KARACHI vs MESSRS UNITED JUDGMENT Reported As — 1970 PLD 148

Citation: 1970 PLD 148

Court: Sindh High Court

Year: 1969

Decision Date: 1969-12-31

Parties: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) KARACHI vs MESSRS UNITED JUDGMENT

Headnotes

Result: Order accordingly Judgment JUDGMENT QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, J.-These applications have been made under subsection (2) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, with the object of obtaining directions of this Court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions mentioned in the applications. One question is common to all the eight applications.

Judgment Text

Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Qadeer-ud-Din Ahmad, Muhammad Haleem Title:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) KARACHI vs MESSRS UNITED JUDGMENT Reported As: PLD 1970 Karachi 148 Result: Order accordingly Judgment JUDGMENT QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, J.-These applications have been made under subsection (2) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, with the object of obtaining directions of this Court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions mentioned in the applications. 2. One question is common to all the eight applications. It is as follows :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing bonus as an admissible deduction, when the conditions laid down in the proviso to section 10 (2)(x) of the Income-tax Act were not fulfilled." The following question is contained in I. T. C. No. 24 of 1969, only: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when the recovery proceedings had not reached the conclusive stage and the condition laid down under section 10 (2)(xi) were not fulfilled, the Tribunal was justified in the admission of the bad debts when considering the crucial facts." The following question is included in I. T. Cs. Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1969 only "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the unabsorbed depreciation could be adjusted in the sub--sequent years against any other different source of income in view of the provision of section 24 (2)." 3. The above questions have…

Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.