AIRLINK 189.64 Decreased By ▼ -7.01 (-3.56%)
BOP 10.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.49%)
CNERGY 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
FCCL 34.14 Increased By ▲ 1.12 (3.39%)
FFL 17.09 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (2.64%)
FLYNG 23.83 Increased By ▲ 1.38 (6.15%)
HUBC 126.05 Decreased By ▼ -1.24 (-0.97%)
HUMNL 13.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.79%)
KEL 4.77 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.21%)
KOSM 6.58 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (3.3%)
MLCF 43.28 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (2.51%)
OGDC 224.96 Increased By ▲ 11.93 (5.6%)
PACE 7.38 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (5.28%)
PAEL 41.74 Increased By ▲ 0.87 (2.13%)
PIAHCLA 17.19 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (2.2%)
PIBTL 8.41 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.45%)
POWER 9.05 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (2.61%)
PPL 193.09 Increased By ▲ 9.52 (5.19%)
PRL 37.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.93 (-2.43%)
PTC 24.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.21%)
SEARL 94.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-0.6%)
SILK 0.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-1%)
SSGC 39.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-0.94%)
SYM 17.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.44 (-2.42%)
TELE 8.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.8%)
TPLP 12.39 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.47%)
TRG 62.65 Decreased By ▼ -1.71 (-2.66%)
WAVESAPP 10.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-1.53%)
WTL 1.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-2.23%)
YOUW 3.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.75%)
BR100 11,814 Increased By 90.4 (0.77%)
BR30 36,234 Increased By 874.6 (2.47%)
KSE100 113,247 Increased By 609 (0.54%)
KSE30 35,712 Increased By 253.6 (0.72%)

LAHORE: To consider grounds for the factual determination of the amount claimed for refund in income tax returns is not permissible under the constitutional jurisdiction of this court, observed the Lahore High Court.

The Lahore High Court held that the refund amount claimed in income tax returns required factual determination of the amount claimed; hence, not permissible under the constitutional jurisdiction of this court to consider.

The Lahore High Court held that the refund claim for income tax returns being required factual determination of the amount claimed does not fall with the jurisdiction of this court.

The court passed this order in an appeal of Lahore Electric Supply Company Limited (Lesco) and advised the appellant to raise the refund claim before the Commissioner Inland Revenue where its appeal is already pending.

The court; however, directed the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) to decide the matter within two months.

The appellant’s counsel contended before the court that respondent had issued a notice demanding an amount of rupees 205,578,550.

He said the refund claim of the appellant for larger amount is still pending to be undetermined by the respondents.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

200 characters