceeding Rs600 billion is projected for the full year. Provisional figures suggest that the tax collection target for the upcoming FY2025-26 will be raised to around Rs14,300 billion, making it imperative for the government to broaden the tax base. In addition to urging a crackdown on unregistered taxpayers, KCCI recommended targeted tax relief and policy adjustments to support growth across various sectors. Proposals include introducing reforms to revive the real economy, reinstating zero-rating for local supplies under the Export Facilitation Scheme (EFS), and abolishing taxes on shrimp broodstock to support seafood exports. The chamber also proposed reinstating zero-rating for gold, permitting gold exports with at least 20% value addition, and removing motorcycle and auto parts from the third schedule, classifying them as intermediate goods. Oil and gas sector tax proposals for Federal Budget 2025-26 For the tea industry, KCCI called for a review of existing policies and measures to curb revenue leakages. According to KCCI, these recommendations, if implemented, could ease the tax burden on compliant businesses, incentivise growth in key sectors, and help the government meet its ambitious revenue targets for the upcoming fiscal year. The federal government will present the next fiscal year's budget on June 2.
Gulf Insider
14-03-2025
- Business
- Gulf Insider
Bahrain: Court Orders Real Estate Firm to Return BD101,000 to Investor for Failure to Deliver Property
A civil court has ruled in favor of an investor, ordering a real estate firm to return BD101,000 following a dispute over an undelivered property. The court annulled the 2023 sale contract, as well as incentive and buyback agreements, due to a lack of evidence that the company had fulfilled its obligations. The company is now required to pay the investor BD101,000, along with 2 percent annual interest from the date of the lawsuit in 2024 until the full amount is settled. It must also cover all legal costs and court fees associated with the case. Dispute The dispute originated when the investor paid BD101,000 for a property that was never delivered. The investor sought a refund and compensation for unpaid incentives, filing a lawsuit to nullify the sale agreement and related contracts after the company allegedly failed to complete the project, transfer ownership, or honor financial terms. According to the investor's lawyer, Rashid AlBinali, the legal action was taken against both the company and its owner. Sale agreement The lawsuit demanded the annulment of the original sale agreement and all subsequent arrangements tied to the promised incentives, along with the full return of the BD101,000 payment, including interest for the delay. The case arose from a preliminary sale contract signed in 2023, in which the investor agreed to purchase a property unit for BD101,000, paid in two installments. On the same day, an incentive agreement was signed, promising BD13,130 in bonuses, split into two equal payments over a 12-month period, ending in April 2024. The agreement was later extended for another year, with the investor receiving quarterly payments totaling BD12,120. Buyback agreement. Additionally, a buyback agreement was signed, guaranteeing that the company would repurchase the unit for the original price. However, the company failed to meet its obligations. The project was left unfinished, ownership was never transferred, and no incentive payments were made during the extended period. With no resolution in sight, the investor turned to the courts to annul both agreements and recover the invested funds.
Daily Tribune
14-03-2025
- Business
- Daily Tribune
Court orders real estate firm to return BD101,000 to investor for failure to deliver property
A civil court has ruled in favor of an investor, ordering a real estate firm to return BD101,000 following a dispute over an undelivered property. The court annulled the 2023 sale contract, as well as incentive and buyback agreements, due to a lack of evidence that the company had fulfilled its obligations. The company is now required to pay the investor BD101,000, along with 2 percent annual interest from the date of the lawsuit in 2024 until the full amount is settled. It must also cover all legal costs and court fees associated with the case. Dispute The dispute originated when the investor paid BD101,000 for a property that was never delivered. The investor sought a refund and compensation for unpaid incentives, filing a lawsuit to nullify the sale agreement and related contracts after the company allegedly failed to complete the project, transfer ownership, or honor financial terms. According to the investor's lawyer, Rashid AlBinali, the legal action was taken against both the company and its owner. Sale agreement The lawsuit demanded the annulment of the original sale agreement and all subsequent arrangements tied to the promised incentives, along with the full return of the BD101,000 payment, including interest for the delay. The case arose from a preliminary sale contract signed in 2023, in which the investor agreed to purchase a property unit for BD101,000, paid in two installments. On the same day, an incentive agreement was signed, promising BD13,130 in bonuses, split into two equal payments over a 12-month period, ending in April 2024. The agreement was later extended for another year, with the investor receiving quarterly payments totaling BD12,120. Buyback agreement. Additionally, a buyback agreement was signed, guaranteeing that the company would repurchase the unit for the original price. However, the company failed to meet its obligations. The project was left unfinished, ownership was never transferred, and no incentive payments were made during the extended period. With no resolution in sight, the investor turned to the courts to annul both agreements and recover the invested funds.
