Income Tax Ordinance, 1984


Income Tax
Ordinance, 1984


83(1), 89 and 90

Income Tax
Act, 1922, Section—23(6)(4)

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1984. For
assessment of any income prior to the coming into operation of this Ordinance,
the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the Rules made thereunder would continue to apply
as if this Act has not been repealed. This has been clearly spelt out in
Section 1(86) of the Ordinance. In the instant case the assessment period
ending on 30-6-1984 is to be regulated by the provisions of Income Tax Act,

Commissioner of Taxes, Rajshahi Zone, Rajshahi Vs. Mr. Md. Abdul Motaleb Miah,
14 BLD (HCD) 607.


Company under liquidation as per provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, is a
unit of assessment and its income is assessable to tax. Hence the demand made
by the Deputy Commissioner of taxes is to be satisfied.

Official Liquidator is under legal obligation to pay the tax which is assessed
on the income of the Company arising out of interest upon deposit.

Electricity Development Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) And In the Matter of
Affidavit of Facts in support of Summons taken out by Mr. Abdul Matin, Official
Liquidator for direction., 13 BLD (HCD) 460.


Paragraph 27
of Part A of Sixth Schedule

petitioner is an indigenous hillman and his business activities in supplying
the rice under contracts to the Government is an economic activity. But for
supply of rice outside the hill districts under the contract the petitioner is
not entitled to exemption of payment of income tax as the income derived by the
petitioner is from the economic activity carried on outside the hill districts.

Chakma Vs Commissioner of Customs and others, 20 BLD (AD) 79.



transfer of land and building jointly owned by the assessee and his wife to a
company against shares in the company is not a business transaction but an
investment in their business. Even if the value of the property is more than
that shown in the deed of transfer, the transfer did not give rise to any
profit or gains assessable as capital gains of the assessee.

Md. Harasat
Ullah v. The Commissioner of Taxes, 22 BLD (HCD) 356.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Publix Industries 1969 PTD 622; M/s. A. K. Khan
Plywood Co., Chittagong v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan 25
DLR(SC) 65; William Richard Doughty v. Commissioner of Taxes AIR 1927(PC)76.



to the provisions of the Ordinance, profits and gains of an industrial
undertaking, tourist industry or physical infra. structure facility set-up in
Bangladesh between the 1st day of July, 1995 and 13th day of June, 2000 (both
days inclusive) shall be exempt from the tax payable under this Ordinance.

Footwear Limited Vs Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 21 BLD (HCD)


and 85(1)

petitioner did not file any certificate or any material in support of her
statement in the income tax return, contention that the appellate authority as
well as the revisional authority acted illegally and without jurisdiction in
not sending back the case to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes for fresh
consideration appears to us is not well founded one in that the certificate so
filed in support of the loan shown in the income tax return being from a
different person has rightly been left out of consideration by the income tax

Ms Maliha
Banu Vs The Deputy Corn. missioner of Taxes and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 611.



Income Tax
Rules 1984, Rule—64A

it was the consistent finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes that income
tax returns for the assessment years were duly audited and certified by a
chartered accountant as required under section 82 of the Income Tax Ordinance
1984, it cannot be said after a lapse of years that the returns were not
submitted properly, correctly or in accordance with the requirements of law. If
there was any illegality or irregularity, the same could have been raised by
the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes before accepting the returns.

Express Bank lid. v. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 22 BLD (HCD)



appears that a return was filed by the assessee which was duly received by the
department and in that view of the matter the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes
ought to have considered the same in assessing the income of the assessee applicant.
Therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained and
it suffers from legal infirmities.

M/S. Union
Corporation, Vs The Commissioner of Taxes, 20 BLD (HCD) 480.



returns accepted by a competent authority certified that the returns are in
order, unless otherwise found definite, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is not
competent to serve notice under section 93 of the Ordinance upon the assessee
asking him to submit fresh returns, holding the returns already assessed and
accepted as under-assessed.

Express Bank Ltd. v. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 22 BLD (HCD)



a notice does not meet the requirements of section 93, a writ petition under
Article 102 of the Constitution is maintainable instead of approaching the
Commissioner for revising the order under section 121.

Express Bank lid. v. Chairman, National
of Revenue and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 59.



is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner has a permanent establishment
in Bangladesh and that they were actually doing business in this country and
that they themselves sold their products to any person in Bangladesh. If any
profit is earned by the petitioners principal office in Korea under the
convention they will be taxed in Korea. But they cannot be taxed for their
earnings in Korea in Bangladesh which is protected under the convention which
is a solemn document entered into between the two Government and which has the
backing of section 144 of the Ordinance.

M/s Hyundai
Corporation Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka and another, 19 BLD (HCD)



perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Tribunal has allowed the gift
made by Keramat Ali but disallowed the gift made by Md. Abul Kashem on the
ground that the letter addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes
came back unserved but in disallowing this gift the Taxes Appellate Tribunal
lost sight of the fact that the assessee applicant in support of his contention
submitted the certified copy of the statement of account of the donors and it
further appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes himself confirms that
these gifts have been shown by the donors in their respective wealth
statements. But this aspect of the case was overlooked by the Taxes Appellate
Tribunal in disallowing the gift made by Md. Abdul Kashem. Thus, the order
passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal do not withstand the scrutiny of law and
as such the High Court Division held that the Taxes Appellate Tribunal,
Additional Bench—2, Dhaka was not justified in disallowing the gift made by Md.
Abul Kashem on the ground of non service of letter addressed to him by the
revenue authority.

Md. Serajul
Hoque Vs The Commissioner of Taxes Intelligence and Investigation Zone, Dhaka,
20 BLD (HCD) 38.



of tax from importers

Collector of Customs or any other appropriate officer shall, for the purpose of
making a collection of tax under section 53 of the Ordinance, in the case of
any importer of goods, including those under the Wage Earners scheme, collect
an amount calculated at the rate of [2.5%J of the value of the imported goods:

that this rule shall not apply in the case of import of goods specified below:

(a)  … … …

(b)  raw
materials for industries approved by the Bangladesh Small and Cottage
Industries Corporation.

further that where the Board is satisfied that an importer is not likely to
have any assessable income during the year or the income is otherwise exempted
from payment of income tax under any provisions of the Ordinance; it may, on
application by such an importer, exempt such person from payment of tax under
this rule.

(b) of first proviso to Rule 17A of the Rules clearly contemplates that
provision of Rule 17A shall not apply in case of raw materials for the
industries only approved by the Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries
Corporation. The petitioners are not entitled to import any quantity of raw
materials beyond their maximum utilization and production capacity of their
respective industrial units as approved by Bangladesh Small and Cottage
Industries Corporation.

M/s Musa
Textile and others Vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh
and ors., 19 BLD (AD) 104.






Sections—83 and 153

Whether writ lies against the order of
assessment of income tax
—Whether an appeal or writ shall lie against an
order of assessment of income tax passed by a competent officer?—When a Deputy
Commissioner of Taxes passes an order of assessment with jurisdiction under
section 83(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 all questions of fact and law
relating to the said assessment call only be agitated by way of an statutory
appeal and not by way of a writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution.

Dr. M.B. Rahman Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Taxes, Taxes Circle—IV, Dhaka (South), Dhaka, 6 BLD (HCD) 385

28 DLR 381: Writ Petition No. 262 1978 (Unreported); — Cited.INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 1989


Section — 158(3)(5)

Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is not
entitled to prefer file appeal
—Deputy Commissioner of Taxes is not entitled
to prefer an appeal against the order of the Appellate Joint Commissioner
unless he is directed to file the appeal by the Commissioner of Taxes to whom
the Appellate Joint Commissioner is bound to communicate its order on appeal.

runs for filing appeal before the Taxes Appellate Tribunal not from the date of
communication of the order of A.J.C.J. to the D.CT. but from the date of communication
of the order of AZCT to the Commissioner.

Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka (North) Vs. M/S. M.A. Hossain and ço, Dhaka, 12BLD