Latest news with #MakhdoomAliKhan
Express Tribune
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB overrules SIC's objection to bench formation
Listen to article The Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) objection to the formation of the bench for hearing of the review petitions against the apex court's decision of granting the reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). In a short order, the 11-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, allowed the live streaming of the court proceedings in the case – also requested by the SIC – and issued instruction to the IT department make arrangements in this regard. The CB dismissed three separate miscellaneous applications of the SIC, including the one pertaining to including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan in the bench for the hearing of the review petitions. The plea for calling a meeting of the Judicial Commission to nominate new judges to the CB after the Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi declined to sit on the bench, was also rejected. The bench also rejected the plea for withholding the proceedings until decision on the 26th Amendment case. The short order of the court stated that the detailed decision would be issued later. The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday. The Supreme Court has directed the IT Department to make arrangements to broadcast the court proceedings live. Earlier during the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of the women affected by the Supreme Court's verdict on July 12, 2024 continued his arguments. He opposed delaying the proceedings, arguing that every matter before the CB was linked to the 26th Constitutional Amendment. He argued that in view of the Article 191A of the Constitution and the Practice Procedure Act, the Supreme Court Rules of 1980 did not apply to the CB. On that Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked which rule was not compatible with the new constitutional amendment. Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that the 26th Amendment recognised the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench, while in 1980 the bench did not exist. After the 26 Amendment, the CB would review the case pertaining to interpretation of the Constitution. Arguing against postponing the proceedings until the Supreme Court decision on the challenges to the 26th Amendment, Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that if the application was allowed, it would open the floodgate of the similar pleas in many other cases. It was the court's prerogative to decided which case would be heard and when, adding that no one could dictate the court. Suppose if the court grants this application, then this CB would not be able to hear any other petitions until the 26th Amendment was decided. He also opined that he still considered the current CB as a 13-member bench, and not an 11-member bench, adding that a majority of seven judges would decide on the review. As for the live streaming of the proceedings, he said it was the court's decision and that he had no objection to it. When the judges rose after Makhdoom Ali Khan finished his arguments, SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui approached the bench and in a loud voice asked whether the right to rejoinder to the reply had been abolished after the 26th Amendment. Justice Aminuddin Khan told the lawyer that the bench had heard him with great patience and if he had something to add, he could submit it in writing. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that 13-member bench had also rejected the petitions of the SIC. On that Siddiqui directly told Khan that then why the SIC was made party to the case. Justice Mandokhail, while intervening, censured Faisal Siddiqui, saying that Makhdoom Ali Khan was a senior lawyer, and that he should tone down and should not talk directly to him. On that, Siddiqui apologise to the court. He insisted that he should be listened to by the court, adding that if the two dissenting judges did not sign the final decision, its implementation would be difficult, therefore, they should be included in the bench. He further stated that hearing of the 26th Amendment case first would affect other cases before the bench. In fact, he added, every case was linked to the 26th Amendment, therefore, the case should be decided first. Later a short order of the court was announced. It stated that the detailed decision would be issued later. The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday. The bench directed the IT Department to make arrangements to show the court proceedings live.
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
- Business
- Express Tribune
CB seeks super tax distribution status
A member of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Tuesday inquired whether the federal government distributes revenue from the super tax among the provinces, and if such distribution is permissible under the law. The five-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed hearing a slew of petitions challenging the imposition of a super tax introduced in 2016 for the rehabilitation of internally displaced persons (IDPs) during Operation Zarb-e-Azb. The operation, launched by the PML-N led government in 2014, aimed to eliminate terrorist strongholds in North Waziristan. During the hearing, senior advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan - representing companies contesting the tax - began his arguments by distinguishing between income tax and super tax. He said that income tax applies regardless of income level, and that all tax revenue goes into the national treasury without a designated purpose. "Under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, even minimal income is subject to taxation," he said. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether the federal government distributes super tax revenue among the provinces, Khan responded that, according to a speech by the then finance minister, the super tax was intended solely for the rehabilitation of IDPs. "The super tax was first introduced in 2016, extended for one year in 2017, and later made indefinite in 2019 through the use of the word 'onwards'," he added. Khan argued that the tax was never intended to be distributed among provinces, and asserted that not a single rupee has yet been spent on IDP rehabilitation. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail again asked the additional attorney general whether an amountwhether it be Rs8 or Rs8 trillioncan be distributed in such a way. Earlier, Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that in the absence of a key lawyer, he had asked other counsel to proceed with arguments. However, the lawyers responded that since Makhdoom Ali Khan is a senior advocate, they would wait for him to conclude before presenting their own arguments. Justice Khan requested Makhdoom Ali Khan to try and conclude his arguments soon. Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that he follows his friend Khawaja Haris's lead and will try to conclude his arguments as quickly as possible. Smiling, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked to Makhdoom Ali Khan that he should not follow his friend, Khawaja Haris, in this matter. The Supreme Court will resume hearing today.
Express Tribune
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Super tax case hearing put off till April 7
A five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing of the intra-court appeals against the imposition of super tax until after Eid. During the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer for various companies, argued that this was not a tax but a fee, adding that imposition of social welfare taxes was a provincial matter. At the outset of the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan expressed condolences on the death of former law minister Khalid Anwar. Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned until April 7.
Express Tribune
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB orders transfer of tax appeals from high courts
For the first time after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court exercised the powers under Article 186A of the Constitution on Wednesday and ordered the transfer of the pending intra-court appeals related to super tax in the two high courts to the bench. A five-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan gave the order while hearing the appeals against super tax. The court ordered the registrars of both the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the Lahore High Court (LHC) to provide list and records of the pending tax intra-court appeals. At the outset of the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer for various companies, pointed out that cases were pending in the high courts. He added that the Supreme Court had the constitutional powers to transfer pending cases to it. Sitting on the bench, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether a written application would be required for the transfer of the cases. On that Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that under Article 186A, the Supreme Court had the constitutional authority to refer a case from a high court to the Supreme Court. Khan further said in his arguments that the government could not directly impose the super tax, as it was mandatory to give a reason for such a levy. He added that there must be exceptional circumstances for levying the super tax. The lawyer argued that the Supreme Court had declared additional tax as invalid in its several decisions, adding that imposing additional tax was also against fundamental rights. The court ordered the transfer of appeals and adjourned the hearing until Thursday (today).
