Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI VS Respondent: ATLAS JUDGMENT
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Saleem Akhter, Imam Ali G. Kazi Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI vs ATLAS
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1989 PTD 1248 Result: Question answered in affirmative Judgment JUDGMENT ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The respondent is a public limited company which carried on General Insurance business during the assessment year 1973-74. It claimed provision for taxation reserve amounting to Rs,2,82,400 and for assessment year 1974-75 similar claim was made for Rs,1,33,000. These claims were rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that they could not be allowed as admissible deduction under section 10 (2) (xvi) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was allowed. The Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal and by a consolidated order the view taken by the Appellate. Assistant Commissioner was upheld. On an application filed under section 61 (1) of the Income-tax Act the following questions have been referred which relate to the aforestated two assessment years: (1) 1973-74: "Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the add back of Rs,2,82,400 claimed by the assessee-company on account of provision for taxation or taxation reserve?" (2) 1974-75: "Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the add back of Rs,1,33,000 claimed by the assessee-company on account of provision for taxation or taxation reserve?" ' Similar question came up for our consideration in Commissioner for Income-tax, Central, Karachi v. Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., 1989 PTD 142 where relying on C.I.T. v.
---
## Page 2
Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd., PLD 1981 Supreme Court 293 we-had answered in the affirmative. Following the aforestated judgments we answer both these questions in the affirmative.