<![CDATA[Pak Tax Forums - All Forums]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/ Fri, 17 Apr 2026 04:34:46 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Term Limits for Independent Directors - English and Urdu 01-04-2026]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=57 Fri, 03 Apr 2026 13:36:18 +0200 Nasir Ansari]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=57
  • Section 166
  • Consecutive Terms
  • Term Eligibility
  • Recommendations

.pdf Term Limits for Independent Dirctors - English and Urdu -- 01-04-2026 [1-13].pdf Size: 744.57 KB  Downloads: 0
]]>
  • Section 166
  • Consecutive Terms
  • Term Eligibility
  • Recommendations

.pdf Term Limits for Independent Dirctors - English and Urdu -- 01-04-2026 [1-13].pdf Size: 744.57 KB  Downloads: 0
]]> <![CDATA[Section 111 (Necessary Procedure) - Supreme Court]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=56 Fri, 20 Mar 2026 10:04:55 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=56
2024 SCMR 700 CIR Millat Tractors

Head Notes:
2024 S C M R  700
[Supreme Court of  Pakistan]

Present:  Syed  Mansoor  Ali    Shah,  Amin-ud-Din  Khan  and    Jamal  Khan Mandokhail, JJ
COMMISSIONER  INLAND  REVENUE,  LAHORE---Appellant
Versus
Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED, LAHORE and  others---Respondents

Civil Appeals Nos.87  to 106  of 2024 in Civil  Petitions  Nos.2447-L,  2448-L,  2601- L  to  2606-L, 2765-L, 2787-L, 2834-L,  2901-L, 2915-L,  2928-L,  2944-L  to  2946-L,
2992-L  of  2022  and  Civil Petitions Nos. 646-L and  647-L of  2023,  decided  on  lst February, 2024.

(Against  the  judgment/order(s)  of Lahore  High  Court,  Lahore  dated 09.06.2022, passed  in  ITR  No.59534  of  2021,  etc.  and  dated  12.01.2023  passed  in  ITR  No.
79913 of 2022 and ITR No.  1420 of 2023).

(a)  Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of  2001)—-- ----Ss.  111  &  122  (as  it  existed  prior  to  amendment  by  the  Finance  Act,  2020)—-- Unexplained  income  or  assets---Amendment    of  an  assessment---Notices    issued under  Sections  111  &  122(9) of  the  Income  Tax  Ordinance,  2001 (  Ordinance  )--- Whether  a  separate  notice  is  required  under  Section  111  of  the  Ordinance  or whether  a  notice  under  Section  122(9)  is  enough  to  initiate  proceedings  for amendment  of  the  assessment  on  the  grounds  mentioned  in  Section  111  of  the Ordinance---Held,  that  the  proceedings  under  Sections  111  &  122  of  the  Income Tax  Ordinance,  2001 (  Ordinance  )  are  different  and  distinguishable  in  nature  and cannot  be subsumed---Before  an assessment  can be amended  under  Section  122 on the  basis  of  Section  111, the  proceedings  under  Section  111(1)  are  to  be  initiated, the  taxpayer  is  to  be  confronted  with  the  information  and  the  grounds  applicable under  Section  111(1)  through  a  separate  notice  under  the  said  provision,  and  then the  proceedings  are  to  be  culminated  through  an  appropriate  order  in  the  shape  of an  opinion  of  the  Commissioner---This  then  becomes  definite  information  for  the purposes  of Section  122(5), provided  the  grounds  mentioned  in Section  122(5) are applicable---The  taxpayer  is  then  to  be  confronted  with  these  grounds  through  a notice  under  Section  122(9)  and  only  then  can  an  assessment  be  amended  under Section  122. The  initiation  and  culmination  of  proceedings  under  Section  111  of  the  Income Tax  Ordinance,  2001 (  Ordinance  )  becomes  necessary  before  action  can  be  taken under  Section  122  to  amend  assessments  on  the  basis  of  proceedings  undertaken under  Section  111.  The  information  available  with  the  department  under  Section 111(1)  is  mere  information.  It  is  only  after  the  taxpayer  is  confronted  with  this information  through  a  separate  notice  by  calling  for  an  explanation,  and  when  no explanation  is  offered  or  the  explanation  is  not  satisfactory  in  the  opinion  of  the Commissioner  under  Section  111(1), that  it  transforms  or  crystallizes  into  definite information  for  the  purposes  of  action  under  Section  122(5)  for  amendment  of assessment  under  Section  122.  The  taxpayer  will  then  be  confronted  with  the grounds  applicable  under  Section  122(5)  through  a  notice  under  Section  122(9)  of the Ordinance.  As such, where  the Commissioner  has formed  an opinion  against  the taxpayer  as to  the  fulfilment  of  one  of  the  grounds  mentioned  in  Section  lll(l)(a) to (d)  of the Ordinance,  and  is of the view  that any  of the grounds  in Section  122(5) is applicable,  the process  under  Section  122 is to be initiated  to amend  assessments through  a  notice  under  Section  122(9).  Thus,  unless  the  proceedings  under  Section 111(1)  are  initiated  and  completed,  Section  122(5)  cannot  be  given  effect  to  and  no notice  under  Section  122(9)  can  be  issued  for  the  purposes    of  amending  an assessment    through    an  addition    contemplated    under  Section    111.  After  the amendment  introduced  in Section  122(5)  of the Ordinance  through  the Finance Act, 2020, the  words definite information acquired from an  audit or  otherwise have been substituted  with  audit  or  on  the  basis  of  definite  information  .  Therefore,  the interpretation  rendered  above  as  to  the  applicability  of  Section  122(5)  may  not  be applicable  to cases  post  2020  and the effect  of the  substituted  expression  will have to be determined  in an appropriate  case in the future. Commissioner    Inland    Revenue    v.    Bashir    Ahmed    2021      SCMR    1290; Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  Faqir  Hussain  2019  PTD  1282;  Commissioner
Inland  Revenue  v. Ranipur  CNG  Station  2017 PTD  1839 and  Commissioner  Inland Revenue  v. Muhammad  Shafique  2015 PTD  1823 ref. Before  an assessment  can  be amended  under  Section  122 on the basis  of Section 111,  the  proceedings  under  Section  111(1)  are to be  initiated,  the  taxpayer  is  to be confronted  with  the  information  and  the  grounds  applicable  under  Section  111(1) through  a  separate  notice  under  the  said  provision,  and  then  the  proceedings  are to be  culminated  through  an  appropriate  order  in  the  shape  of  an  opinion  of  the Commissioner.  This  then  becomes  definite  information  for  the  purposes  of  Section 122(5),  provided  the  grounds  mentioned  in  Section  122(5)  are  applicable.  The taxpayer  is then to be confronted  with these grounds  through  a notice under  Section 122(9)  and  only  then  can  an  assessment  be  amended  under  Section  122.  A  notice under  Section  111  can be simultaneously  issued  with  a  notice  under  Section  122(9), however,  proceedings  under  Section  111  have  to  be  finalized  first  in  terms  of  an opinion  of  the  Commissioner  so  as to  constitute  definite  information,  as  is  required under Section  122(5)  of the Ordinance. Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  Falah  2021  PTD  192;  Commissioner  Inland Revenue  V.  Faqir  Hussain  2019  PTD  1828;  Commissioner    Inland  Revenue  v. Ranipur  CNG  Station  2017 PTD  1839  and  Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v. Bashir Ahmed  2021 SCMR  1290 ref. Even  where  a notice  under  Section  111 is issued  simultaneously  with  a notice  to
amend  an assessment  under  Section  122(9)  of the Ordinance,  no proceedings  can be undertaken  under  the  latter  until  the  proceedings  under  Section  111  are  finalized
and result  in an opinion  against  the taxpayer.  This is because,  even  if some  basis for action  under  Section  111  is  mentioned  in  a  notice  under  Section  122(9),  it  cannot
constitute  definite  information  for the purposes  of Section  122(5).  The  proceedings under  the  notice  issued  under  Section  122(9)  can  only  be  formally  initiated  when the  requirement  of  definite  information  is  satisfied  under  Section  122(5)  after finalization    of  the  proceedings  under  Section  111  through  an  opinion  of  the Commissioner.  Therefore,  where  no  opinion  is  formed  against  the  taxpayer  under Section  111,  the  proceedings  under  both  provisions  i.e.,  Sections  111  and  122
would  lapse,  and  the  notice  under  Section  122(9)  would  be  of  no  legal  effect. Where,  however,  there  is  an  opinion  formed  against  the  taxpayer  as  definite information  for  the  purposes  of  Section  122(5),  the  proceedings  on  the  notice issued  under  Section  122(9)  can  formally  proceed  and  shall  be  deemed  to  have commenced.  It  must  also  be  noted  that  where  the  opinion  formed  against  the taxpayer  under  Section  111 is materially  different  from  what  has been confronted  to the  taxpayer  through  the  notice  already  issued  under  Section  122(9),  and  the Commissioner  is of the View that  another  or  different  ground  under  Section  122(5) is  applicable,  a  fresh  or  supplementary  show  cause  notice  under  Section  122(9) must  be  issued  to the  taxpayer  by confronting  such  ground(s)  to  the taxpayer.  This is in view  of the right to be treated  in accordance  with  the law,  and the principles  of fair  trial  and  due  process  enshrined  in  Articles  4  and  10A  of  the  Constitution, respectively,  and  in terms  of settled  law that once  a show cause  notice is issued,  the original  adjudication  on  the  said  show  cause  notice  can  only  be  based  on  the grounds  and allegations  levelled  therein. Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  RYK  Mills  2023    SCMR  1856;    Collector Central Excise v.  Rahm Din  1987  SCMR 1840  and  Commissioner Inland Revenue v.  Rose Food Industries 2023 SCMR 2070 ref. Two  provisos  have  been  added  after  Section  122(9)  through  the  Finance  Act, 2021 and further  amended  through  the Finance Act,  2022,  which  provide  for a time period  from  the  date  of  issuance  a  show  cause  notice  for  making  an  order  under Section  122.  The  said  time  period  is  to  be  considered  as  commencing  on  the  day that the taxpayer  is confronted  with the opinion  formed  by the Commissioner  under Section  111(1),  as  it  is  only  then  that  the  proceedings  under  Section  122  are  to  be formally  taken  up.  This  reconciliation  harmonizes  Section  111,  its Explanation  and Section  122(5) of the Ordinance.

(b)  Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of  2001)--- ----Ss.  111,  Explanation  &  l22---Explanation    introduced  in  Section  111  of  the Income  Tax  Ordinance,  2001  (  Ordinance  )  pursuant  to  the  Finance  Act,  2021--- Effect---On  a  plain  reading  of the  said  Explanation,  it  appears  that  it  is couched  in clarificatory  and  declaratory  terms  for  removal  of  doubt  ---However,  the  intention behind  the Explanation  and  the effect of adding  the Explanation  is to take away  the right  to  a  separate  notice  and  proceedings  under  Section  111  if  the  grounds  under Section  111(1)(a)  to  (d)  are  confronted  to  the  taxpayer  through  a  notice  under Section  122(9)  of  the  Ordinance---Therefore,  in  essence,  it  abridges  the  right  to  a separate  notice  and  proceedings  under  Section  111 of the Ordinance,  which  was the requirement    of  the  law---As    a  consequence,    the  Explanation    takes  away  a substantive  right  of  separate  proceedings  of  the  taxpayer,  which  otherwise  existed prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Explanation  in  Section  111---Explanation  added  in Section  111 of the Ordinance  divests  and  affects  a substantive  right  of the  taxpayer to  a  separate  notice  and  proceedings  under  Section  111,  thus,  the  same  would  not have    retrospective    effect    and    would    apply    prospectively---Effect      of    the Explanation,  therefore,  is only  to dispense  with the requirement  of a separate  notice under  Section  111,  however,  it  cannot  subsume  two  different  and  distinguishable proceedings  under  Sections  111  &  122---As  such,  while  the  Explanation  dispenses with  the  requirement  of  a  separate  notice  under  Section  111,  it  does  not  dispense with  the  requirement  that  in case proceedings  are  initiated  under  Section  122(5)  on the  basis  of  definite    information    to  be  provided    through    Section  111,  the proceedings  under  Section  111  are  to  be  concluded  first  in  the  manner  provided under  the  law  and  till  such  time,  the  proceedings  under  Section  122(9)  cannot  be given  effect  to---Therefore,    as  far  as  the  cases  prior  to  the  Explanation    are concerned,  a  separate  notice  is  required  to  be  issued  under  Section  111  before proceedings  can  be  initiated  under  Section  122---Simultaneity  of  notices  issued under  Sections  111 & 122(9) is not of much  consequence  and the proceedings  under Section  111 have  to proceed  first  and  be finalized  before  proceedings  under  Section 122  are  formally  taken  up---After  the  introduction  of  the  Explanation  in  Section 111 in the year  2021,  a notice  encompassing  both the grounds  under Section  111(1) and  Section  122(5)  can  be  issued  under  Section  122(9),  however,  the  proceedings under  Section  111  still have  to be concluded  first  and  thereafter  the  remaining  part of the notice under  Section  122(9) can be given  effect  to.

©  Interpretation of  statutes--- ----Exp1anation  to an enactment---Rationale  and  scope---Purpose  of an Explanation is ordinarily  to explain  some  concept  or expression  or phrase  occurring  in the main provision---It  is  not  uncommon  for  the  legislature  to  accord  either  an  extended  or restricted  meaning  to  such  concept  or  expression  by  inserting  an  appropriate Explanation---Such  a  clarificatory  provision  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  its own  terms  having  regard  to  its  context  and  not  as  to  widen  the  ambit  of  the provision---As  a general  rule,  an explanation  added  to a statutory  provision  is not a substantive  provision  in any sense  of the term but as the plain  meaning  of the word itself  shows,  it is merely  meant  to explain  or clarify  certain  ambiguities  which  may have  crept  in  the  statutory  provision---Object    of  adding  an  Explanation  to  a statutory  provision  is  only  to  facilitate  its  proper  interpretation  and  to  remove confusion  and  misunderstanding  as  to  its  true  nature---It  is  relied  upon  only  as  a useful  guide  or  in  aid  to  the  construction  of  the  main  provision---It  is  in this  view of  its  effect  that  courts    have  normally    given    retrospective    effect    to  such clarificatory  or  declaratory  provisions  in  the  shape  of  an  Explanation---However, where  the effect  of the Explanation  warps  out of its normal  purpose  explained  above, and  acts  as  a  substantive  enactment  or  deeming  provision,  or  enlarges  substantive provisions  of  law  or  creates  new  liabilities,  such  an  Explanation  cannot  be  given retrospective  effect  unless  the  express  language  of  the  Explanation  warrants  such an interpretation.
M.N.  Rao  and  Amita  Dhanda  in  N  S  Bindra's  -  Interpretation  of  Statutes  (12th Edition, 2016);  Rehman Cotton Mills v.  Federation of  Pakistan 2016  PTD 1256;  M. P. Tandon  - Interpretation  of Statutes  (12th  Edition,  2019);  Rehman  Cotton  Mills  V. Federation  of  Pakistan  2016  PTD  1256;  Hussain  Patel  v.  Habib  PLD  1981  SC  1; Chief  Administrator    Auqaf  v.  Koura  PLD  1991  SC  596;  Hamid  Ashraf  v. Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  2020  SCMR  843;  Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  v. Asbestos  Cement  Industries  1993  SCMR  1276; Kohinoor  Sugar  Mills v. Federation of  Pakistan  2018  PTD  821;  Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  Trillium  Pakistan 2019  SCMR  1643  and  Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  V.  Nazir  Ahmed  and  Sons 2004 PTD  921  ref.
(d) Interpretation of  statutes--- ----Retrospective  and  prospective  application  of  law---Principles---A  change  in substantive  law which divests  and adversely  affects  vested rights  of the parties  shall always  have  prospective  application  unless  by  express  word  of  the  legislation and/or  by  necessary  intendment/  implication  such  law  has  been  made  applicable retrospectively---As  a  cardinal  principle  of  interpretation  of  statutes,  tax  statutes operate  prospectively    and  not  retrospectively    unless  clearly  indicated  by  the legislature,  therefore,  retrospectivity  cannot  be  presumed---Where  an  insertion  or deletion  of any  provision  in the  rules  or the law  is merely  procedural  in nature,  the same  would  apply  retrospectively  but  not  if  it  affects  substantive  rights  which already  stood  accrued  at  the  time  when  the  un-amended  rule  or  provision  was  in vogue---A    provision    curtailing    substantive    rights    does    not  have    retroactive operation  unless  the  legislature  elects  to  give  it  retrospective  effect---Thus,  where existing  rights  are  affected  or giving  retroactive  operation  causes  inconvenience  or injustice,  the Court  will not favour  an interpretation  giving retrospective  effect  even where  the provision  is procedural.]]>
2024 SCMR 700 CIR Millat Tractors

Head Notes:
2024 S C M R  700
[Supreme Court of  Pakistan]

Present:  Syed  Mansoor  Ali    Shah,  Amin-ud-Din  Khan  and    Jamal  Khan Mandokhail, JJ
COMMISSIONER  INLAND  REVENUE,  LAHORE---Appellant
Versus
Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED, LAHORE and  others---Respondents

Civil Appeals Nos.87  to 106  of 2024 in Civil  Petitions  Nos.2447-L,  2448-L,  2601- L  to  2606-L, 2765-L, 2787-L, 2834-L,  2901-L, 2915-L,  2928-L,  2944-L  to  2946-L,
2992-L  of  2022  and  Civil Petitions Nos. 646-L and  647-L of  2023,  decided  on  lst February, 2024.

(Against  the  judgment/order(s)  of Lahore  High  Court,  Lahore  dated 09.06.2022, passed  in  ITR  No.59534  of  2021,  etc.  and  dated  12.01.2023  passed  in  ITR  No.
79913 of 2022 and ITR No.  1420 of 2023).

(a)  Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of  2001)—-- ----Ss.  111  &  122  (as  it  existed  prior  to  amendment  by  the  Finance  Act,  2020)—-- Unexplained  income  or  assets---Amendment    of  an  assessment---Notices    issued under  Sections  111  &  122(9) of  the  Income  Tax  Ordinance,  2001 (  Ordinance  )--- Whether  a  separate  notice  is  required  under  Section  111  of  the  Ordinance  or whether  a  notice  under  Section  122(9)  is  enough  to  initiate  proceedings  for amendment  of  the  assessment  on  the  grounds  mentioned  in  Section  111  of  the Ordinance---Held,  that  the  proceedings  under  Sections  111  &  122  of  the  Income Tax  Ordinance,  2001 (  Ordinance  )  are  different  and  distinguishable  in  nature  and cannot  be subsumed---Before  an assessment  can be amended  under  Section  122 on the  basis  of  Section  111, the  proceedings  under  Section  111(1)  are  to  be  initiated, the  taxpayer  is  to  be  confronted  with  the  information  and  the  grounds  applicable under  Section  111(1)  through  a  separate  notice  under  the  said  provision,  and  then the  proceedings  are  to  be  culminated  through  an  appropriate  order  in  the  shape  of an  opinion  of  the  Commissioner---This  then  becomes  definite  information  for  the purposes  of Section  122(5), provided  the  grounds  mentioned  in Section  122(5) are applicable---The  taxpayer  is  then  to  be  confronted  with  these  grounds  through  a notice  under  Section  122(9)  and  only  then  can  an  assessment  be  amended  under Section  122. The  initiation  and  culmination  of  proceedings  under  Section  111  of  the  Income Tax  Ordinance,  2001 (  Ordinance  )  becomes  necessary  before  action  can  be  taken under  Section  122  to  amend  assessments  on  the  basis  of  proceedings  undertaken under  Section  111.  The  information  available  with  the  department  under  Section 111(1)  is  mere  information.  It  is  only  after  the  taxpayer  is  confronted  with  this information  through  a  separate  notice  by  calling  for  an  explanation,  and  when  no explanation  is  offered  or  the  explanation  is  not  satisfactory  in  the  opinion  of  the Commissioner  under  Section  111(1), that  it  transforms  or  crystallizes  into  definite information  for  the  purposes  of  action  under  Section  122(5)  for  amendment  of assessment  under  Section  122.  The  taxpayer  will  then  be  confronted  with  the grounds  applicable  under  Section  122(5)  through  a  notice  under  Section  122(9)  of the Ordinance.  As such, where  the Commissioner  has formed  an opinion  against  the taxpayer  as to  the  fulfilment  of  one  of  the  grounds  mentioned  in  Section  lll(l)(a) to (d)  of the Ordinance,  and  is of the view  that any  of the grounds  in Section  122(5) is applicable,  the process  under  Section  122 is to be initiated  to amend  assessments through  a  notice  under  Section  122(9).  Thus,  unless  the  proceedings  under  Section 111(1)  are  initiated  and  completed,  Section  122(5)  cannot  be  given  effect  to  and  no notice  under  Section  122(9)  can  be  issued  for  the  purposes    of  amending  an assessment    through    an  addition    contemplated    under  Section    111.  After  the amendment  introduced  in Section  122(5)  of the Ordinance  through  the Finance Act, 2020, the  words definite information acquired from an  audit or  otherwise have been substituted  with  audit  or  on  the  basis  of  definite  information  .  Therefore,  the interpretation  rendered  above  as  to  the  applicability  of  Section  122(5)  may  not  be applicable  to cases  post  2020  and the effect  of the  substituted  expression  will have to be determined  in an appropriate  case in the future. Commissioner    Inland    Revenue    v.    Bashir    Ahmed    2021      SCMR    1290; Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  Faqir  Hussain  2019  PTD  1282;  Commissioner
Inland  Revenue  v. Ranipur  CNG  Station  2017 PTD  1839 and  Commissioner  Inland Revenue  v. Muhammad  Shafique  2015 PTD  1823 ref. Before  an assessment  can  be amended  under  Section  122 on the basis  of Section 111,  the  proceedings  under  Section  111(1)  are to be  initiated,  the  taxpayer  is  to be confronted  with  the  information  and  the  grounds  applicable  under  Section  111(1) through  a  separate  notice  under  the  said  provision,  and  then  the  proceedings  are to be  culminated  through  an  appropriate  order  in  the  shape  of  an  opinion  of  the Commissioner.  This  then  becomes  definite  information  for  the  purposes  of  Section 122(5),  provided  the  grounds  mentioned  in  Section  122(5)  are  applicable.  The taxpayer  is then to be confronted  with these grounds  through  a notice under  Section 122(9)  and  only  then  can  an  assessment  be  amended  under  Section  122.  A  notice under  Section  111  can be simultaneously  issued  with  a  notice  under  Section  122(9), however,  proceedings  under  Section  111  have  to  be  finalized  first  in  terms  of  an opinion  of  the  Commissioner  so  as to  constitute  definite  information,  as  is  required under Section  122(5)  of the Ordinance. Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  Falah  2021  PTD  192;  Commissioner  Inland Revenue  V.  Faqir  Hussain  2019  PTD  1828;  Commissioner    Inland  Revenue  v. Ranipur  CNG  Station  2017 PTD  1839  and  Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v. Bashir Ahmed  2021 SCMR  1290 ref. Even  where  a notice  under  Section  111 is issued  simultaneously  with  a notice  to
amend  an assessment  under  Section  122(9)  of the Ordinance,  no proceedings  can be undertaken  under  the  latter  until  the  proceedings  under  Section  111  are  finalized
and result  in an opinion  against  the taxpayer.  This is because,  even  if some  basis for action  under  Section  111  is  mentioned  in  a  notice  under  Section  122(9),  it  cannot
constitute  definite  information  for the purposes  of Section  122(5).  The  proceedings under  the  notice  issued  under  Section  122(9)  can  only  be  formally  initiated  when the  requirement  of  definite  information  is  satisfied  under  Section  122(5)  after finalization    of  the  proceedings  under  Section  111  through  an  opinion  of  the Commissioner.  Therefore,  where  no  opinion  is  formed  against  the  taxpayer  under Section  111,  the  proceedings  under  both  provisions  i.e.,  Sections  111  and  122
would  lapse,  and  the  notice  under  Section  122(9)  would  be  of  no  legal  effect. Where,  however,  there  is  an  opinion  formed  against  the  taxpayer  as  definite information  for  the  purposes  of  Section  122(5),  the  proceedings  on  the  notice issued  under  Section  122(9)  can  formally  proceed  and  shall  be  deemed  to  have commenced.  It  must  also  be  noted  that  where  the  opinion  formed  against  the taxpayer  under  Section  111 is materially  different  from  what  has been confronted  to the  taxpayer  through  the  notice  already  issued  under  Section  122(9),  and  the Commissioner  is of the View that  another  or  different  ground  under  Section  122(5) is  applicable,  a  fresh  or  supplementary  show  cause  notice  under  Section  122(9) must  be  issued  to the  taxpayer  by confronting  such  ground(s)  to  the taxpayer.  This is in view  of the right to be treated  in accordance  with  the law,  and the principles  of fair  trial  and  due  process  enshrined  in  Articles  4  and  10A  of  the  Constitution, respectively,  and  in terms  of settled  law that once  a show cause  notice is issued,  the original  adjudication  on  the  said  show  cause  notice  can  only  be  based  on  the grounds  and allegations  levelled  therein. Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  RYK  Mills  2023    SCMR  1856;    Collector Central Excise v.  Rahm Din  1987  SCMR 1840  and  Commissioner Inland Revenue v.  Rose Food Industries 2023 SCMR 2070 ref. Two  provisos  have  been  added  after  Section  122(9)  through  the  Finance  Act, 2021 and further  amended  through  the Finance Act,  2022,  which  provide  for a time period  from  the  date  of  issuance  a  show  cause  notice  for  making  an  order  under Section  122.  The  said  time  period  is  to  be  considered  as  commencing  on  the  day that the taxpayer  is confronted  with the opinion  formed  by the Commissioner  under Section  111(1),  as  it  is  only  then  that  the  proceedings  under  Section  122  are  to  be formally  taken  up.  This  reconciliation  harmonizes  Section  111,  its Explanation  and Section  122(5) of the Ordinance.

(b)  Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of  2001)--- ----Ss.  111,  Explanation  &  l22---Explanation    introduced  in  Section  111  of  the Income  Tax  Ordinance,  2001  (  Ordinance  )  pursuant  to  the  Finance  Act,  2021--- Effect---On  a  plain  reading  of the  said  Explanation,  it  appears  that  it  is couched  in clarificatory  and  declaratory  terms  for  removal  of  doubt  ---However,  the  intention behind  the Explanation  and  the effect of adding  the Explanation  is to take away  the right  to  a  separate  notice  and  proceedings  under  Section  111  if  the  grounds  under Section  111(1)(a)  to  (d)  are  confronted  to  the  taxpayer  through  a  notice  under Section  122(9)  of  the  Ordinance---Therefore,  in  essence,  it  abridges  the  right  to  a separate  notice  and  proceedings  under  Section  111 of the Ordinance,  which  was the requirement    of  the  law---As    a  consequence,    the  Explanation    takes  away  a substantive  right  of  separate  proceedings  of  the  taxpayer,  which  otherwise  existed prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Explanation  in  Section  111---Explanation  added  in Section  111 of the Ordinance  divests  and  affects  a substantive  right  of the  taxpayer to  a  separate  notice  and  proceedings  under  Section  111,  thus,  the  same  would  not have    retrospective    effect    and    would    apply    prospectively---Effect      of    the Explanation,  therefore,  is only  to dispense  with the requirement  of a separate  notice under  Section  111,  however,  it  cannot  subsume  two  different  and  distinguishable proceedings  under  Sections  111  &  122---As  such,  while  the  Explanation  dispenses with  the  requirement  of  a  separate  notice  under  Section  111,  it  does  not  dispense with  the  requirement  that  in case proceedings  are  initiated  under  Section  122(5)  on the  basis  of  definite    information    to  be  provided    through    Section  111,  the proceedings  under  Section  111  are  to  be  concluded  first  in  the  manner  provided under  the  law  and  till  such  time,  the  proceedings  under  Section  122(9)  cannot  be given  effect  to---Therefore,    as  far  as  the  cases  prior  to  the  Explanation    are concerned,  a  separate  notice  is  required  to  be  issued  under  Section  111  before proceedings  can  be  initiated  under  Section  122---Simultaneity  of  notices  issued under  Sections  111 & 122(9) is not of much  consequence  and the proceedings  under Section  111 have  to proceed  first  and  be finalized  before  proceedings  under  Section 122  are  formally  taken  up---After  the  introduction  of  the  Explanation  in  Section 111 in the year  2021,  a notice  encompassing  both the grounds  under Section  111(1) and  Section  122(5)  can  be  issued  under  Section  122(9),  however,  the  proceedings under  Section  111  still have  to be concluded  first  and  thereafter  the  remaining  part of the notice under  Section  122(9) can be given  effect  to.

©  Interpretation of  statutes--- ----Exp1anation  to an enactment---Rationale  and  scope---Purpose  of an Explanation is ordinarily  to explain  some  concept  or expression  or phrase  occurring  in the main provision---It  is  not  uncommon  for  the  legislature  to  accord  either  an  extended  or restricted  meaning  to  such  concept  or  expression  by  inserting  an  appropriate Explanation---Such  a  clarificatory  provision  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  its own  terms  having  regard  to  its  context  and  not  as  to  widen  the  ambit  of  the provision---As  a general  rule,  an explanation  added  to a statutory  provision  is not a substantive  provision  in any sense  of the term but as the plain  meaning  of the word itself  shows,  it is merely  meant  to explain  or clarify  certain  ambiguities  which  may have  crept  in  the  statutory  provision---Object    of  adding  an  Explanation  to  a statutory  provision  is  only  to  facilitate  its  proper  interpretation  and  to  remove confusion  and  misunderstanding  as  to  its  true  nature---It  is  relied  upon  only  as  a useful  guide  or  in  aid  to  the  construction  of  the  main  provision---It  is  in this  view of  its  effect  that  courts    have  normally    given    retrospective    effect    to  such clarificatory  or  declaratory  provisions  in  the  shape  of  an  Explanation---However, where  the effect  of the Explanation  warps  out of its normal  purpose  explained  above, and  acts  as  a  substantive  enactment  or  deeming  provision,  or  enlarges  substantive provisions  of  law  or  creates  new  liabilities,  such  an  Explanation  cannot  be  given retrospective  effect  unless  the  express  language  of  the  Explanation  warrants  such an interpretation.
M.N.  Rao  and  Amita  Dhanda  in  N  S  Bindra's  -  Interpretation  of  Statutes  (12th Edition, 2016);  Rehman Cotton Mills v.  Federation of  Pakistan 2016  PTD 1256;  M. P. Tandon  - Interpretation  of Statutes  (12th  Edition,  2019);  Rehman  Cotton  Mills  V. Federation  of  Pakistan  2016  PTD  1256;  Hussain  Patel  v.  Habib  PLD  1981  SC  1; Chief  Administrator    Auqaf  v.  Koura  PLD  1991  SC  596;  Hamid  Ashraf  v. Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  2020  SCMR  843;  Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  v. Asbestos  Cement  Industries  1993  SCMR  1276; Kohinoor  Sugar  Mills v. Federation of  Pakistan  2018  PTD  821;  Commissioner  Inland  Revenue  v.  Trillium  Pakistan 2019  SCMR  1643  and  Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  V.  Nazir  Ahmed  and  Sons 2004 PTD  921  ref.
(d) Interpretation of  statutes--- ----Retrospective  and  prospective  application  of  law---Principles---A  change  in substantive  law which divests  and adversely  affects  vested rights  of the parties  shall always  have  prospective  application  unless  by  express  word  of  the  legislation and/or  by  necessary  intendment/  implication  such  law  has  been  made  applicable retrospectively---As  a  cardinal  principle  of  interpretation  of  statutes,  tax  statutes operate  prospectively    and  not  retrospectively    unless  clearly  indicated  by  the legislature,  therefore,  retrospectivity  cannot  be  presumed---Where  an  insertion  or deletion  of any  provision  in the  rules  or the law  is merely  procedural  in nature,  the same  would  apply  retrospectively  but  not  if  it  affects  substantive  rights  which already  stood  accrued  at  the  time  when  the  un-amended  rule  or  provision  was  in vogue---A    provision    curtailing    substantive    rights    does    not  have    retroactive operation  unless  the  legislature  elects  to  give  it  retrospective  effect---Thus,  where existing  rights  are  affected  or giving  retroactive  operation  causes  inconvenience  or injustice,  the Court  will not favour  an interpretation  giving retrospective  effect  even where  the provision  is procedural.]]> <![CDATA[Section 111 decision by Supreme Court]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=55 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:13:14 +0100 UnifiedGroup]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=55
یہ مقدمہ دراصل ٹیکس قانون کی تشریح اور اطلاق سے متعلق ایک اہم قانونی تنازع تھا، جس میں کمشنر ان لینڈ ریونیو اور میاں لیاقت علی، پروپرائٹر لیاقت ہسپتال لاہور آمنے سامنے تھے۔ معاملہ اس وقت پیدا ہوا جب ٹیکس دہندہ نے ٹیکس سال 2016 سے 2018 تک اپنی ریٹرنز جمع کروائیں۔ بعد ازاں ٹیکس حکام کو ایک شکایت موصول ہوئی جس میں یہ الزام لگایا گیا کہ ٹیکس دہندہ نے اپنے کاروبار سے حاصل ہونے والی کچھ سیلز کو ظاہر نہیں کیا اور یوں اپنی قابلِ ٹیکس آمدنی کو کم ظاہر کیا۔ اس اطلاع کی بنیاد پر متعلقہ ان لینڈ ریونیو افسر نے انکم ٹیکس آرڈیننس 2001 کی دفعہ 122(5) کے تحت کارروائی شروع کی، جو اس صورت میں اسیسمنٹ میں ترمیم کی اجازت دیتی ہے جب ٹیکس حکام کو یہ معلوم ہو جائے کہ کوئی آمدنی ٹیکس سے بچ گئی ہے۔
نوٹس کے جواب میں ٹیکس دہندہ نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اگرچہ کچھ سیلز ظاہر نہیں ہوئیں، تاہم کسی بھی کاروباری سرگرمی میں سیلز بذاتِ خود آمدنی نہیں ہوتیں بلکہ ان سے وابستہ اخراجات اور لاگت کو منہا کرنے کے بعد جو رقم بچتی ہے وہی حقیقی آمدنی یا منافع تصور ہوتی ہے۔ اس لیے اگر کوئی پوشیدہ سیلز موجود بھی ہوں تو ٹیکس کا تعین صرف اس نیٹ انکم پر کیا جانا چاہیے جو اخراجات اور لاگت نکالنے کے بعد باقی رہتی ہے۔
تاہم ٹیکس افسر نے کارروائی کا رخ تبدیل کرتے ہوئے معاملہ انکم ٹیکس آرڈیننس کی دفعہ 111(1)(d) کے تحت لے گیا۔ اس دفعہ کے تحت اگر کسی شخص کی آمدنی یا سیلز چھپائی گئی ہوں اور وہ اس کی تسلی بخش وضاحت فراہم نہ کر سکے تو اس رقم کو اس کی قابلِ ٹیکس آمدنی میں شامل کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ ٹیکس حکام نے اس دفعہ کی تشریح کرتے ہوئے یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ چونکہ سیلز چھپائی گئی ہیں اس لیے پوری سیلز کو ہی آمدنی تصور کر کے اس پر ٹیکس عائد کیا جا سکتا ہے، اور اس میں کسی قسم کی لاگت یا اخراجات کی کٹوتی قابلِ قبول نہیں ہوگی۔
اس فیصلے کے خلاف ٹیکس دہندہ نے پہلے کمشنر اپیلز اور پھر ایپیلیٹ ٹریبونل ان لینڈ ریونیو سے رجوع کیا۔ ٹریبونل نے قرار دیا کہ ٹیکس حکام کی یہ تشریح درست نہیں، کیونکہ کاروباری لین دین میں سیلز اور آمدنی ایک ہی چیز نہیں ہوتیں۔ ٹریبونل کے مطابق سیلز کے ساتھ لازماً لاگت اور اخراجات منسلک ہوتے ہیں، اس لیے پورے سیلز کو آمدنی قرار دے کر ٹیکس عائد کرنا قانون اور ٹیکس کے بنیادی اصولوں کے منافی ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے بھی ٹریبونل کے اس مؤقف کی توثیق کی۔
بالآخر یہ معاملہ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کے سامنے آیا، جہاں عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قانون کی جامع تشریح کرتے ہوئے یہ اصول واضح کیا کہ انکم ٹیکس کا بنیادی تصور آمدنی (Income) پر مبنی ہے، نہ کہ محض وصولیوں یا سیلز (Gross Receipts) پر۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ دفعہ 111(1)(d) کی تشریح اس انداز میں نہیں کی جا سکتی کہ ہر صورت میں پوری سیلز کو ہی قابلِ ٹیکس آمدنی سمجھ لیا جائے۔ اگر سیلز یا پیداوار کو بنیاد بنایا بھی جائے تو اس کے ساتھ وابستہ اخراجات اور لاگت کو مدنظر رکھنا ضروری ہے، کیونکہ حقیقی آمدنی وہی ہوتی ہے جو اخراجات منہا کرنے کے بعد باقی رہتی ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ نے مزید یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ اگر ٹیکس حکام کو یہ اختیار دے دیا جائے کہ وہ بیک وقت مختلف قانونی دفعات استعمال کرتے ہوئے کبھی نیٹ آمدنی اور کبھی مجموعی وصولیوں کو بنیاد بنا کر ٹیکس عائد کریں، تو یہ اختیار غیر محدود صوابدید (Unfettered Discretion) میں تبدیل ہو جائے گا جو قانون کے اصولِ مساوات اور منصفانہ ٹیکس نظام کے منافی ہے۔ اسی بنیاد پر عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ٹیکس حکام کی جانب سے پوری سیلز کو آمدنی قرار دینا درست قانونی مؤقف نہیں تھا۔
چنانچہ سپریم کورٹ نے ٹیکس حکام کی اپیل مسترد کرتے ہوئے ٹریبونل اور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا اور یہ اصول قائم کیا کہ دفعہ 111(1)(d) کے اطلاق کے باوجود ٹیکس کا تعین حقیقی آمدنی یعنی نیٹ انکم کی بنیاد پر ہی کیا جائے گا، نہ کہ مجموعی سیلز یا گراس رسیٹس کی بنیاد پر۔
Hamid Ullah Khan
CEO
Unified Group
03004020902]]>
یہ مقدمہ دراصل ٹیکس قانون کی تشریح اور اطلاق سے متعلق ایک اہم قانونی تنازع تھا، جس میں کمشنر ان لینڈ ریونیو اور میاں لیاقت علی، پروپرائٹر لیاقت ہسپتال لاہور آمنے سامنے تھے۔ معاملہ اس وقت پیدا ہوا جب ٹیکس دہندہ نے ٹیکس سال 2016 سے 2018 تک اپنی ریٹرنز جمع کروائیں۔ بعد ازاں ٹیکس حکام کو ایک شکایت موصول ہوئی جس میں یہ الزام لگایا گیا کہ ٹیکس دہندہ نے اپنے کاروبار سے حاصل ہونے والی کچھ سیلز کو ظاہر نہیں کیا اور یوں اپنی قابلِ ٹیکس آمدنی کو کم ظاہر کیا۔ اس اطلاع کی بنیاد پر متعلقہ ان لینڈ ریونیو افسر نے انکم ٹیکس آرڈیننس 2001 کی دفعہ 122(5) کے تحت کارروائی شروع کی، جو اس صورت میں اسیسمنٹ میں ترمیم کی اجازت دیتی ہے جب ٹیکس حکام کو یہ معلوم ہو جائے کہ کوئی آمدنی ٹیکس سے بچ گئی ہے۔
نوٹس کے جواب میں ٹیکس دہندہ نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اگرچہ کچھ سیلز ظاہر نہیں ہوئیں، تاہم کسی بھی کاروباری سرگرمی میں سیلز بذاتِ خود آمدنی نہیں ہوتیں بلکہ ان سے وابستہ اخراجات اور لاگت کو منہا کرنے کے بعد جو رقم بچتی ہے وہی حقیقی آمدنی یا منافع تصور ہوتی ہے۔ اس لیے اگر کوئی پوشیدہ سیلز موجود بھی ہوں تو ٹیکس کا تعین صرف اس نیٹ انکم پر کیا جانا چاہیے جو اخراجات اور لاگت نکالنے کے بعد باقی رہتی ہے۔
تاہم ٹیکس افسر نے کارروائی کا رخ تبدیل کرتے ہوئے معاملہ انکم ٹیکس آرڈیننس کی دفعہ 111(1)(d) کے تحت لے گیا۔ اس دفعہ کے تحت اگر کسی شخص کی آمدنی یا سیلز چھپائی گئی ہوں اور وہ اس کی تسلی بخش وضاحت فراہم نہ کر سکے تو اس رقم کو اس کی قابلِ ٹیکس آمدنی میں شامل کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ ٹیکس حکام نے اس دفعہ کی تشریح کرتے ہوئے یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ چونکہ سیلز چھپائی گئی ہیں اس لیے پوری سیلز کو ہی آمدنی تصور کر کے اس پر ٹیکس عائد کیا جا سکتا ہے، اور اس میں کسی قسم کی لاگت یا اخراجات کی کٹوتی قابلِ قبول نہیں ہوگی۔
اس فیصلے کے خلاف ٹیکس دہندہ نے پہلے کمشنر اپیلز اور پھر ایپیلیٹ ٹریبونل ان لینڈ ریونیو سے رجوع کیا۔ ٹریبونل نے قرار دیا کہ ٹیکس حکام کی یہ تشریح درست نہیں، کیونکہ کاروباری لین دین میں سیلز اور آمدنی ایک ہی چیز نہیں ہوتیں۔ ٹریبونل کے مطابق سیلز کے ساتھ لازماً لاگت اور اخراجات منسلک ہوتے ہیں، اس لیے پورے سیلز کو آمدنی قرار دے کر ٹیکس عائد کرنا قانون اور ٹیکس کے بنیادی اصولوں کے منافی ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے بھی ٹریبونل کے اس مؤقف کی توثیق کی۔
بالآخر یہ معاملہ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کے سامنے آیا، جہاں عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قانون کی جامع تشریح کرتے ہوئے یہ اصول واضح کیا کہ انکم ٹیکس کا بنیادی تصور آمدنی (Income) پر مبنی ہے، نہ کہ محض وصولیوں یا سیلز (Gross Receipts) پر۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ دفعہ 111(1)(d) کی تشریح اس انداز میں نہیں کی جا سکتی کہ ہر صورت میں پوری سیلز کو ہی قابلِ ٹیکس آمدنی سمجھ لیا جائے۔ اگر سیلز یا پیداوار کو بنیاد بنایا بھی جائے تو اس کے ساتھ وابستہ اخراجات اور لاگت کو مدنظر رکھنا ضروری ہے، کیونکہ حقیقی آمدنی وہی ہوتی ہے جو اخراجات منہا کرنے کے بعد باقی رہتی ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ نے مزید یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ اگر ٹیکس حکام کو یہ اختیار دے دیا جائے کہ وہ بیک وقت مختلف قانونی دفعات استعمال کرتے ہوئے کبھی نیٹ آمدنی اور کبھی مجموعی وصولیوں کو بنیاد بنا کر ٹیکس عائد کریں، تو یہ اختیار غیر محدود صوابدید (Unfettered Discretion) میں تبدیل ہو جائے گا جو قانون کے اصولِ مساوات اور منصفانہ ٹیکس نظام کے منافی ہے۔ اسی بنیاد پر عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ٹیکس حکام کی جانب سے پوری سیلز کو آمدنی قرار دینا درست قانونی مؤقف نہیں تھا۔
چنانچہ سپریم کورٹ نے ٹیکس حکام کی اپیل مسترد کرتے ہوئے ٹریبونل اور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا اور یہ اصول قائم کیا کہ دفعہ 111(1)(d) کے اطلاق کے باوجود ٹیکس کا تعین حقیقی آمدنی یعنی نیٹ انکم کی بنیاد پر ہی کیا جائے گا، نہ کہ مجموعی سیلز یا گراس رسیٹس کی بنیاد پر۔
Hamid Ullah Khan
CEO
Unified Group
03004020902]]> <![CDATA[Pakistan Sales Tax Schedule]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=54 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:10:54 +0100 UnifiedGroup]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=54
Understanding the Sales Tax Act in Pakistan can feel like navigating a maze.

? The "Step-by-Step" Checklist for Tax Classification:
To determine the tax rate for any product, always follow this hierarchy:

1- ????? ???????? (????-?????): This applies to Exports and specific supplies like raw materials to Export Processing Zones (EPZ). The rate is 0%, but unlike exempt goods, the input tax paid is refundable.

2- ????? ???????? (?????? ?????): If the item is listed here, it is out of the scope of Sales Tax. No tax is charged, and no input tax can be adjusted or refunded. Examples include live animals like day-old chicks.

3- ?????? ???????? (??????? ?????): If not exempt, check if it qualifies for a lower rate (e.g., 1% for Electric Vehicles or 10% for laptops/computers) instead of the standard 18%.

4- ???????? ????? ????????: If products do not qualify for exemptions or reduced rates. Also, If a product is not listed in the Sixth Schedule (Exempt) or the Eighth Schedule (Reduced Rate), it is generally taxed at the Standard Rate of 18% on the Value of Supply (the transaction price between parties) or, if the item falls under the Third Schedule, it is calculated based on the Retail Price.

5- ????? ???????? (?????? ????? ??????): If the item is taxable at the standard rate (18% or 25%), check if it falls under the Third Schedule. For these items (e.g., juices, tea, shampoos), tax is calculated on the Retail Price intended for the final consumer, not the manufacturer's sale price.

6- ????? ???????? (?????? ??????): A specialized category where taxes (18% or 25%) are generally settled at the import or manufacturing stage.

??????????: ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????????????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ???????????? ??? ??????.]]>
Understanding the Sales Tax Act in Pakistan can feel like navigating a maze.

? The "Step-by-Step" Checklist for Tax Classification:
To determine the tax rate for any product, always follow this hierarchy:

1- ????? ???????? (????-?????): This applies to Exports and specific supplies like raw materials to Export Processing Zones (EPZ). The rate is 0%, but unlike exempt goods, the input tax paid is refundable.

2- ????? ???????? (?????? ?????): If the item is listed here, it is out of the scope of Sales Tax. No tax is charged, and no input tax can be adjusted or refunded. Examples include live animals like day-old chicks.

3- ?????? ???????? (??????? ?????): If not exempt, check if it qualifies for a lower rate (e.g., 1% for Electric Vehicles or 10% for laptops/computers) instead of the standard 18%.

4- ???????? ????? ????????: If products do not qualify for exemptions or reduced rates. Also, If a product is not listed in the Sixth Schedule (Exempt) or the Eighth Schedule (Reduced Rate), it is generally taxed at the Standard Rate of 18% on the Value of Supply (the transaction price between parties) or, if the item falls under the Third Schedule, it is calculated based on the Retail Price.

5- ????? ???????? (?????? ????? ??????): If the item is taxable at the standard rate (18% or 25%), check if it falls under the Third Schedule. For these items (e.g., juices, tea, shampoos), tax is calculated on the Retail Price intended for the final consumer, not the manufacturer's sale price.

6- ????? ???????? (?????? ??????): A specialized category where taxes (18% or 25%) are generally settled at the import or manufacturing stage.

??????????: ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????????????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ???????????? ??? ??????.]]> <![CDATA[Tax litigation, super tax, and the economics of tax deferral]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=53 Tue, 03 Feb 2026 06:37:00 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=53
Read at Business Recorder Website

The decision largely resolves constitutional concerns surrounding the Super Tax.]]>
Read at Business Recorder Website

The decision largely resolves constitutional concerns surrounding the Super Tax.]]> <![CDATA[FTN Debit Note]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=52 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 21:08:51 +0100 usmank]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=52 <![CDATA[Taxation of Life Insurance - Maturity Payment and Disclosure in Taxation Return]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=51 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:06:37 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=51 Questions / Scenarios:
 
1) Is Maturity Payment of "Life Insurance Plan" is Taxable
2) How to disclosure Life insurance Premium Paid in Tax Returns (Should Profit/Bonus Credited in Account may also be disclosed)
 
Findings:
1) Life Insurance Maturity payment is not explicitly discussed in Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. However, unless any receipt is specifically made taxable in its nature, it can not be treated as taxable. Therefore, the assumption is it remain exempt.
 
2) I only show Premium paid by myself.

However, another way could be to show bonuses and profits credited to my insurance plan may as Asset, while in Income we can show such Profits/Bonuses (Exempt Income).

In this way if Maturity Payment is made taxable in future, then the split is over earlier periods may avoid taxation of whole amount.]]> Questions / Scenarios:
 
1) Is Maturity Payment of "Life Insurance Plan" is Taxable
2) How to disclosure Life insurance Premium Paid in Tax Returns (Should Profit/Bonus Credited in Account may also be disclosed)
 
Findings:
1) Life Insurance Maturity payment is not explicitly discussed in Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. However, unless any receipt is specifically made taxable in its nature, it can not be treated as taxable. Therefore, the assumption is it remain exempt.
 
2) I only show Premium paid by myself.

However, another way could be to show bonuses and profits credited to my insurance plan may as Asset, while in Income we can show such Profits/Bonuses (Exempt Income).

In this way if Maturity Payment is made taxable in future, then the split is over earlier periods may avoid taxation of whole amount.]]> <![CDATA[Sales Tax on Services Act (Developers - Lease)]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=50 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 07:45:11 +0100 HA_Law_Graduate]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=50
This fundamental disagreement was decisively settled by the Appellate Tribunal in its judgment on Appeal No. 282/2024 (M/s Noor Pak Developers), dated October 23, 2025. The PRA had levied sales tax on the developer for the outright sale of developed plots. The Tribunal, in its ruling, dismantled this assessment. It established a critical legal distinction, ruling that a "sale, being a conveyance of proprietorship," is a transfer of title and fundamentally different from a "lease" or "licence," where ownership is retained by the provider. The Tribunal concluded that an outright sale "falls outside that genus and is not a 'service' so conceived" by the statute. This judgment effectively invalidated the PRA's interpretation and confirmed that the law, as written, did not empower the authority to tax the sale of immovable property.
Simultaneously, the executive branch also tried to provide clarity. On October 22, 2025, the Punjab Finance Department released Notification No. SO(TAX)1-10/2025-26. This notification amended the schedules of the Sales Tax Act to insert a new, distinct taxable service: "Sr. No. 27: Supply of immovable property by way of lease, license or such similar arrangement." This action codified the very distinction the Tribunal would affirm. By explicitly and separately listing only these service-based arrangements, the government prospectively clarified the law. The notification did not create a new tax on property sales; rather, it reinforced that the only taxable component of immovable property transactions was the service of leasing or licensing, not the act of selling.
In effect, the Tribunal's decision and the government's notification worked in concert to achieve a single, definitive clarification. The judgment acted retrospectively, ending PRA's attempts to tax property sales under an ambiguous interpretation. The notification acted prospectively, providing a clear and explicit statutory basis for the future, ensuring that only the specific services of leasing and licensing would be subject to the tax. Together, these actions firmly established the legal boundary: the sale of immovable property is not a taxable service in Punjab, while the act of leasing or licensing it is.
.pdf Tribual Sale is not Lease- License hence not Service 2.pdf Size: 992 KB  Downloads: 0

.pdf notification first schedule 2.pdf Size: 74.19 KB  Downloads: 0
]]>
This fundamental disagreement was decisively settled by the Appellate Tribunal in its judgment on Appeal No. 282/2024 (M/s Noor Pak Developers), dated October 23, 2025. The PRA had levied sales tax on the developer for the outright sale of developed plots. The Tribunal, in its ruling, dismantled this assessment. It established a critical legal distinction, ruling that a "sale, being a conveyance of proprietorship," is a transfer of title and fundamentally different from a "lease" or "licence," where ownership is retained by the provider. The Tribunal concluded that an outright sale "falls outside that genus and is not a 'service' so conceived" by the statute. This judgment effectively invalidated the PRA's interpretation and confirmed that the law, as written, did not empower the authority to tax the sale of immovable property.
Simultaneously, the executive branch also tried to provide clarity. On October 22, 2025, the Punjab Finance Department released Notification No. SO(TAX)1-10/2025-26. This notification amended the schedules of the Sales Tax Act to insert a new, distinct taxable service: "Sr. No. 27: Supply of immovable property by way of lease, license or such similar arrangement." This action codified the very distinction the Tribunal would affirm. By explicitly and separately listing only these service-based arrangements, the government prospectively clarified the law. The notification did not create a new tax on property sales; rather, it reinforced that the only taxable component of immovable property transactions was the service of leasing or licensing, not the act of selling.
In effect, the Tribunal's decision and the government's notification worked in concert to achieve a single, definitive clarification. The judgment acted retrospectively, ending PRA's attempts to tax property sales under an ambiguous interpretation. The notification acted prospectively, providing a clear and explicit statutory basis for the future, ensuring that only the specific services of leasing and licensing would be subject to the tax. Together, these actions firmly established the legal boundary: the sale of immovable property is not a taxable service in Punjab, while the act of leasing or licensing it is.
.pdf Tribual Sale is not Lease- License hence not Service 2.pdf Size: 992 KB  Downloads: 0

.pdf notification first schedule 2.pdf Size: 74.19 KB  Downloads: 0
]]> <![CDATA[Retirement (PF Gratuity) and Other Employee Benefits]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=49 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 07:26:56 +0100 HA_Law_Graduate]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=49 For any private company in Islamabad, understanding which employee benefits mandatory are is a critical point of compliance. The answer is complicated because there isn't one single "labor law." Instead, a company's obligations are determined by a mix of different laws which are listed. This article breaks down the relevant laws and provides a clear, tiered guide based on the number of your employees.
The Relevant Laws for Islamabad (ICT)
Different laws apply to companies of different sizes when it comes to employee benefits. For businesses in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), the compliance framework is primarily built from these four key pieces of legislation:  
  1. The Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 (EOBI): This is the federal law for employee pensions.  
  2. The Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (ESSI): In the capital, this is administered by the ICT Employees Social Security Institution (IESSI) and covers health and cash benefits for employees.  
  3. The West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969: This law governs the basic working conditions (like leave and termination notice) for smaller businesses.  
  4. The Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968: This is the stricter law that applies to larger, more established companies. It is the law that makes Gratuity and Group Insurance mandatory.  
The most important concept to understand is the "two-law system" for general employment:
  • Companies with 1 to 19 employees are governed by the 1969 Shops & Establishments Ordinance. This law provides basic protections but does not include a legal requirement to pay Gratuity.  
  • When a company hires its 20th employee, it crosses a legal threshold. The 1968 Standing Orders Ordinance kicks in, and this law replaces many of the rules of the 1969 ordinance, imposing stricter obligations: most notably, mandatory Gratuity.  
Benefits by Company Size: A Tiered Compliance Guide
Here is a simple breakdown of what is applicable, and what is not, based on the number of people you employ.
Tier 1: The Micro-Enterprise (1-4 Employees)
At this stage, your business is governed by the 1969 Shops & Establishments Ordinance for basic terms, but the major statutory benefit schemes do not apply.
  • Social Security (IESSI): Not Mandatory.
  • EOBI (Pensions): Not Mandatory.
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Not Mandatory.
  • Group Life Insurance: Not Mandatory.
  • What is required: You must still follow the 1969 Ordinance for basic rules like working hours, annual leave, and providing a written termination notice.  
Tier 2: The Small Business (5-9 Employees)
This is the first major step-up in compliance and the source of the EOBI debate.
  • Social Security (IESSI): Mandatory. This is the first scheme that applies. Once you hire your 5th employee, you are generally required to register with IESSI for employee health and social security benefits.  
  • EOBI (Pensions): Optional. For years, the rule was 5+ employees. However, a 2021 government reform (F081) exempted micro/small organizations (5-9 employees) from mandatory registration to ease the burden on small businesses. You can still register voluntarily, but it is no longer a legal obligation at this size.  
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Not Mandatory. The 1969 Ordinance still applies.
Tier 3: The Growing Business (10-19 Employees)
This is the tier where the pension obligation becomes mandatory.
  • Social Security (IESSI): Mandatory.
  • EOBI (Pensions): Mandatory. The exemption for 5-9 employees ends. At 10 or more employees, registration with EOBI is a legal requirement. This aligns with the original 1976 Act and current official EOBI policy.  
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Not Mandatory. You are still governed by the 1969 Ordinance, which does not mandate this benefit.  
Tier 4: The Established Company (20+ Employees)
This is the most significant jump in legal obligations, as you now fall under the 1968 Standing Orders Ordinance.  
  • Social Security (IESSI): Mandatory.
  • EOBI (Pensions): Mandatory.  
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Mandatory. This is the "benefits cliff." The 1968 Ordinance legally requires you to pay a gratuity to eligible employees. The law states you are exempt from paying gratuity only if you have a Provident Fund where the employer's contribution is equal to or greater than the employee's contribution.  
  • Group Life Insurance: Mandatory. This is also triggered by the 1968 Ordinance (Standing Order 10-B). The threshold is 20+ employees for commercial establishments (like offices or shops) and 50+ for industrial establishments.  
 ]]> For any private company in Islamabad, understanding which employee benefits mandatory are is a critical point of compliance. The answer is complicated because there isn't one single "labor law." Instead, a company's obligations are determined by a mix of different laws which are listed. This article breaks down the relevant laws and provides a clear, tiered guide based on the number of your employees.
The Relevant Laws for Islamabad (ICT)
Different laws apply to companies of different sizes when it comes to employee benefits. For businesses in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), the compliance framework is primarily built from these four key pieces of legislation:  
  1. The Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 (EOBI): This is the federal law for employee pensions.  
  2. The Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (ESSI): In the capital, this is administered by the ICT Employees Social Security Institution (IESSI) and covers health and cash benefits for employees.  
  3. The West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969: This law governs the basic working conditions (like leave and termination notice) for smaller businesses.  
  4. The Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968: This is the stricter law that applies to larger, more established companies. It is the law that makes Gratuity and Group Insurance mandatory.  
The most important concept to understand is the "two-law system" for general employment:
  • Companies with 1 to 19 employees are governed by the 1969 Shops & Establishments Ordinance. This law provides basic protections but does not include a legal requirement to pay Gratuity.  
  • When a company hires its 20th employee, it crosses a legal threshold. The 1968 Standing Orders Ordinance kicks in, and this law replaces many of the rules of the 1969 ordinance, imposing stricter obligations: most notably, mandatory Gratuity.  
Benefits by Company Size: A Tiered Compliance Guide
Here is a simple breakdown of what is applicable, and what is not, based on the number of people you employ.
Tier 1: The Micro-Enterprise (1-4 Employees)
At this stage, your business is governed by the 1969 Shops & Establishments Ordinance for basic terms, but the major statutory benefit schemes do not apply.
  • Social Security (IESSI): Not Mandatory.
  • EOBI (Pensions): Not Mandatory.
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Not Mandatory.
  • Group Life Insurance: Not Mandatory.
  • What is required: You must still follow the 1969 Ordinance for basic rules like working hours, annual leave, and providing a written termination notice.  
Tier 2: The Small Business (5-9 Employees)
This is the first major step-up in compliance and the source of the EOBI debate.
  • Social Security (IESSI): Mandatory. This is the first scheme that applies. Once you hire your 5th employee, you are generally required to register with IESSI for employee health and social security benefits.  
  • EOBI (Pensions): Optional. For years, the rule was 5+ employees. However, a 2021 government reform (F081) exempted micro/small organizations (5-9 employees) from mandatory registration to ease the burden on small businesses. You can still register voluntarily, but it is no longer a legal obligation at this size.  
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Not Mandatory. The 1969 Ordinance still applies.
Tier 3: The Growing Business (10-19 Employees)
This is the tier where the pension obligation becomes mandatory.
  • Social Security (IESSI): Mandatory.
  • EOBI (Pensions): Mandatory. The exemption for 5-9 employees ends. At 10 or more employees, registration with EOBI is a legal requirement. This aligns with the original 1976 Act and current official EOBI policy.  
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Not Mandatory. You are still governed by the 1969 Ordinance, which does not mandate this benefit.  
Tier 4: The Established Company (20+ Employees)
This is the most significant jump in legal obligations, as you now fall under the 1968 Standing Orders Ordinance.  
  • Social Security (IESSI): Mandatory.
  • EOBI (Pensions): Mandatory.  
  • Gratuity / Provident Fund: Mandatory. This is the "benefits cliff." The 1968 Ordinance legally requires you to pay a gratuity to eligible employees. The law states you are exempt from paying gratuity only if you have a Provident Fund where the employer's contribution is equal to or greater than the employee's contribution.  
  • Group Life Insurance: Mandatory. This is also triggered by the 1968 Ordinance (Standing Order 10-B). The threshold is 20+ employees for commercial establishments (like offices or shops) and 50+ for industrial establishments.  
 ]]> <![CDATA[Contractual Director]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=48 Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:02:47 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=48
Now the questions arise:

1) Can a non-member be appointed as contractual Director
2) What will be his/her tenure
3) Do we need any amendment in Articles of Association
4) Will it has any impact on number of Directors fixed during election of directors]]>
Now the questions arise:

1) Can a non-member be appointed as contractual Director
2) What will be his/her tenure
3) Do we need any amendment in Articles of Association
4) Will it has any impact on number of Directors fixed during election of directors]]> <![CDATA[Changing the Name of Company]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=47 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 12:02:01 +0100 Nasir Ansari]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=47  
This Article covers the following topics:
 
1. RELATED LAWS
2. CHANGE OF COMPANY NAME — REQUIRED ACTIONS (SUMMARY)
3. CHANGE OF NAME - REQUIRED ACTIONS (DETAILED)
4. BOARD RESOLUTION FOR CHANGE OF COMPANY NAME
5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
6. BOARD RESOLUTION FOR CALLING OF EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING (EGM)
7. SPECIAL RESOLUTION & STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
8. NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING
9. MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING (EGM)
10. UPDATED NAME CLAUSE - MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
11. UPDATED NAME REFERENCE - ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
12. COVERING LETTER TO SECP (For eServices Application —- Name Change)
13. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, SECP PROCESSING, TIMELINES, FEE, CHECKLISTS & PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR CHANGE OF COMPANY NAME
.pdf Changing the Name of a Company.pdf Size: 420.69 KB  Downloads: 0
]]>  
This Article covers the following topics:
 
1. RELATED LAWS
2. CHANGE OF COMPANY NAME — REQUIRED ACTIONS (SUMMARY)
3. CHANGE OF NAME - REQUIRED ACTIONS (DETAILED)
4. BOARD RESOLUTION FOR CHANGE OF COMPANY NAME
5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
6. BOARD RESOLUTION FOR CALLING OF EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING (EGM)
7. SPECIAL RESOLUTION & STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
8. NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING
9. MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING (EGM)
10. UPDATED NAME CLAUSE - MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
11. UPDATED NAME REFERENCE - ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
12. COVERING LETTER TO SECP (For eServices Application —- Name Change)
13. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, SECP PROCESSING, TIMELINES, FEE, CHECKLISTS & PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR CHANGE OF COMPANY NAME
.pdf Changing the Name of a Company.pdf Size: 420.69 KB  Downloads: 0
]]> <![CDATA[CVT - A forgotten Tax]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=46 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 07:03:44 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=46
·        The CVT law is part of Finance Act 2022 and its rules were issued in September 2022

·        Applicable on:
  o   1300cc +/ 50kwh+ vehicles; Applicable for a total of first 6 years; 10% depreciation allowed, (CVT Rate 1%)
  o   Foreign Assets (immovable & movable) of RESIDENT individual if the COST exceeds Rs. 100m – payable with income tax return (Every year); Rate 1%:
 1) if cost is known (Cost * Exchange rate on June 30 of relevant tax year)
 2) If cost is not known (FMV * Exchange rate on June 30 of relevant tax year)
*** Meaning Value will keep changing as per Exchange rate every year

·        In Finance Act 2024, for ICT (Islamabad):
  o   Farm Houses Rs. 500,000 (2,000 – 4,000 square yards + Covered Area 5000 Sq Ft) and Rs. 1m if it exceeds 4,000 sq yards. Multiple houses in a compound with each area exceeding 2000 Sq Yards are considered Multiple Fams.
  o   Residential Houses Rs. 1m  (1,000 – 2,000 square yards) and Rs. 1.5m if it exceeds 2,000 sq yards

If a house do not fall within definition of FARM HOUSE then it may be considered as a Residential House :: within ICT limits irrespective of Rural or Urban distinction.

·        A separate FORM-A needs to be electronically filed on IRIS
·        12% Default Surcharge is payable in case of late payment
.pdf FinanceAct-2024 Amendment 2.pdf Size: 65.92 KB  Downloads: 0

.pdf CVT 2022 Sec 8 FA 2022 2.pdf Size: 83.54 KB  Downloads: 0
]]>
·        The CVT law is part of Finance Act 2022 and its rules were issued in September 2022

·        Applicable on:
  o   1300cc +/ 50kwh+ vehicles; Applicable for a total of first 6 years; 10% depreciation allowed, (CVT Rate 1%)
  o   Foreign Assets (immovable & movable) of RESIDENT individual if the COST exceeds Rs. 100m – payable with income tax return (Every year); Rate 1%:
 1) if cost is known (Cost * Exchange rate on June 30 of relevant tax year)
 2) If cost is not known (FMV * Exchange rate on June 30 of relevant tax year)
*** Meaning Value will keep changing as per Exchange rate every year

·        In Finance Act 2024, for ICT (Islamabad):
  o   Farm Houses Rs. 500,000 (2,000 – 4,000 square yards + Covered Area 5000 Sq Ft) and Rs. 1m if it exceeds 4,000 sq yards. Multiple houses in a compound with each area exceeding 2000 Sq Yards are considered Multiple Fams.
  o   Residential Houses Rs. 1m  (1,000 – 2,000 square yards) and Rs. 1.5m if it exceeds 2,000 sq yards

If a house do not fall within definition of FARM HOUSE then it may be considered as a Residential House :: within ICT limits irrespective of Rural or Urban distinction.

·        A separate FORM-A needs to be electronically filed on IRIS
·        12% Default Surcharge is payable in case of late payment
.pdf FinanceAct-2024 Amendment 2.pdf Size: 65.92 KB  Downloads: 0

.pdf CVT 2022 Sec 8 FA 2022 2.pdf Size: 83.54 KB  Downloads: 0
]]> <![CDATA[Funded Gratuity Fund status - Merger of Companies]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=45 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 16:10:16 +0100 Malik M Imran]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=45 BACKGROUND
Services company name ABC Opco Ltd is private limited company. It also runs Registered Gratuity Fund (or Trust also duly registered with Commissioner Income Tax) for its employees with eligibility criteria of 4 years of continued services as permanent employee. In recent times it entered in equity sale agreement with XYZ Corp Ltd for selling of its 100% shares. Both companies are in same nature of business. The acquiring company has intent  to merge both companies into one company (say Merg Co). The acquiring Corp doesnot run gratuity program for its existing employees.
In this scenario I want to seek your guidance on following questions:
1.      What would be the status of ABC gratuity fund trust?
2.      Can Merg Co close gratuity fund or trust?
3.      Can Merg Co refuse to pay to fund for maintaining required balance according to actuarial valuation?
4.      Does Merg Co has right to appoint new trustees of fund?
5.      Does Merg Co can make changes in trust deed to amend fund contribution clause?
6.      In case of above, is only board of trustees of fund can authorize change in trust deed or consent of all the eligible members of the fund is necessary?
7.      Can Merg co freeze fund at any cut off date?
a.      In above case when members will be paid their respective amounts
b.      If paid on subsequently at time of termination of services, what will happen to profits on investments made by fund and how these will be treated (or allocated)
8.      In case it is decided to abolish trust altogether, what will happen to the funds available on cut off date and does member will?
a.      Be paid till cut off time on date of closing of fund
b.      If a. is applied, what would be tax implications for members, as this will be before termination of services of employee
c.      Any exemption option available to members or trust as whole
Please provide a legal opinion with references to applicable laws and regulations.]]> BACKGROUND
Services company name ABC Opco Ltd is private limited company. It also runs Registered Gratuity Fund (or Trust also duly registered with Commissioner Income Tax) for its employees with eligibility criteria of 4 years of continued services as permanent employee. In recent times it entered in equity sale agreement with XYZ Corp Ltd for selling of its 100% shares. Both companies are in same nature of business. The acquiring company has intent  to merge both companies into one company (say Merg Co). The acquiring Corp doesnot run gratuity program for its existing employees.
In this scenario I want to seek your guidance on following questions:
1.      What would be the status of ABC gratuity fund trust?
2.      Can Merg Co close gratuity fund or trust?
3.      Can Merg Co refuse to pay to fund for maintaining required balance according to actuarial valuation?
4.      Does Merg Co has right to appoint new trustees of fund?
5.      Does Merg Co can make changes in trust deed to amend fund contribution clause?
6.      In case of above, is only board of trustees of fund can authorize change in trust deed or consent of all the eligible members of the fund is necessary?
7.      Can Merg co freeze fund at any cut off date?
a.      In above case when members will be paid their respective amounts
b.      If paid on subsequently at time of termination of services, what will happen to profits on investments made by fund and how these will be treated (or allocated)
8.      In case it is decided to abolish trust altogether, what will happen to the funds available on cut off date and does member will?
a.      Be paid till cut off time on date of closing of fund
b.      If a. is applied, what would be tax implications for members, as this will be before termination of services of employee
c.      Any exemption option available to members or trust as whole
Please provide a legal opinion with references to applicable laws and regulations.]]> <![CDATA[Error Report -- Browser Keeps Refreshing / Reloading]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=44 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 12:56:22 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=44
Temporary Solution is to use Incognito mode, while we work to find a permanent solution

Inconvenience regretted]]>
Temporary Solution is to use Incognito mode, while we work to find a permanent solution

Inconvenience regretted]]> <![CDATA[Webinar on Annual Corporate Compliance]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=43 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 12:37:51 +0100 Ather Saleem]]> https://board.taxportal.pk/showthread.php?tid=43
Webinar Schedule: Thursday, November 06, 2025 from 3 to 5 pm

Registration Link

Speakers:
Mr. Amir Saleem Additional Registrar, SECP
Mr. Raza Khan Safi, Deputy Registrar, SECP

Participants:
1. Members, Students and Faculty of ICMAP and other Professional Bodies from all cities
2. Company Secretaries, Directors & Business Community
3. Corporate Intermediaries
4. General Public

Event Fee: Your Precious Time Only.

Looking Forward,


Muhammad Imran, FCMA
Event Organizer & Chairman TSPD-IBC ICMAP]]>
Webinar Schedule: Thursday, November 06, 2025 from 3 to 5 pm

Registration Link

Speakers:
Mr. Amir Saleem Additional Registrar, SECP
Mr. Raza Khan Safi, Deputy Registrar, SECP

Participants:
1. Members, Students and Faculty of ICMAP and other Professional Bodies from all cities
2. Company Secretaries, Directors & Business Community
3. Corporate Intermediaries
4. General Public

Event Fee: Your Precious Time Only.

Looking Forward,


Muhammad Imran, FCMA
Event Organizer & Chairman TSPD-IBC ICMAP]]>