AIRLINK 74.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.75%)
BOP 5.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.79%)
CNERGY 4.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.9%)
DFML 39.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-1.33%)
DGKC 86.09 Decreased By ▼ -1.46 (-1.67%)
FCCL 21.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.28%)
FFBL 34.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-1.68%)
FFL 9.92 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (1.74%)
GGL 10.56 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.67%)
HBL 113.89 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.09%)
HUBC 135.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-0.5%)
HUMNL 11.90 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (9.17%)
KEL 4.84 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.64%)
KOSM 4.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-2.37%)
MLCF 38.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-0.49%)
OGDC 134.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.29 (-0.95%)
PAEL 26.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.98%)
PIAA 20.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.69 (-7.51%)
PIBTL 6.68 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.15%)
PPL 123.00 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (0.58%)
PRL 26.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.04%)
PTC 14.33 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (3.02%)
SEARL 59.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-1.25%)
SNGP 69.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.8%)
SSGC 10.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.19%)
TELE 8.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.47%)
TPLP 11.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.97%)
TRG 64.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-1.74%)
UNITY 26.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.3%)
WTL 1.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.74%)
BR100 7,851 Increased By 26.3 (0.34%)
BR30 25,337 Decreased By -69.2 (-0.27%)
KSE100 75,207 Increased By 122.8 (0.16%)
KSE30 24,143 Increased By 49.1 (0.2%)

LAHORE: The critics of the concept of deemed income have termed it discriminatory, saying that it provides certain exceptions and exclusions without providing any rationale to such exclusions and or exemptions. It outlines no transaction on the basis of which any deemed income can accrue and even properties which cannot be let out or generate any income have also been included under it, they added.

According to these circles, the concept of ‘deemed income’ is alien to the income tax law. They said the federal legislature was not competent to impose tax on deemed income. Therefore, the levy was confiscatory.

A large number of tax experts are of the view that the concept of deemed income imposes tax on property, which is not within the competence of the Federal Legislature pursuant to Entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List. Instead, they said it is only a provincial legislature that can tax an immovable property. They said it is also in violation of the concept of income received or income receivable, as there is no concept of any fictional income as it is alien to the Income Tax Ordinance.

They further pointed out that the concept of deemed income has also failed to take or provide basis and differentiation in the nature of property; its location, and the earning potential, if at all a tax has to be sustained and even such properties have been taxed for which there is no permission to raise any construction. Also, they said, there is an anomaly in the holding period of the property in question.

According to them, as and when deemed income has been held to be valid and legal; it always has nexus with respect to generation of income or a transaction that can lead to an income.

The critics are of the view that the federal government had the intent of discouraging holding the properties that do not fall within the domain of the federal legislature. They said a tax can only be levied when there is an earning potential. In essence, they said, it imposes tax on property and in pith and substance it is not a tax on income or deemed income, therefore, it is confiscatory in nature as the tax payer, notwithstanding holding of various properties, is not generating any income so as to pay the tax on its deemed.

According to them, the concept of deemed income lacks a triggering event, i.e., receiving of income or money; that mere holding of immovable property cannot lead to any tax by way of a fictional income.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.