Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: PREMIER INSURANCE OF PAKISTAN LTD.
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Saleem Akhter, Imam Ali G. Kazi Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs PREMIER INSURANCE OF PAKISTAN LTD. Case No.: Income-tax Reference No, 79 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1989-04-05 Reported As: 1989 PTD 1025 Result: Reference answered in affirmative
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--This reference relates to assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77. The Tribunal has referred the questions by a consolidated order in respect of all these years. The respondent is an insurance company. During the years mentioned 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1974-75, 1976-77, against each question, the assessing Officer while rejecting the claim of the respondents added back under the following heads: (1) Reserve for unexpired risk exceeding the limit of 40%. (2) Provision made for bonus to staff. (3) Provision made for payment of staff gratuity. (4) Rs, 22,053 for remaining unpaid for more than three years. (5) Provision for taxes for the assessment year 1976-77. The Tribunal has reported the following questions:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions made by the Income Tax Officer of Rs, (different amounts in different years) on account of reserve for unexpired risk exceeding the limit of 40%. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition made by the Income Tax Officer of Rs, (different amounts in different years) on account of provision made for bonus to staff. (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition made by the Income Tax Officer of Rs,(different amounts in different years) on account of provision made for payment of staff gratuity.
---
## Page 2
(4). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs,22,053 made by the Income Tax Officer under section 10 (2A) of the repealed Act for the assessm ent year 1974-75 for remaining unpaid for more than three years. (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs,7,10,0(X) made by the Income Tax Officer on account of provision for taxes for the assessm ent year 1976-77. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have stated that similar questions have been considered and decided by the Court. ' Question No,1: This question is covered by Commissioner of Income-tax v. New Jubilee Insurance Company PLD 1982 Kar. 684 and Eastern Federal Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1980 PTD 73. These judgments were delivered by our Bench on same question. We respectfully follow them and answer in the affirmative. ' Question No,2: ' This question is also covered by I.T.R. 88/1983, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Adamji Insurance Company. Following the reasoning of this judgment we answer the question in the affirmative. ' Question No,3: ' This question was also considered in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Adamji Insurance Co. Ltd. I.T.R. 88/83. We accordingly answer it in the affirmative. ' Question No,4: ' This question is also covered by Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Company I.T.R. 43 of 1982 and I.T.R. 88/1983 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Adamji Insurance Company. Following these judgments we answer the question in the affirmative. ' Question No,5: ' This question is also covered by I.T.R. 699 of 1972 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Phonix Insurance Co. And I.T.R. 326/74 Commissioner of Income Tax v. New Jubilee Insurance Co. In view of these judgments we answer the question in the affirmative.