Section 202 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, updated up to June 30, 2021, now allows the Chief Commissioner, with the prior approval of the Board, to compound offences either before or after the institution of proceedings.
(more…)Tag: Income Tax Ordinance 2001
-
Institution of prosecution proceedings
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has been granted enhanced authority to initiate prosecution proceedings under Section 201 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(more…) -
Prosecution for offence by companies, AOPs
Section 200 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has explained the prosecution for offence by companies or association of persons (AOPs).
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 updated up to June 30, 2021. The Ordinance incorporated amendments brought through Finance Act, 2021.
Following is the text of Section 200 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:
200. Offences by companies and associations of persons. — (1) Where an offence under this Part is committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was –
(a) the principal officer, a director, general manager, company secretary or other similar officer of the company; o
(b) acting or purporting to act in that capacity,
shall be, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, guilty of the offence and all the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply accordingly.
(2) Where an offence under this Part is committed by an association of persons, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was a member of the association shall be, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, guilty of the offence and all the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply accordingly.
(3) Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to a person where –
(a) the offence was committed without the person’s consent or knowledge; and
(b) the person has exercised all diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as ought to have been exercised having regard to the nature of the person’s functions and all the circumstances.
(Disclaimer: The text of the above section is only for information. Team PkRevenue.com makes all efforts to provide the correct version of the text. However, the team PkRevenue.com is not responsible for any error or omission.)
-
Abetment in tax matters to be offence
Section 199 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, updated up to June 30, 2021, now explicitly outlines that knowingly and willfully aiding, abetment, assisting, inciting, or inducing another person to commit an offense under the ordinance is a punishable offense, carrying the risk of a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.
(more…) -
Tax laws amended to include digital payment
ISLAMABAD: Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on Thursday said that tax law has been amended to include mode of digital payment.
To improve documentation, a new clause (la) has been inserted through Tax Laws (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 in section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Previously payments under a single head account exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand rupees, made by any taxpayer were required to be made through crossed cheque or crossed baking instruments including digital payments.
Through this amendment, payments made by a company under a single head of account exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand rupees other than by digital means from business bank account of the taxpayer notified to the Commissioner under section 114A of the Ordinance shall not be admissible as deductions.
However, certain expenditures on account of utility bills, freight charges, travel fare, and payment of taxes and fines would continue to be admissible even though paid in cash or via traditional banking instruments.
The purpose behind this legislative enactment is to encourage digital payments and discourage traditional mode of transactions by the corporate sector in the first phase. However, owing to lack of total digital readiness by some corporate taxpayers, the corporate taxpayers are allowed to switch to this mode w.e.f. November 01, 2021.
In the intervening period they may use digital payments or continue with the existing procedure of making payments by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by crossed bank draft or crossed pay order or any other crossed banking instrument showing transfer of amount from the business bank account of the taxpayer.
The FBR further said that currently, any salary paid or payable exceeding twenty five thousand rupees per month has to be made through cross cheque or direct transfer of funds to the employee’s bank account under clause (m) of section 21 of the Ordinance.
In order to bring this provision in conformity with newly inserted clause (la) ibid, in case of payments against salary in excess of twenty five thousand rupees per month, the mode of digital payment has been added to the available modes referred to above.
-
Prosecution for sharing unauthorized information
In a bid to strengthen the protection of sensitive taxpayer information and maintain the integrity of the tax system, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has introduced stringent provisions under Section 198 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(more…) -
Prosecution for disposal of property
Section 197 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, updated up to June 30, 2021, now explicitly outlines that individuals who, after receiving a notice from the Commissioner, engage in selling, mortgaging, charging, leasing, or otherwise dealing with the property to prevent its attachment, will be liable for prosecution.
(more…) -
Obstructing tax officials punishable offence
Section 196 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, updated up to June 30, 2021, explicitly declares that obstructing an income tax authority in the discharge of their functions is now a punishable offense.
(more…) -
Prosecution for not declaring foreign assets
Section 195A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 explains the prosecution for not declaring foreign assets.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 updated up to June 30, 2021. The Ordinance incorporated amendments brought through Finance Act, 2021.
Following is the text of Section 195A and 195B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:
195A. Prosecution for non-compliance with notice under section 116A.— Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 116A; shall commit an offence punishable on conviction with imprisonment up to one year or with a fine up to fifty thousand Rupees or both.
195B. Prosecution for enabling offshore tax evasion.– Any enabler who enables, guides or advises any person to design, arrange or manage a transaction or declaration in such a manner which results in offshore tax evasion, shall commit an offence punishable on conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or with a fine up to five million Rupees or both.
(Disclaimer: The text of above section is only for information. Team PkRevenue.com makes all efforts to provide the correct version of the text. However, the team PkRevenue.com is not responsible for any error or omission.)
-
Prosecution for making false, misleading statements
Section 195 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 describes the prosecution for making false or misleading statements.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 updated up to June 30, 2021. The Ordinance incorporated amendments brought through Finance Act, 2021.
Following is the text of Section 195 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:
195. Prosecution for making false or misleading statements. — (1) A person who –
(a) makes a statement to an income tax authority that is false or misleading in a material particular; or
(b) omits from a statement made to an income tax authority any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading in a material particular,
shall commit an offence punishable on conviction –
(i) where the statement or omission was made knowingly or recklessly, with a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both; or
(ii) in any other case, with a fine.
(2) A person shall not commit an offence under sub-section (1) if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the prosecution relates was false or misleading.
(3) “Entry against S.No 10 in column (2) of the Table in sub-section (1) of section 182” shall apply in determining whether a person has made a statement to an income tax authority.
(Disclaimer: The text of the above section is only for information. Team PkRevenue.com makes all efforts to provide the correct version of the text. However, the team PkRevenue.com is not responsible for any error or omission.)