Latest news with #Makhdoom
Business Recorder
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Lawyer tells SC there is disconnect between SC Rules and SC Act
ISLAMABAD: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was told that there is a disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to Supreme Court's order removed, said till the time new rules are framed the judges have to follow the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. However, he told the bench that there is disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. It would be considered that the review petitions are being heard by a 13-member bench, though on the first day of hearing after preliminary arguments the two judges had dismissed the petitions and opted not to sit in the bench, adding the Court order was signed by all the 13 judges. He contended that on May 6 when the case was heard no objection was raised by any lawyer on the constitution of the bench. All the 13 members of the bench heard the case, and 11 judges issued notices to the respondents, while two judges declined. Makhdoom said the review petitions have been filed against the majority (eight judges) judgment, but the Court order was signed by all the 13 members. He said suppose tomorrow five more judges take a stance that the petitions are non-maintainable then votes of two judges will be counted and included with five judges' decision, and the Court order would by 7 to 6, but will be signed by all the 13 judges. Justice Mazhar said it was argued by the respondent's counsel that though the two judges have dismissed the review petitions, they should not be excluded from the bench. Makhdoom said if the request of the other side is accepted it will be contrary to the law laid down in the judgments of Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Panama cases. He said the two judges have decided the merit of the case; therefore, now what they will say as already explicitly have expressed their opinion, adding there is no provision of second review. 'My task is to persuade the remaining judges and not two who have recused themselves,' he said. Justice Amin again said that they have not excluded them, but as per their wish the bench was reconstituted. Earlier, Hamid Khan, representing Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued on live-streaming of the proceeding of review petitions, saying the original case was live-telecast on all TV channels, and the entire nation benefited from it. Justice Mazhar stated that the proceedings were shown live as a pilot project, as at that time Full Court in administrative side had given its approval. He said after the 26th Amendment condition has been imposed in Article 191A for framing of rules, adding unless the draft rules are approved by the Full Court, this cannot happen. Hamid Khan then argued that till the decision on petitions against 26th Amendment, the reserved seats should be adjourned. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
30-04-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
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
Express Tribune
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court's CB questions distribution of super tax funds to provinces
Listen to article The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday raised constitutional concerns over whether the federal government has the authority to allocate funds collected from the super tax to the provinces. A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case challenging the legality of the super tax and its distribution. During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned if the federal government was constitutionally permitted to distribute the super tax revenue — whether it amounted to Rs8 or Rs8 trillion — among the provinces. Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan began his arguments, stating that income tax, including the super tax, is collected without any specific allocation and is deposited into the national treasury. He argued that according to the 1973 Constitution, tax proceeds are not meant for provincial distribution unless specified. He explained that the super tax, introduced in 2016, was initially imposed to fund the rehabilitation of displaced persons. It was extended in 2017 and made open-ended in 2019, but no funds had yet been spent on the stated purpose. Makhdoom also emphasised that there is a clear difference between income tax and super tax, and that tax laws under the Income Tax Ordinance's Section 113 apply to minimum income as well. Additional Attorney General Hafiz Ahsan clarified that the current proceedings did not concern the distribution of funds, and that no court orders had been issued on the matter. Justice Aminuddin Khan asked Makhdoom how much longer he would need to conclude his arguments, to which the lawyer responded he would attempt to wrap up by the day after tomorrow. The court adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, with Makhdoom to continue presenting his case.
