Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Income Tax Act, 1922 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 2(9) and 5(5) |
Person—Meaning of—’Person’ mentioned in sub-section (5) of section 5 includes an association of persons or a firm or a company or a local authority—Under clause (9) of section 2, ‘person’ includes an individual, a Hindu- undivided family, a firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, a company, a local authority and every other artificial judicial person — Firm is a ‘person’ for the purpose of Income— Tax Act. The Commissioner of Taxes Vs. M/s.M. Ismail and sons, 3BLD(AD)273 |
The Commissioner of Taxes Vs. M/s.M. Ismail and sons, | 3 BLD (AD) 273 |
Sections 3, 6, 10 and 13 |
Assessment of Income Tax — Change of accounting from mercantile system of accountancy to cash system whether can be allowed — Whether tax is payable on income, profit or gains alleged to have accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen or whether tax is payable on income, profit or gains actually received by the assesses makes no difference for the Income Tax Department — There is no possibility of escaping from taxation if cash method of accounting is restored to — There is nothing in the Income Tax Act to show that assessee has to follow a particular method of accounting or it cannot change the method of accounting so far followed — There is no bar on changing over to a new system of accountancy. [Majority. Per Munim. CJ. (Masud and S.M. Mohsen Au. JJ concurring)] Law does not permit an assessee to show two kinds of incomes, one for the purpose of depicting the correct picture of the business and the other for payment of tax. finding of the Income Tax Authorities as well as the High Court Division to this effect is found to have been based on t as stated by the assessee itself in its accounts which were regularly maintained in this way. In the circumstances, the Income Tax authorities are not only entitled, hut are also hound under section I 3 to tax the total income as accruedIrrespective of the question whether any part tion behind this condition is to discourage the of the income has remained unrealised [Per Ahmed, J (dissenhing)] M/s. Hoque Building Finance Corporation Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka North Zone, Dhaka, 5BLD(AD)239 |
M/s. Hoque Building Finance Corporation Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka North Zone, Dhaka, | 5 BLD (AD) 239 |
Section 4(3)(i) |
Exemption from income tax — Whether income from a business held and
carried on by or under a trust is exempted from income tax — Income from
property held in trust wholly for religious or charitable purpose is
exempted from income tax — But income from a business carried out by the
trust since 195 1 not exempted though the income of such business is wholly
applied for religious or charitable purpose unless such business is carried
on in the course of the carrying out the purpose of the trust or
institution. The intention behind this condition is to discourage the trust
or the institution from entering into business with its properties unless
such business is directly related to the objectives of the trust or the
institution — It is the income of such business which is exempt from
taxation — Proviso to section 4(3)(i) inserted by amendment in 1951
drastically restricting the scope and the field of the general exemption
under the main provision of the law being imposed by the conscious act of
the makers of the law is not within the power of the Court to dilute the
restriction by liberal interpretation ignoring the language of the statute
— But. after omission of this proviso in 1973 by an amendment now all
incomes ftom property, whether a business or not, if held in trust, is
totally exempted from income tax.
|
Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka (East) Zone Vs. Gaus-I-Pak-I-Azam Welfare Trust, | 4 BLD (AD) 265 |
Section 5(8) |
In this case the National Board of Revenue has only issued a circular in exercise of its powers under section 5(8) of the said Act. The circular is in the nature of a direction upon Assessing Officers to appreciate evidence of certain materials produced before them in a particular manner, instructions which are binding on them. The only argument which was available with the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes in avoiding the circular is that the assessments were already made when the circular had not yet been issued and therefore the assessments were a closed transaction. But obviously the assessments were not a closed transaction and the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes had the whole question of assessment open before him. If there was a subsequent circular of the National Board of Revenue requiring the assessing officer to treat the evidentiary value of an audit report in a particular manner then that circular was as much binding on the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes as upon the original assessing officer because the assessment had still not attained a finality. [Para-24] Dhaka Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes 5 BLT (AD)-171. |
Dhaka Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes | 5 BLT (AD) 171 |
Sections 6 and 24 |
Set off of Loss in assessing income tax — Loss or profits or gains in any year made any of the heads mentioned in section 6 is allowed to be set off against income, profits or gains under any other head. The provision of section 24 does not contain any reference to a loss sustained by an assessee as capital loss’ — If a loss caused by the cyclone is ‘a loss’ as referred to in section 24. this can be set off — Provisions of sub-section (2A) provide for including the loss of the nature sustained by the assessee under the head ‘Capital Gains’ and the provisions of sub-section (2B) provide for carrying forward such loss to be set off against capital gains for the year. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka Vs. M/s. United Shipping Lines Ltd; 3BLD (AD)242 |
Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka Vs. M/s. United Shipping Lines Ltd; | 3 BLD (AD) 242 |
Section 9(2) |
Assessment of Tax — Basis fli It is the determination of bonafide annual iIue of the puperty — Th. Authority is t determine the sum for which the landlord could let out the premise having regard to the prevailing circumstances — There is nothing to show that the Income Tax officer was not aware of all the facts when he determined the annual value of the house in question and completed the assessment — If the Estate Agents sub-let the house making good profit themselves, that profit cannot be included in the income of the assesses — appellant. Zebunnessa Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka (North Zone), Dhaka, 3BLD (AD) 113 |
Zebunnessa Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka (North Zone), Dhaka, | 3 BLD (AD) 113 |
Section 10(2)( VII) |
Income tax—Whether compensation awarded is taxable—In 1962 in the wake o( compulsory acquisition the legislature houg it fit to amend the law—The amendment deemed the amount of compensation aft computation of the difference between ordinal cost and written down value to be profits of the previous year — For profits and gains of business carried on by an assesse, the tax shall be payable under the head ‘business’. Comilla Electric Supply Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chittagong Zone, Chittagong, 3BLD(AD) 174 |
Comilla Electric Supply Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chittagong Zone, Chittagong, | 3 BLD (AD) 174 |
Sections 10(2)(VI), 59(1)(e) |
Sections — 1O(2)(VI), 59(1)(e) Assessment of Income Tax —
|
M/s. Everett Orient lines Inc. Vs. Commissioner of. Income Tax, | 3 BLD (AD) 39 |
Section 13 |
Assessable Income — Computation of — The assessing officer has been given the power to reject the accounts of the assessee — He is competent to change the basis of gross profits as calculated by the assessee and raise it to a higher percentage— He is only required to record with reasons that the system of accounting employed by the assessee does not reflect true income. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harendra Kumar Sil, 3BLD (AD) 48 |
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harendra Kumar Sil, | 3 BLD (AD) 48 |
Section 15(c) |
Bonus Shares — Whether an assessee can claim rebate or exemption from tax on account of investment in bonus shares — Bonus share will be a part of the income accruing to the company — Necessarily it has nothing to do with the total income of the assessee — As it is not a part of his total income the question of his investment does not arise — He ‘is not entitled to exemption or rebate from tax. Commissioner of Income Tax (North Zone), Dhaka Vs. Abdul Aziz, 5BLD (AD)46 |
Commissioner of Income Tax (North Zone), Dhaka Vs. Abdul Aziz, | 5 BLD (AD) 46 |
Sections 18A and 23 |
Additional tax — Question of separate notice for imposing additional tax
— The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is under obligation to work out the
additional tax that is payable — The law does not provide for another
notice for the purpose in as much as it is the continuation of the same
proceeding and not a different proceeding.
|
The Commissioner of Taxes (East) Zone, Dháka Vs. M/s Mallick Brother, | 6 BLD (AD) 196 |
Section 19(2)(X) |
read with Ordinance no. XXIII of 1973 Section-3
|
Commissioner of Taxes & Ors. Vs. M/S U. M. Factory. | 11 BLT (AD) 100 |
Sections 22 (1), 22(2) and 34(1) |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka -Vs.- Md. Abdul Awal | 12 ALR (AD) 153 |
Section 23 |
Income tax —Assessment of j- Capital receipt and revenue receipt — Whether amountby the assessee on account of termination of title agency is a capital revenue receipt — In determining whether 4 particular receipt is a capital receipt or nue receipt the nature of the transaction h be ascertained —. If it is a remuneration of assessee then it is a revenue receipt — The income of the assessee went up to a much hi figure in the following year. Hence it could said that the termination of the agency question had resulted in the destruction of profit — making structures of the assessee the amount was paid as compensation termination of the agency resulting in ter nation of the assessee’s business itself it the compensation paid will be capital red — Since termination of the agency has brought the assessee’s business practically stand still nor has it destroyed the p making apparatus of the assessee, the am received will be revenue receipt and capital receipt. The Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka M/s. Macneil and Kilburn Lid; 7BL (AD)160 |
The Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka M/s. Macneil and Kilburn Lid; | 7 BLD (AD) 160 |
Sections 29, 45 and 46 |
Income Tax — Assessment of tax made by agreement with the assessee under MLR 32 of 1969 of excess income declared in 1969—Administrative review of such assessment not maintainable—Assessment is final and tax assessed becomes a debt due to the Government when demand for the same is made. Commissioner of Taxes and others Vs .M/s. Mallick Brothers, 1BLD(AD)286 |
Commissioner of Taxes and others Vs .M/s. Mallick Brothers, | 1 BLD (AD) 286 |
Sections 31(2) and (2B) |
The view taken by the High Court Division that there is no provision in the said Act for taking fresh evidence or materials at the appellate stage is not correct — We find that the appellate powers of the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes are no different and no less than those of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes. [Paras- 17 & 18] Dhaka Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes 5 BLT (AD)-171 |
Dhaka Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes | 5 BLT (AD) 171 |
Section 34A |
Assessment of tax — Jurisdiction of reporting — Application of section 34A of Income Tax Act to assume jurisdiction and power under this section can be exercised only when assessment was erroneous and pre judical to the interest of revenue — There must be some materials for finding that the order of the Income Tax Officer was such — was mere observation to that effect is not sufficient to assume his jurisdiction. Zebunnessa Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka (North Zone), Dhaka, 3BLD (AD) 113 |
Zebunnessa Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhaka (North Zone), Dhaka, | 3 BLD (AD) 113 |
Section 34(2A) |
Reopening of assessment — Notice of reopening assessment if can be issued
after 8 years of assessment—Whether it is barred by limitation—Notice
for reopening of an assesment can be issued at any time notwithstanding
that at the time of issuance of such notice We period of 8 years had
expired—
|
The Commissioner of Taxes Vs. M/s. M. Ismail and sons, | 3 BLD (AD) 273 |
Section 41 and 66B |
Income Tax — Assessment of — Question of violability The assessee company exactly knew what was all about — Mistake, defect want of form shall not make the assessm void unless the assessee is prejudiced — The assessee could not make out a case of prejudice and therefore no objection could be taken to the assessment order. Commissioner of Taxes, Chittagong Zone, Chittagong Vs. M/s. Metropolitan Tanneries Ltd; 4BLD (AD)310 |
Commissioner of Taxes, Chittagong Zone, Chittagong Vs. M/s. Metropolitan Tanneries Ltd; | 4 BLD (AD) 310 |
Section 47B(2) |
Plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the statutory interest under the law and the Court has no discretion in the matter. Chaina Marine Products Ltd. Vs. Reliance Insurance Ltd. 6BLT (AD)-234. |
Chaina Marine Products Ltd. Vs. Reliance Insurance Ltd. | 6 BLT (AD) 234 |
Section 60(1)-(a)(3) |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= North South University | 16 LM (AD) 63 |
Section 60 |
Salary of the Judges of Supreme Court—Salary income of the Judges of the
Supreme Court is exempted from taxation by President’s Order 21 of 1973
and it cannot be included for the purpose of taxation while computing total
income.
|
The Commissioner of Taxes Vs. Mr. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, | 10 BLD (AD) 145 |
Section 60(1) |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
East West University, Dhaka =VS= The Commissioner of Taxes | 16 LM (AD) 115 |
Section 66 |
Income tax matter: Tribunals Jurisdiction .—In Income Tax matters it is for the Tribunal to decide questions of fact, and in a reference -under section 66 of the Act, the High Court Division, not constituted as a Court of appeal. exercises an advisory jurisdiction only and lays down the law in the facts found by the Tribunal. Where the High Court finds that there is no evidence to support the finding of fact of the Tribunal, or finding of the Tribunal is so unreasonable or perverse that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have arrived at it, then in such circumstances, there would arise a question of law which can be agitated before the High Court Division. The question of the applicability of a section of the Act to a particular set of facts or its construction is always a question of law. Mackinon Mackenzie and Company (Pakistan) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Chittagong (South) Zone, Chittagong, 12 BLD(AD)51 |
Mackinon Mackenzie and Company (Pakistan) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Chittagong (South) Zone, Chittagong, | 12 BLD (AD) 51 |