BR100 Increased By (0.99%)
BR30 Increased By (1.17%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.81%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.77%)
BECO 5.68 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.61%)
BML 64.84 Increased By ▲ 3.81 (6.24%)
BOP 33.60 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (1.05%)
CNERGY 8.24 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (2.36%)
DCL 11.35 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.44%)
FCCL 52.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.04%)
FCSC 5.52 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (3.37%)
FFL 17.80 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.08%)
FNEL 1.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.76%)
HUMNL 11.24 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.08%)
KEL 7.97 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.01%)
KOSM 5.44 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (2.06%)
MLCF 86.01 Increased By ▲ 0.66 (0.77%)
NBP 185.00 Increased By ▲ 3.71 (2.05%)
PACE 12.02 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (4.25%)
PAEL 40.21 Increased By ▲ 0.80 (2.03%)
PIAHCLA 25.73 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.39%)
PIBTL 17.32 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.99%)
PPL 225.30 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (0.21%)
PRL 34.38 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.59%)
PTC 65.46 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (0.58%)
SEARL 90.51 Increased By ▲ 0.91 (1.02%)
SSGC 26.76 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (1.71%)
TELE 8.96 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (6.92%)
THCCL 69.44 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.14%)
TPLP 11.31 Increased By ▲ 1.03 (10.02%)
TREET 24.55 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (1.45%)
TRG 71.67 Increased By ▲ 2.13 (3.06%)
WAVES 11.45 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (3.81%)
WTL 1.28 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.79%)

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

Comments are closed for this article.