Bank granted relief by ATIR Lahore: Minimum tax cannot be imposed without ‘actual tax payable’

ISLAMABAD: The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Lahore has ruled that minimum tax under Section 113 cannot be imposed in the absence of any “actual tax payable”, granting relief to a bank and striking down tax additions made beyond the scope of Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

The Tribunal, deciding cross appeals and miscellaneous applications, held that the statutory phrase “instead of the actual tax payable” presupposes the existence of a normal tax liability.

Where a taxpayer incurs losses and no tax is payable under the normal regime, the precondition for levy of minimum tax does not arise.

In a detailed order, the bench observed that the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in the Kassim Textile case—requiring the existence of an actual tax liability—applies equally to the charging mechanism of minimum tax, thereby excluding its applicability in loss-making situations.

Also read: Foreign remittance tax exemption case: ATIR grants relief to software exporter

The Tribunal also struck down multiple additions made by the tax authorities, holding that proceedings under Section 122(5A) are limited in scope and cannot be used to conduct “roving and fishing inquiries” or introduce new legal grounds not contained in the original show-cause notice.

On the issue of bad debts and write-offs relating to non-performing loans (NPLs), the ATIR held that the tax authorities had exceeded jurisdiction by invoking provisions not cited in the show-cause notice and by attempting fresh fact-finding beyond the permissible scope of amendment proceedings. The impugned additions were accordingly deleted.

The Tribunal further ruled that interest income does not fall within the definition of “turnover” under Section 113(3), and therefore cannot be subjected to minimum tax. Similarly, separate taxation of dividend income and capital gains at 10 percent was disallowed where such income had already been absorbed by losses.

In addition, the bench allowed the taxpayer’s claim of tax credit for payments made in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, holding that denial of such credit would amount to multiple taxation.

The ruling also reaffirmed that tax authorities must strictly adhere to the grounds set out in show-cause notices and cannot rely on subsequent justifications or alternative provisions to sustain additions.

The decision is expected to have wider implications for banking companies and other corporate taxpayers, particularly in cases involving minimum tax liability, scope of amendment proceedings, and treatment of income streams under the special regime applicable to financial institutions.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026