Section: Preamble
2012 PTD 1783 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN
TELENOR PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, L.T.U., ISLAMABAD
Ss.21(g), 20 & 122(5A)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Preamble—Deductions not allowed—Contractual obligations—Late payment charges—Expenses claimed on account of late payment charges was disallowed and added back on the ground that contractual obligations were being discharged under the Contract Act, 1872 and violation of the contract, entered into between the parties, was violation of the Contract Act and late payment charges were paid for that contravention and expenses on account of late payment charges was in contravention of S.21(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 being fine paid for violation of law of land i.e. Contract Act, 1872—Taxpayer contended that S.20 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 stipulated that a person may be allowed a deduction for any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business unless specifically disallowed by the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; that provisions of S.21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 envisaged disallowance of fine or penalties in violation of any law, rule or regulation; and that late payment charges were not in respect of violation any law, rule or regulation and such like expenditure was a common feature of contracts—Validity—Clause of contract providing interest on the delayed payment was one of the terms and conditions of the contract between two parties; and said clause was neither a provision of any statute/law, rule or regulation; and provisions of Cl.(g) of S.21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 disallowed a deduction for any fine or penalty paid or payable by the person for violation of any law, rule or regulation—Clause (g) of S.21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clearly provided that the fine or penalty paid or payable by the person was for violation of any law, rule or regulation—Clause of a contract between the parties was neither law, rule or regulation—Three expressions “law”, “rule” or “regulations” imply codified provisions, may it be a primary legislation by the legislature or a subordinate one by other authorities to whom legislature had delegated its power to make rules or regulations—Contract Act, 1872 had not been correctly construed by the forums below for the same regulated the relationship between a promiser and a promisee, envisaging certain conditions for execution of the contract—Contractual rights and liabilities were justiceable when the relationship came into being in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Act—No doubt it was not a statute/law providing specific penalties including fine in case of non compliance of the contractual obligations, party in default had to perform his part of contract which might be got enforced in terms of actual performance or if the same was not possible, by compensation appropriate in each case—Violation of the terms of a contract, as executed in line with the provisions of the Contract Act was not a violation of any law, rule or regulation—Late payment charges paid by the taxpayer did not fall within mischief of Cl.(g) of S.21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and could not be disallowed—Appeal of the taxpayer was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal.
2008 CLC 175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SYED AHMED VS Syed MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN
Preamble—General principles of law in vogue in England cannot override statutory provisions of Contract Act, 1872.
2008 CLD 1217 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock
Preamble—Object and scope—Law of contract has been promulgated with the spirit that there should be some statutory legal lines between which contracting parties should act and their obligation to each other should not be violated.
2008 CLC 1618 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and another
Preamble—Object and scope—Law of contract has been promulgated with the spirit that there should be some statutory legal lines between which contracting parties should act and their obligation to each other should not be violated.
2007 CLD 376 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mian NISAR ELAHI VS LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE(G) LIMITED
—Preamble—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Preamble—Fundamental change brought about with the enactment of the Central Depositories Act, 1997 and the licensing on Central Depository Company as a Central Depository in the Scheme which prevailed previously
2004 CLD 1040 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
QUINN CORPORATION VS COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION
—-S.7—Stamp Act (11 of 1899), Preamble—-Contract Act (IX of 1872), Preamble—Foreign award—Definition—Enforcement of foreign award—Jurisdiction of Executing Court—Scope and extent.
2001 CLC 104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BUSINET INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. VS ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.
Contract Act 1872 Binding and valid contract—Essentials of—Offer, its acceptance and consideration are essentials of a binding and valid contract.
1995 MLD 155 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SAEED AHMED KHAN VS INSPACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SURVEY), HYDERABAD RANGE
—-Ss.5 & 15(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Preamble—Unregistered rent deed —Effect—Ejectment application—Maintainability—Tenant contended that rent agreement being unregistered document, ejectment application filed by landlord against him was
1986 PLD 234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WORLD WIDE TRADING CO. LTD. VS SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING CO. LTD.
Preamble-Provisions of Act whether exhaustive-Extent.
1983 PLD 340 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAWWAD & FAREEN ENTERPRISE LTD. VS DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES GOVT. OF SIND KARACHI
Chap. I-Formation of contract-Bidder giving lowest bid but same not accepted-Authority having reserved right under clause 9 of `Invitation of Tender’ to accept lowest or any other tender-Bidder, acquired held, no vested right to contract, in circumstances-Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 9.
1982 CLC 2076 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JANAT BIBI VS SIKANDAR ALI
Art. 199 read with Contract Act (IX. of 1872)-Pardanashin lady-Burden of proof-Whether pardanashin lady or illiterate lady bad executed a document with proper understanding and after full knowledge of contents thereof-Burden of proof, held, lies on person in whose favour document executed.–[Burden of proof].