Quantcast
Wednesday , March 1 2017
Breaking News
Home / Islamabad / IHC to resume hearing of tax matter filed by M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited today
IHC to resume hearing of tax matter filed by M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited today

IHC to resume hearing of tax matter filed by M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited today

ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Islamabad high Court (IHC) will resume the hearing of a tax matter filed by M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited on Thursday.

A division bench of the IHC comprising of Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurengzeb will hear the matter which they had adjourned earlier.

Through the petition, M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited had challenged the imposition of ‘Super Tax regime 2015’against the formulated terms and conditions.

Super tax is being imposed for collecting funds for rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons under provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 after inserting section 4-B of Finance Act, 2015 in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

The petition has challenged super tax imposition stating that double tax was being charged under section 4-B of Finance Act, 2015 as the Federal Board of Revenue was using the said section (4-B) of Finance Act, 2015 for charging of Super Tax separately under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Hence, the section was being used to charge tax twice, petitioner stated.

M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited also submitted before the court that super tax should be imposed on rich people only under particular division, 11A, of first schedule on income of every person specified in ‘sold division.’

“The tax is being imposed on taxpayers under section 4-B, which itself is charging section, hence, under this provision it cannot be charged twice”, M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited stated.

M/s Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited had filed the case against officers of Ministry of Finance (MoF) and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).

Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit), Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit), and Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit), Large Taxpayers’ Unit were made respondents in the case.