AGL 40.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.27%)
AIRLINK 129.74 Decreased By ▼ -1.99 (-1.51%)
BOP 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
CNERGY 4.62 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (3.36%)
DCL 8.85 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.34%)
DFML 41.91 Increased By ▲ 1.30 (3.2%)
DGKC 83.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.13%)
FCCL 32.70 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (1.11%)
FFBL 75.47 Increased By ▲ 6.86 (10%)
FFL 11.50 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.32%)
HUBC 110.50 Decreased By ▼ -1.26 (-1.13%)
HUMNL 14.65 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (2.38%)
KEL 5.40 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (3.45%)
KOSM 8.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-6.35%)
MLCF 39.89 Increased By ▲ 0.46 (1.17%)
NBP 60.45 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.27%)
OGDC 198.45 Increased By ▲ 3.51 (1.8%)
PAEL 26.63 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.22%)
PIBTL 7.71 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (3.07%)
PPL 158.00 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (1.43%)
PRL 26.69 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.04%)
PTC 18.40 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.55%)
SEARL 82.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.83 (-1%)
TELE 8.34 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.34%)
TOMCL 34.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.29%)
TPLP 9.14 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (3.75%)
TREET 17.32 Increased By ▲ 0.62 (3.71%)
TRG 61.30 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-1.84%)
UNITY 27.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.33%)
WTL 1.37 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (7.03%)
BR100 10,400 Increased By 213 (2.09%)
BR30 31,653 Increased By 316.8 (1.01%)
KSE100 97,328 Increased By 1781.9 (1.86%)
KSE30 30,192 Increased By 614.4 (2.08%)

LAHORE: A tax officer has failed to prove advance against shares as fictitious transactions transacted through banking channel, said sources.

They said the tax department had added back the advance against the shares into the income by the taxpayer under the pretext of section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO).

The taxpayer was a Public Limited Company and was involved in manufacturing of cement. It had furnished the return of income and declared loss from business to the tune of PKR 78,428,706/-, and tax refundable to the tune of PKR 201,105/-.

This case was selected for audit by the assessing officer under section 177 of the ITO. In the aftermath, the officer observed some discrepancies and the same confronted to the taxpayer through a show-cause notice. The taxpayer submitted its reply, but the audit officer was not satisfied with it, hence he passed the order.

The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the same and held that as the advance against shares was given by a person that did not hold a NTN at the time of remitting the amount through banking channel, the same falls within the taxability of Section 39(3) of the ITO as the genuineness of the transactions could not be verified.

The taxpayer was of the view that the transactions were not fictitious as the same were conducted through banking channel. Since the transactions are not fictitious the said amount of advance cannot be added back to the income as settled by the superior courts from time to time, it added.

The department agitated that the transactions were not genuine as the Director who had made the advance against shares was not a NTN holder at the time when the transactions were made.

However, the relevant appellate forum held that since the transactions at hand were done through banking channel, the same cannot be termed as fictitious by any stretch of imagination. Accordingly, the taxpayer succeeded on this ground and the demand became annulled.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.

M. Zahid Iftikhar Jul 09, 2024 01:03pm
Interesting to see how officials wielding arbitrary powers defy logic. Good decision by appellate forum.
thumb_up Recommended (0)