Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Article 5A of the 3rd Schedule |
It appears that the leasing company being the owner of the leased out
asset, used the asset for the purpose of business, i.e. leased out the
property using the same as business assets and as such attracted by the
provision of Article 5A of the 3rd Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance
1984.
|
ILFSL Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes | 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 1 |
Section 16A |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
Golam Md. Faroque Uddin & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 67 |
Sections 16 CCC, 16, 17, 20, 28(1), 29.... |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
S. Alam Beg Manufacturing Mills Ltd. =VS= Ministry of Finance, BD | 14 LM (AD) 344 |
Sections 16 CCC, 16, 17, 20, 28(1), 29.... |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
S. Alam Beg Manufacturing Mills Ltd. =VS= Ministry of Finance, BD | 14 LM (AD) 344 |
Section 28, 29 |
Therefore, it appears from the above description of the word
“depreciation” that in calculating the total income in a concerned
assessment year, the wears and tears of assets, which have been used for
the purpose of the business and to earn revenue, have to be taken into
consideration. From the context of the said concept, the relevant
provisions have been incorporated in our statute book, namely Income Tax
Ordinance, 1984. Thus, while Section 28 of the said Ordinance classifies
the income from business and profession, Section 29 provides for the
allowances to be deducted from the said income while calculating the same
for the purpose of assessment. Clause(VIII) of subsection (1) of Section 29
provides that the depreciation of building, machinery, plan or furniture
etc. of the concerned assessee, which have been used for the purposes of
business or profession, shall be allowed as admissible under the Third
Schedule to the said Ordinance. Again, Paragraph-2 of the said Third
Schedule, in particular subparagraph (1) of the same, provides that in
computing the profits and gains from the business or profession, an
allowance for depreciation shall be made in the manner provided
hereinafter. This Paragraph 2 is followed by a Table under Paragraph 3
prescribing fixed rates of depreciations to be allowed on the ‘written
down value’ of any particular assets used in the business. ...Youngone
Synthetic Ind. Ltd & anr Vs Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016]
HCD 98
|
Youngone Synthetic Ind. Ltd & anr Vs Commissioner of Taxes | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 98 |
Section 29(1) |
Per MM Ruhul Amin J : (agreeing)—The basic and essential conditions on which Zakat becomes obligatory are not at all applicable to the petitioner, and, as such, the petitioner bank is not required to pay Zakat and hence not entitled to get exemption under section 29(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 on account of payment of Zakat The review petitions are accordingly, liable to be dismissed. Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Commissioner of Taxes 14 BLC (AD) 145. |
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Commissioner of Taxes | 14 BLC (AD) 145 |
Section 29(1)(XXVII) |
Per Justice Md Ruhul Amin CJ (delivered the main judgment) —The payment as claimed by the petitioner on the head of 'Zakat' on behalf of the depositors or account holders for flourishing of the business has no nexus to carry on his business and, as such, the exemption claimed in respect of the amount said to have been paid on the head 'Zakat' does in no way come within the provision of section 29(1) (XXVII) of the Ordinance. Such payment, termed as 'Zakat', by the corporate body, on behalf of its depositors/customers, cannot be considered to have been made towards 'Zakat' which said to have led to flourishing of its business and for that cannot be considered covered by the provision of section 29(1)(XXVII) of the Ordinance. Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Commissioner of Taxes 14 BLC (AD) 145. |
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Commissioner of Taxes | 14 BLC (AD) 145 |
Section 29(1)(XXVII) |
Per MA Matin J : (agreeing)—Since the petitioners are under no obligation to pay any zakat as juridical persons they are also not authorised to pay zakat on behalf of their account holders and therefore, they are not entitled to any exemption of taxes from their income within the meaning of section 29(1)(XXVII) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Commissioner of Taxes 14 BLC (AD) 145. |
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Commissioner of Taxes | 14 BLC (AD) 145 |
Sections 29(1) and 44 |
Zakat as a concept and a pillar of Islam is not applicable to a juristic
person like bank.
|
Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited-Vs.- The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and another | 6 ALR (AD) 213 |
Section 33 |
Whether the assessee has invested a portion of the income in profitable
businesses, the profit is also utilized for charitable purposes, and
there¬fore, it is entitled to exemption in accordance with Part A of the
Sixth Schedule.
|
Commissioner of Taxes -Vs.- Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), 75, Mohakhali, Dhaka | 14 ALR (AD) 1 |
Section 35 |
The DCT concern, prior to discarding the book versions of the accounts has to raise dissatisfaction as to the method of accounting as to its cumbersomeness that the true and correct income of the Assessee-applicant cannot be deduced therefrom or to pin point the defect in the accounts; else the DCT concern has to accept the book version of the accounts as submitted by the Assessee-applicant and audited and certified by the chartered accountant. ...Bright Textile Ind. (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 5 ....View Full Judgment |
Bright Textile Ind. (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes | 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 5 |
Section 35(4) |
Since the DCT concern did not raise any dissatisfaction as to the method of accounting and did not pin point any of the defect in the accounts, the two lower appellate authorities were required to consider the said question and decide the appeals before them in its true perspective. But that has not been done by the two lower appellate authorities and as such the questions as have been formulated in the instant three Income Tax Reference Applications are required to be answered in negative and in favour of the Assessee-applicant. ...Ahmed Service Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Ahmed Service Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 1 |
Section 35(3) |
The provision in section 35 (3) of the Ordinance, 1984 does not exonerate the assessee from supplying evidence in support of the claims for allowances/deductions– Section 35(3) of the Ordinance indeed directs the assessee to furnish a copy of the trading account, profit and loss account and the balance sheet of the income year certified by a Chartered Accountant, but that does not obviate the requirement to provide evidence in support of the claims made by the assessee. We reiterate the finding of the High Court Division in the decision reported in 58 DLR 531 that accounts audited by a firm of Chartered Accountants cannot be said to be sacrosanct. When the tax authority indicates that any claims are disallowed on account of lack of verifiable evidence, it is incumbent upon the assessee to satisfy the tax authority by providing necessary supporting evidence. The provision in section 35 (3) of the Ordinance, 1984 does not exonerate the assessee from supplying evidence in support of the claims for allowances/deductions. The appeal is allowed. The judgement and order by the High Court Division is set aside. …Commissioner of Taxes =VS= Conference & Exhibition Mgmt Ser. Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 34] ....View Full Judgment |
Commissioner of Taxes =VS= Conference & Exhibition Mgmt Ser. Ltd. | 8 LM (AD) 34 |
Section 44(4)(b) |
The Government has jurisdiction to issue Notification exempting or reducing
income tax of any university or educational institution under section
44(4)(b) of the Ordinance. ...United Int. University & Ors Vs. The
Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4
|
United Int. University & Ors Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes | 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4 |
Section 44(4)(b), 2(20)(a), 2(65), 16 |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= North South University | 16 LM (AD) 63 |
Section 44(4)(b) |
The Government has jurisdiction to issue Notification exempting or reducing income tax of any university or educational institution under section 44(4)(b) of the Ordinance. ...United Int. University & Ors Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4 ....View Full Judgment |
United Int. University & Ors Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes | 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4 |
Sections 44(4)(b), 160 |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
East West University, Dhaka =VS= The Commissioner of Taxes | 16 LM (AD) 115 |
Section 46A(1), 46A(2)(f) |
Tax Exemption– Gazette notification was not operated by giving retrospective effect – Section 46A(1) of the Ordinance provides that if any undertaking which comes under the ambit of industrial undertaking, tourist industry or physical infrastructure facility set up in Bangladesh between 01.07.1995–13.06.2000 shall be exempted from the tax payable under the Ordinance. It is admitted that unit No.2 of the writ petitioner company has commenced its commercial operation on 16.06.1997. An application for tax exemption was filed on 10.12.1997 before the said undertaking was included within the ambit of the physical infrastructure facility by gazette notification on 01.12.1999. Due to this, the application was rejected lawfully. Moreover, the oil tank of the writ petitioner company applied for tax exemption on 12.06.2000 after the gazette notification comes into operation. The application was not made within the stipulated time as provided in Section 46A(2)(f) of the Ordinance. Section 46A(2)(f) of the Ordinance implicates that the application for approval of tax exemption is to be made within 180 days from the date of commencement of commercial operation or production. From the materials on record, it appears that the gazette notification was not operated by giving retrospective effect. Therefore, the rejection of the application was correct and proper. The oil tank in question is not entitled to get tax exemption in accordance with law. The nature of oil tanker comes within the ambit of the physical infrastructure facility in 02.12.1999, but unit No.2 of the writ petitioner company started its commercial operation on 16.06.1997 and made application for tax exemption on 12.06.2000, which is not within the statutory period of 180 days from the date of its commencement. As the oil tank in question was not within the purview of physical infrastructure facility at the relevant time when they made the application for tax exemption on 04.02.1988, the rejection of that application was legal. ...Ministry of Finance, BD =VS= Summit United Tanks Terminal Ltd., (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 181] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Summit United Tanks Terminal Ltd. | 10 LM (AD) 181 |
Section 46A(2)(f) |
The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Ocean Containers Ltd., Dhaka | 12 LM (AD) 97 |
Section 48(2) |
There cannot be any doubt left that tax may be imposed only on ‘income’. ...Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 ....View Full Judgment |
Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 |
Section 48(2) |
Income can arise out of a transferor of any capital asset only if any profit or gain has accrued to the transferor of the asset. And therefore it is only logical to conclude that if no “profit” or ‘gain’ has accrued to the transferor there can be no “income” and if there is no “income” there can be no question of the transferor being subject to tax. ...Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 ....View Full Judgment |
Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 |
Section 50 |
There is no any unlawful term or condition within a contract the same is binding upon the parties thereto–– Appellate Division finds from the agreement between BAPA and Biman that there are clear terms and conditions, which are in no way unlawful and, therefore, the contract is binding on the parties. Thus, Biman could not unilaterally alter or vary terms of the contract in view of Article 1.3.1. ––Payment of income-tax by the employer is a benefit given to the employees by agreement and can be said to be a perquisite and is sometimes termed as fringe benefit as in the case of for example newspaper employees. There is nothing illegal in employer/employees reaching an agreement to provide the employees his tax free salary so long as the agreement is at arms length and the terms and conditions are not unlawful. There is nothing to preclude the parties to the contract from revising the contract after due negotiation. However, so long as the earlier contract exists with the clause within it not to vary or alter the terms thereof, either party cannot unilaterally vary or alter the terms. ––This Division does not find any merit in the instant civil petitions for leave to appeal, which are accordingly dismissed. .....Bangladesh Biman Air-lines Limited =VS= Intekhab Hossain, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 229] ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh Biman Air-lines Limited =VS= Intekhab Hossain | 14 LM (AD) 229 |
Section 52 |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
Janata Bank Limited =VS= Sampriti Chakma | 16 LM (AD) 50 |
Section 53M |
Gift Tax Act, 1990
|
Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 |
Section 53M |
Gift Tax Act, 1990
|
Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 |
Section 53M Explanation 1 |
This section in our opinion is against the whole spirit of the Ordinance. Because none of the terms mentioned here including gift are transfers for consideration and none of these modes of transfer contemplate income of any kind, in whatever form on the part of the transferor. The transferor or donor in performing his act of transfer does not receive anything in return and therefore these modes of transfer being transfers by way of gift, bequest etc. can under no circumstances be the source of “income” of any kind. ...Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 ....View Full Judgment |
Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 |
Section 53 and 82C |
According to sub-section (3) of the said Section 53, the importers are given credit for such advance payment of income tax during their assessment of tax in the concerned assessment year. Not only that, according to Section 82C as quoted above, such deduction shall even be deemed to be the final discharge of tax liability of an assesseeimporter from that source. Therefore, since the source in the present case in respect of the petitioners is the source of importation of scrap vessels by the ship breaking industries, or sometimes by the petitioners themselves, and there is no dispute that at the time of importation of the scrap vessels AIT were deducted in view of the provisions under Section 53, the said deduction of tax shall be deemed to be the final discharge of liability from that source in view of Clause (g) sub-section (2) of Section 82C of the said Ordinance. ...BSRM Steels Ltd. & ors. Vs NBR & ors., (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 80 ....View Full Judgment |
BSRM Steels Ltd. & ors. Vs NBR & ors. | 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 80 |
Section 75 |
A return filed under the normal procedure of section 75 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984 has to be assessed within the period of limitation of six month, so also the ropening procedure against deemed assessment under the Self Assessment Scheme has to be confined to the period of limitation of two years. No proceeding for assessment of any return can be taken after the period for limitation and any such proceeding initiated shall be a nullity. ...Shahana Parvin Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 21 ....View Full Judgment |
Shahana Parvin Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes | 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 21 |
Section 75 |
The Income-Tax Ordinance, 1984
|
Md. Humayun Kabir and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and Ors | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 68 |
Section 83 |
It has been provided under the provision of section 83(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984 that while the DCT concern desires to rely upon the non-verifiability of any expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the Assessee-applicant and shown in the accounts, has to serve a further notice upon the assessee concern directing him to produce adequate evidence as to the said point. ...Bright Textile Ind. (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 5 ....View Full Judgment |
Bright Textile Ind. (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes | 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 5 |
Section 83(2) |
The DCT concern did not comply the provision of section 83(2) before
opining that the claimed expenditure has not been adequately evidenced by
the assessee applicant. Therefore it appears that the disallowance of
expenditure has not only violated the provision of section 83(2) of the
Income Tax Ordinance 1984, but also violated the time honored maxim Audi
Alterm Partem which obliged a adjudicator to allow adequate opportunity of
being head or to submit adequate representation. Accordingly this court
finds merit in these seven Income Tax Reference Applications. ...Karnaphuli
Industries Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 4
|
Karnaphuli Industries Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Taxes | 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 4 |
Sections 83A, 2(23), 78, 93, 128, 131, 153, 158 |
Self-assessment method as per Section 83A of the Ordinance, 1984–– The authority of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes in imposing penalty Appellate Division holds that the provision of Section 131 of the Ordinance, 1984 authorizes the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes to impose any penalty as per Section 128 and the definition clause of Section 2(23) of the Ordinance, 1984, provides that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes also include Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. Thus, the authority of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes in imposing penalty cannot be said without jurisdiction. ––That the income tax authority on the basis of the information filed by the assessees detected the concealment of revenues by the assessees-respondents and imposed penalty under Section 128 of the Ordinance, 1984, but the High Court Division disregarding the aforesaid aspects set aside the judgment and order of the Taxes Appellate Tribunal. ––Appellate Division finds that the High Court Division decided the Income Tax Reference Applications No.298-302 of 2010, 374-379 of 2010, 316-319 of 2010 and 172-175 of 2010 with wrong assessment, which is not tenable in the eye of law and accordingly, all the appeals deserve to be allowed. .....Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka =VS= A.K.M. Faizur Rahman, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 159] ....View Full Judgment |
Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka =VS= A.K.M. Faizur Rahman | 14 LM (AD) 159 |
Section 83(2) |
Further notice under section 83(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 was amendment and since no such requirement– Appellate Division notes that in the above mentioned decision of the High Court Division their Lordships were considering income tax return of the company concerned for the assessment year 1998-1999. The learned Attorney General pointed out that the provision relating to service of further notice under section 83(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 has been amended several times. Up to July 1991 there was no requirement for a further notice under section 83(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. By an amendment in the year 1994 the provision of service of a further notice was introduced and that again was taken away by another amendment in July, 1999. Hence, the provision of service of a further notice under section 83(2) existed between August, 1995 to July, 1999. Accordingly, the case of Mark Builders Ltd. cited above was correctly decided requiring a further notice to be served under section 83(2) because the case in question referred to Income Tax assessment year 1998-1999. However, since the requirement of further notice under section 83(2) was amendment and since no such requirement existed in the law since July, 1999, the decision relied upon by the High Court Division is not applicable in the facts of the instant cases because the references before us relate to assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2001-2002 and 2004-2005, 2005-2006 in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.4407-4409 of 2018, 3122 and 3478 of 2018 respectively. ...Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka=VS=Hotel Purbani International Ltd. , (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 78] ....View Full Judgment |
Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka=VS=Hotel Purbani International Ltd. | 11 LM (AD) 78 |
Section-92 |
Recover taxes–
|
AC of Taxes =VS= BM Baker Hossain | 3 LM (AD) 22 |
Section 92 |
We are of the view that the legal representatives shall be liable to pay tax or other sum payable under Ordinance but the liabilities of the legal representatives under this Ordinance shall be limited to the extent to which the estate of the deceased is capable of meeting the liability. .....AC of Taxes =VS= BM Baker Hossain, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 22] ....View Full Judgment |
AC of Taxes =VS= BM Baker Hossain | 3 LM (AD) 22 |
Section 93 and 94 |
Since the assessment year for 2004-2005 shall expire on 30th June, 2005 and the assessment has to be made thereafter within six months i.e. within 31st December, 2005 under the provision of section 94(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984. So far the commencement of limitation is concerned under the provision of section 93(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984 it shall commence from 1st July, 2005 and will expire on 30th June 2010. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment under the provision of section 93(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984 for the assessment year 2004-2005 after the expiry of the limitation period was a palpable illegality and that being a question of law the Taxes Appellate Tribunal was required to consider the same. ...Shahana Parvin Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 21 ....View Full Judgment |
Shahana Parvin Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes | 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 21 |
Section 93 |
Change of mind by the assessing officer can not justify re-opening of
assessment under section 93 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984:
|
Concord Consourtium Ltd. Vs. DC of Taxes Dhaka & ors. | 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 83 |
Section 93 |
Re opening the assessment earlier accepted by the authority.
|
Abdul Kader Master Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Taxes & Ors | 15 BLT (AD) 271 |
Section 120, 163(3)(f) and (g) |
Wherever income and expenditure of public money is involved, the CAG has power and authority to conduct audit to ascertain the propriety, legality and validity of it.–– In view of Appellate Division’s decision as referred to above and the provisions of section 163(3)(f) and (g) of the Income Tax Ordinance,1984, this Division is of the view that the High Court Division was not correct to hold that the proceedings as initiated vide impugned notice under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 and actions taken pursuant to that notice suffer from lack of jurisdiction. .....Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Radiant Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 259] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Radiant Pharmaceuticals Ltd. | 13 LM (AD) 259 |
Section 120 and 163 (3) |
Constitution of Bangladesh,
|
Bangladesh and ors Vs. Radiant Pharmaceuticals Ltd | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 1 |
Section 120 and 163 (3) |
Audit report prepared by the Local Audit Office of the CAG is one of the factors that enables the Inspecting Joint Commissioner to determine whether any order of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is erroneous or not: Going through the provision of section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 we find that the Inspecting Joint Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Ordinance if he considers that any order passed therein by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Provisions of section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 read with section 163(3)(f) and(g) of the same Ordinance lead us to irresistible conclusion that audit report prepared by the Local Audit Office of the CAG is one of the factors that enables the Inspecting Joint Commissioner to determine whether any order of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is erroneous or not. The audit report better equips the Inspecting Joint Commissioner to apply his discretion to detect errors committed by Deputy Commissioner of Taxes. Therefore, the allegation that the auditors of the CAG have acted like supervisory officers of concerned assessing officer is devoid of any substance. …Bangladesh and ors Vs. Radiant Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh and ors Vs. Radiant Pharmaceuticals Ltd | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 1 |
Section 135(1) and 143(2) |
The mandatory provision of Section 135(1) of ITO was not followed by the respondents prior to exercise of power under section 143(2) in freezing the bank account of the assessee-petitioners. In the instant matter the provisions of Section 143 of ITO can be resorted to only after the preceding of provisions of Section 135(1) have been complied with, but the Respondents in this case, circumvented the provisions of the law by outrightly ignoring the mandatory provisions to issue notice under the provisions of Section 135 of the Ordinance, which they cannot lawfully do. The Respondents actions in the instant case are without any lawful authority and therefore has no legal effect. ...F.J. Geo-Tex (BD) Ltd Vs. NBR & ors., (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 132 ....View Full Judgment |
F.J. Geo-Tex (BD) Ltd Vs. NBR & ors. | 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 132 |
Sections 154 (2) and 60 |
The Appellate Division found that the High Court Division observed that the questions raised were absolutely questions of fact which required to be proved with the help of evidence. The High Court Division came to a finding that both the appellate forum below had given concurrent findings in this matter and that it was not inclined to interfere with the forum created under section 160 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. The High Court Division noted that even the very demand notice issued on 29.11.2006 clearly stood against the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Therefore, the High Court Division concluded that the question formulated in this reference was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents and against the assessee-applicant-petitioner. Accordingly, this civil petition is dismissed. .....Dhaka Insurance Ltd =VS= Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 182] ....View Full Judgment |
Dhaka Insurance Ltd =VS= Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka | 1 LM (AD) 182 |
Section 158 (2) |
The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of section 158 of the Ordinance vests
discretion with the Commissioner of Taxes to reduce statutory requirement
of payment under Sub-Section(2) of section 158 of the Ordinance, if the
grounds stated in the application filed by the assessee applicant under the
proviso appears reasonable to him/her. From the language of the proviso, we
do not find any statutory duty of the CT to pass an order assigning reason.
...Proshika Manobik Unnayan Kendro Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes & ors.,
(Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 129
|
Proshika Manobik Unnayan Kendro Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes & ors. | 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 129 |
Section 158(2) |
The provision of subsection (2) of section 158 of the Income Tax Ordinance as amended by the Finance Act, 2000 will be applicable to the pending cases. BRAC vs National Board of Revenue 14 BLC (AD) 113. |
BRAC vs National Board of Revenue | 14 BLC (AD) 113 |
Section 160 |
Gift Tax Act, 1990
|
Dr. Muhammad Yunus =VS= Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka | 15 LM (AD) 154 |
Section 160 |
Read with The Income Tax Act, 1922, Section-23(3)
|
Meghna Petroleurm Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Taxes | 6 BLT (AD) 95 |
Section 160 |
In taxation matter reference is to be made out of final decision/judgment passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal. Since in the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and the reference having not been made on point of limitation, the High Court Division rightly refused to answer the question raised. Mrs. Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes 15 BLT (AD)84 |
Mrs. Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes | 15 BLT (AD) 84 |
Section 160, 160(4), 161 (2) |
Section 160 of the Ordinance does not provide for any such action. Clearly it is for the assessee to formulate any point of law and make the reference to the High Court Division in the prescribed form. Under section 161 (2) the High Court Division is required only to hear and decide the question of law raised and, therafter, deliver its judgement stating the grounds on which the decision is founded. No question of law arose in the reference the respondents were not required to admit or deny the reference. ...M/S Ali Garments Limited =VS= Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 293] ....View Full Judgment |
M/S Ali Garments Limited =VS= Commissioner of Taxes | 9 LM (AD) 293 |
Sections 160 and 161(2) |
Section 160 of the Ordinance clearly provides that it is for the assessee
to formulate any point of law and make the reference to the High Court
Division in the prescribed form. Under section 161 (2) the High Court
Division is required only to hear and decide the question of law raised
and, therafter, deliver its judgement stating the grounds on which the
decision is founded.
|
M/S Ali Garments Limited -Vs.- The Commissioner of Taxes | 5 ALR (AD) 17 |
Section 165 and 166 |
read with Emergency Power Rules, 2007 Rule-15
|
Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood | 16 BLT (AD) 313 |
Sections 165 and 166 |
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Mirza Abbas Uddin Ahmed =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 643 |
Section 173 |
read with Section —3
|
Mr. Akbar Hussain Vs. Taxes Appellate Tribunal & Ors | 15 BLT (AD) 273 |
Section 184 |
The law regarding getting the necessary Income Tax Clearance Certificate
was amended on 30.06.1992 by section 8(21) of the Finance Act, 1992 (Act
No. 21 of 1992) when section 184 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984 was
abolished. From then on it was necessary only to pay 6 percent of the sale
price at the time of registration. Even at this point the purchaser did not
take any step towards completion of the contract. The liquidated damage is
payable by the purchaser.
|
Mahua Khair -Vs- Amena Begum AliIspahani | 1 ALR (AD) 169 |
Sixth Schedule, Part A [Paragraph 1(1)] |
Even the trust’s objects are cheritable, the presence of ancilliary or
secondary object of non-cheritable nature does not prevent taxation – if
among several objects of trust, the trust carries on trade or business, it
can do so subject to the condition of relaxation with prior permission and
not otherwise.
|
Commissioner of Taxes -Vs.- Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), 75, Mohakhali, Dhaka | 14 ALR (AD) 1 |