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.
It appears that the first appellate authority did not consider as to the ownership of the vehicle remaining with lessor and not with the lessee and further that the lessor deals in the business of leasing out the vehicle to the lessee who operates the vehicle for his business. But the business of the lessor remains in the status of using the vehicle for the purpose of business of lease. Therefore these two pre-condition having been fulfilled in the instant case, the Assessee-applicant is entitled to the normal depreciation allowance and the initial depreciation allowance on the vehicle it has leased out to different lessee, being their customer. ...ILFSL Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 16A And
Section 36 of the Finance Act, 2013:
Power of imposition of surcharge is very much within the plenary power of legislation of the Parliament:
Though the term ‘surcharge’ is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or not defined in the said Ordinance, the basic concept of ‘surcharge’ was always there in our Constitution and the said Ordinance. The only difference being that while the Indian Constitution, under Article 271, specifically has mentioned the word ‘surcharge’, our Constitution has not mentioned the same in such specific way. Not only that, upon examining the dictionary meaning of the word “impost” as used under the definition of ‘taxation’ as provided by our Constitution under Article 152, there is no semblance of doubt that the Parliament has always had the plenary power to legislate provisions for imposition of ‘additional tax’, ‘extra charge’ or ‘impost’, through whatever terms it may be called, by which some additional charges may be levied on the tax payers in addition to their ordinary tax payments. In consideration of the above wide definition of ‘taxation’ as given by our Constitution and the definition of term ‘Tax’ as provided by the relevant provision of the said Ordinance, we are, therefore, of the view that the power of imposition of surcharge, as has been done by the impugned provisions, was very much within the plenary power of legislation of the Parliament. ...Golam Md. Faroque Uddin & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 67 ....View Full Judgment

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
As against above backdrop, we are of the view that, if the interpretation as suggested by the learned advocate for the assessees is accepted by this Court, that will give an absurd result in that though the assessees became liable to face some sort of consequences because of non-filing of the returns during the said ten years period, thereby preventing the concerned tax authorities from doing any assessment thereon, the same assesses would be given a double benefit now by allowing the original costs of the said properties ten years ago to be treated as ‘written down value’ in the concerned assessment year without deducting the actual depreciation which would have been allowed or could have been allowed had there been any actual assessments upon returns filed by the assessees. Under no circumstances, a Court of law can accept such proposition. This being so, we are of the view that, though no assessment has in fact been done during the said exemption period, the application of law should be made in such a way that no undue benefit is given to such assessees. In view of above, we hold that the words “depreciation allowed under this Ordinance” can under no circumstance be regarded as depreciation actually allowed through assessment orders. ...Youngone Synthetic Ind. Ltd & anr Vs Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 98 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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
SRO No. 178
In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the income of the assessee-university/the assessee-college ought to have been treated as tax exempted under SRO No. 178 for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 by the Taxes Authority and the Tribunal. ...United Int. University & Ors Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4
It is a settled principle of law that when the provision of a fiscal law carries different meaning, in such case, the benefit of it will go in favour of the citizen i.e. the assessee-university/the assessee-college. ...United Int. University & Ors Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4
SRO No. 454 read with SRO No. 178:
In order to get exemption, issuance of some certificate or producing exemption letter before the assessing officer is not necessary. ...United Int. University & Ors Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 4 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

Gift Tax Act, 1990
Section 4(ja) And
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 53M:
The intention of the legislators when the Gift Tax Act, 1990 was enacted was to exempt certain persons from tax if the gift was made to the persons stated in Section 4(ja) of the Gift Tax Act, 1990. Moreover, we have also found that the impugned Section 53M of ITO was only inserted in the Finance Act 2010, while the Gift Tax Act, which was enacted in 1990, is an earlier law and is still very much a provision of law, since no amendment or changes to the law have been brought to till present. Therefore the provisions the Gift Tax Act, 1990 shall prevail over any insertion that might have been brought into the ITO 1984 and there can be no room for any presumptions or assumptions that tax must be paid by all in case of any gift which might be made to any person irrespective of his or her relationship with the donee of the gift and to presume such a thing is a serious misinterpretation of the law and is a misinterpretation of the intention of the legislators and shall result in serious miscarriage of justice. ...Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 ....View Full Judgment

Gift Tax Act, 1990
Section 4 And
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 53M:
Section 53M Explanation 1 is contrary to the rest of the provisions of the ITO, 1984, being against the sprit and intent of the Ordinance and also contrary to the Section 4 of Gift Tax Act, 1990. Therefore the impugned collection of advance tax against transfer of shares to the daughter of the petitioner is unlawful and without lawful authority. ...Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

The Income-Tax Ordinance, 1984
ধারা ৭৫ মোতাবেক গুগল, ফেইসবুক, ইউটিউব, ইয়াহু, আমাজনসহ অন্যান্য ইন্টারনেট ভিত্তিক সামাজিক যোগাযোগ মাধ্যম আয়কর রিটার্ন দাখিল করতে বাধ্য। ...Md. Humayun Kabir and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and Ors., (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 68 ....View Full Judgment

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

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
It appears that due to fixation of target by the Finance Ministry as to collection of income tax to a certain amount, the tax executives either deliberately ignore the provision of law or twist the same in order to attain the target by realizing the more and more tax upon whims and caprice which is deplorable and hereby deprecated by this court. This tendency of the tax executives to realize tax by any means is required to be changed by fixing supervision of the National Board of Revenue in this respect. Therefore a copy of the judgment is required to be sent to the National Board of Revenue for the perusal of its Chairman. ...Karnaphuli Industries Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 4 ....View Full Judgment

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

Change of mind by the assessing officer can not justify re-opening of assessment under section 93 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984:
The relevant provisions in our Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 are still like pre-enactment of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. That means, the precondition of having definite information which has to come into the possession of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes after completion of original assessment is still very much intact under sub-section (2) of Section 93 of the said Ordinance. Therefore, we fully agree with the submissions of Mr. Noor that, the DCT must have fresh information in his possession which has come to his possession after completion of original assessment and, only on such happening, the DCT is entitled to reopen the completed assessment of a particular assessee. ...Concord Consourtium Ltd. Vs. DC of Taxes Dhaka & ors., (Civil), 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 83
When a particular issue has been categorically addressed by the DCT in the original assessment order and there is no allegation that the assessee has not disclosed any particular fact or materials at the time of original assessment and when the DCT completed such assessment on the basis of the materials disclosed by the assessee taking a particular view on a particular amount, change of such view subsequently by the concerned DCT, for whatever reason, cannot not justify reopening of assessment. This position of law has been categorically affirmed by various higher Courts in India in the above referred cases. Since it is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that, the impugned reassessment was in fact initiated not because of any fresh information having come to the possession of the concerned DCT, rather the same was the result of subsequent change of opinion or change of mind of the DCT being influenced by a report of local office of CAG, such change of opinion is not permitted to be the ground for reopening the assessment. ...Concord Consourtium Ltd. Vs. DC of Taxes Dhaka & ors., (Civil), 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 83 ....View Full Judgment

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

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
Though there is no requirement to give an opportunity of hearing to the assesseeapplicant or recording reason, but still the Commissioner of Taxes should be aware that his /her order must reflect reasonableness from where it can be transpire that the Commissioner of Taxes applied his/her judicial mind in passing the order. But for inadequacy or absence of reasonableness, the order cannot be set aside. It is discretion of the Commissioner of Taxes. ...Proshika Manobik Unnayan Kendro Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 129 ....View Full Judgment