Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (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 |
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 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 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) |
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 |
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 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 |
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 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 |
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 |