DR. ZAFAR SAJJAD (Applicant) VS THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Present:

Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

ITRA No. 276 of 2018 Dr. Zafar Sajjad vs.

Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I Regional Tax Office-III Karachi For the AKUH : M/s. Hussain Ali Almani, Sami-ur- Rehman Khan, Sameen Hayat, Mustafa Naqvi and Aitzaz Manzoor Memon, Advocates for the Petitioners/AKUH.

For the Respondents : Mr. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi & Mr. Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi, Advocate

Date of hearing : 19.04.2021

Date of announcement : 19.04.2021

JUDGMENT

Muhammad Junaid Ghafar, J. The question in this Reference Application is identical in the connected ITRAs and Constitutional Petitions as mentioned in Annexure “A” to this opinion and by consent, Income Tax Reference Applications No.276 of 2018 has been taken as the lead ITRA. It has been filed in terms of section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, (“Ordinance”) against a common order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi, whereby, various Appeals of the tax-payers as well as the department have been decided for tax years 2010 and 2011. The proposed question of law is as follows:-

(a)Whether the payments for clinical supplements and incentives received by the Applicant from its employer are “salary” as defined in Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?

2.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are permanent employees of Agha Khan University Hospital (“AKUH”) pursuant to independent employment contracts and work as a Faculty Members in various departments; that the remuneration of the Applicants is outlined in the salary package which includes salary, clinical supplement and clinical incentive; that the Applicants are not permitted to undertake any non-institutional private practice; that they being full time employees are not permitted to be engaged

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 2 of 22

in any employment, business or services with another organizations or to have any financial/business interest with any other organization or entity even on a part-time or temporary basis; that they perform their assignment as teachers and professors at the AKUH and are also required to attend and work for the Consultation Clinics; that they are paid fixed salary along with clinical incentive and supplement which is though variable; but is paid on a monthly basis as agreed upon and at the end of the year, is either adjusted or paid in excess depending upon the total receipts earned thereof, but at all times such remuneration remains salary within the contemplation of section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001; that clause (1) sub clause (2) of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Ordinance, provides rebate or reduction of tax on the amount of salary so earned; that the respondents issued Show Cause Notices and amended the assessments orders by treating the clinical supplement and incentive as not being salary but other income and disallowed the rebate; that though in one tax year the Commissioner Appeals had decided the issue of clinical incentive partly in favour of the Applicants, but the Tribunal through the impugned, has overturned the same; that the Tribunal has erred in law and has not appreciated the provisions of the Ordinance as reliance has been placed on dictionary meaning of employee, whereas, it has been defined in Section 2 (20) of the Ordinance; that the Tribunal has completely ignored the provision of section 121 ibid which provides an exhaustive definition of salary;

12.Salary.—(1) Any salary received by an employee in a tax year, other than salary that is exempt from tax under this Ordinance, shall be chargeable to tax in that year under the head “Salary”.

(2)Salary means any amount received by an employee from any employment, whether of a revenue or capital nature, including —

(a)any pay, wages or other remuneration provided to an employee, including leave pay, payment in lieu of leave, overtime payment, bonus, commission, fees, gratuity or work condition supplements (such as for unpleasant or dangerous working conditions) (b) any perquisite, whether convertible to money or not;

(c)the amount of any allowance provided by an employer to an employee including a cost of living, subsistence, rent, utilities, education, entertainment or travel allowance, but shall not include any allowance solely expended in the performance of the employee’s duties of employment;

(d)the amount of any expenditure incurred by an employee that is paid or reimbursed by the employer, other than expenditure incurred on behalf of the employer in the performance of the employee’s duties of employment;

(e)the amount of any profits in lieu of, or in addition to, salary or wages, including any amount received —

(i)as consideration for a person’s agreement to enter into an employment relationship;

(ii)as consideration for an employee’s agreement to any conditions of employment or any changes to the employee’s conditions of employment;

(iii)on termination of employment, whether paid voluntarily or under an agreement, including any compensation for redundancy or loss of employment and golden handshake payments;

(iv)from a provident or other fund, to the extent to which the amount is not a repayment of contributions made by the employee to the fund in respect of which the employee was not entitled to a deduction; and (v) as consideration for an employee’s agreement to a restrictive covenant in respect of any past, present or prospective employment;

(f)any pension or annuity, or any supplement to a pension or annuity; and

(g)any amount chargeable to tax as “Salary”under section 14.

(3)Where an employer agrees to pay the tax chargeable on an employee’s salary, the amount of the employee’s income chargeable under the head “Salary” shall be grossed up by the amount of tax payable by the employer.

(4)No deduction shall be allowed for any expenditure incurred by an employee in deriving amounts chargeable to tax under the head “Salary”.

(5)For the purposes of this Ordinance, an amount or perquisite shall be treated as received by an employee from any employment regardless of whether the amount or perquisite is paid or provided —

(a)by the employee’s employer, an associate of the employer, or by a third party under an arrangement with the employer or an associate of the employer;

(b)by a past employer or a prospective employer; or

(c)to the employee or to an associate of the employee or to a third party under an agreement with the employee or an associate of the employee

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 3 of 22 that the Tribunal has relied upon the case2 which is entirely different on facts; that as per definition of salary even profit sharing and commission is also included; that through Finance Act, 2019, a proviso3 has been introduced in clause (1) sub clause (2) of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Ordinance which in effect affirms the stance of the Applicants as now their income including that in dispute has been specifically excluded, and in that case it shows the intention of legislature that what was not taxable has now been made taxable; that in Indian jurisdiction (Punjab & Haryana High Court)4 on identical facts it has been held that the fee earned by such Doctors is nothing but salary as defined in Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, which is pari-materia to our definition in section 12 ibid; that connected petitions were filed for subsequent tax years wherein show cause notice were issued in respect of the same issue and in view of the law settled5, these petitions are maintainable in the given facts and circumstances as the legal question is already before this Court in Reference Applications. By placing reliance on6 he has prayed for answering the question in favour of the Applicants.

3.On the other hand Learned Counsel for the department has read out the impugned Order as well as Show Cause Notice and submits that the entire income of the Applicants does not fall under salary; but is income from professional services/business; hence not entitled for rebate or reduction in terms of Clause (1) sub clause (2) of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Ordinance as claimed; that section 18 (b) of the Ordinance defines this Income and is to be taxed separately and independently; that section 11 of the Ordinance provides different heads of Income and the component of Income in question has to be dealt with separately and not under salary as a whole; that the proviso inserted in 2019 would not apply retrospectively; hence question be answered against the Applicants.

4.We have heard both the learned Counsel and perused the record. It appears that all Applicants / Petitioners before us are Doctors and employed with AKUH, pursuant to independent employment contracts of similar nature. The relevant employment contract(s) in case of the Applicant in ITRA 276/2018 reads as under;

Dr. A. Razzak Kazi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad (1990 PTD 810) Provided that this clause shall not apply to teachers of medical profession who derive income from private medical practice or who receive share of consideration received from patients. 4 Commissioner of Income Tax v Dr. Mrs. Usha Verma (2002) 254 ITR 404 5 Engro Vopak Terminal Ltd vs. Pakistan (2012 PTD 130) & Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd. vs. Pakistan

(2017 PTD 1585).

Commissioner of Income Tax v I.B.M. SEMEA (2011 PTD 2275), Malik Muhammad Inam v Federation of Pakistan (2006 SCMR 1670), Qasim Ali v Commissioner of Income Tax (2000 PTD 1288).

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 4 of 22

APPOINTMENT AS A FACULTY MEMBER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY

Aga Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation (“Foundation” is pleased to offer you appointment as a Faculty Member in the Department of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences. Your academic rank will be confirmed upon approval from the Appointment and Promotions Committee. The Charter of Aga Khan University assures you the privileges of a University Faculty member. Your appointment will be effective from July, 2005.

5. RESPONSITBILTIES AND REPORTING RELATIONSHIP.

You will report to the Chair, Department of Radiology, and/or such other person as may be designated by him. A clinician, if appointed to the active consultant staff of Aga Khan University will be responsible to its administration. Your responsibilities will include preparation for and completion of the teaching assigned to you by the Medical College and its curriculum committee. You may be required to take an active part in the administration and development of the Faculty of Health Sciences and the University Hospital or associated health services. You will be expected to develop your own scholarly and research activities and are encouraged to pursue resources from extra-mural sources, subject to the provisions, rules and regulations of the University. You will not be permitted to undertake non-institutional private practice.

6.......Full-time employees of the Institution are not permitted to be engaged in employment, business or service with another organization or have any financial/business interest with any other organization/entity even on a part-time or temporary basis. In this regard, please complete the attached “Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form”. Please note that it would be your responsibility to disclose any such information in future also if a situation so develops.

Attachment to the salary contract

1.The clinical supplement component of your salary is based on your expected earnings/Gross Physicians Fee Revenue (GPFR) for the year. If this is not earne3d fully, it will need to be recovered against salary payments or any credit balance due to you with the Institution.

Final Letter issued at the end of year for adjustment of clinical incentive and supplement payment

2.A lump sum payment of Rs.427,527 as a clinical incentive payment, which will be paid to you along with the payroll for the month of December 2010. Please note that this payment is based on the actual performance for the period January to November 2010 and estimates for December 2010. The actual amount will be worked out after the close of year, and any amount receivable or payable will be adjusted from your 2011 salary.

5.The Applicants filed their tax returns respectively and claimed rebate in terms of Clause (1) sub clause (2) of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Ordinance; but were issued show cause notice in terms of section 122(9) of the Ordinance for amending their deemed assessment orders issued to them in terms of s.120 ibid. It would be advantageous to refer to one of the Show Cause Notice(s) dated 08.03.2017 which would reflect the crux of the matter as well as the case of the department. The relevant portion of show cause notice in ITRA 276/2018 reads as under:-

FBR

Pakistan Office of the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue Range A & B Zone-I, RTO-III Karachi No.AC-IR/A&B/Zone-I/RTO-III/401 dated 08.03.2017 To

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 5 of 22

Dr. Zafar Sajjad Chair & Assoc Prof. Radiology Agha Khan University Hospital Karachi SUBJECT: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 122(9) TO AMEND ASSESSMENT 122 (5A) OF

THE INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 FOR THE TAX YEAR 2011.

Please refer to Income Tax Return e-filed through FBR e-portal, declaring salary income Rs.3,023,056/- for the tax year 2011. The return was treated a deemed assessment order within the meanings of section 120(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter is referred as “the Ordinance”).

Perusal of the said return and record available with this office, however, reveals that the deemed assessment order [treated to have been issued u/s 120(1) of the Ordinance] is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of the following discrepancies:

1.That you have declared only salary income, the tax liability of which was reduced by 75% by claiming rebate under sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-III of second schedule. Whereas, in reality, the receipts earned by you during the year consist of the following components:- i. Monthly Salary income, as per employment contract and ii. Clinical Supplement income (clinical income upon meeting target revenue of clinical receipts for M/s AKUH).

iii. Clinical incentive income (by way of lump sum payments) iv. Other payments

It is therefore evident that you have:

a. Unlawfully added the above professional incomes (at serial No’s ii, iii and iv above) in your salary income.

b. Unlawfully reduced your resultant tax liability (by 75% under sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-III of second schedule, since, such a reduction in tax liability is only allowable on “salary” (computed u/s 12 of the ordinance earned by full time teachers/researchers employed by Non-profit organizations; and not on professional/business incomes.

Please explain as to why the deemed assessment order may not be amended u/s 122 (5A) of the ordinance in the manner shown below:

1.Salary Income 3,023,056

2.Income from business/profession i. Clinical Supplement income 6,514,284 ii. Lump sum clinical incentive payments 791,797 (share from clinical revenue earned for M/s. AKUH)

3.Any other payment 0

4.Total income 10,329,137

5.Tax liability as per rates applicable (in case of individuals, where salary 2,582,284 component is less than 50% of total income

6.Salary %age Applicable

7.Less: allowable tax rebate on salary portion (as provided by sub-clause (2) 566823/- of clause (1) of Part-III of second schedule)

8.Net Tax liability 2,582,284

9.Less: tax deducted at source u/s 149 of the ordinance 530,944 10. Balance payable 1,484,517

6.It is the case of the department that clinical supplement income and clinical incentive income falls outside the definition of salary as contemplated in section 12 ibid; and it is only the amount of salary which is admissible for rebate as a consequence thereof, whereas, all other income falls under separate commercial revenue distribution/sharing arrangements between the Applicant and AKUH which is nothing but indirectly earned professional clinical receipts chargeable to tax under the head Income from business upon which

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 6 of 22

no rebate is available under clause (1) sub-clause (2) of Part-III of the 2nd schedule to the Ordinance7.

7.The Order of the assessing officer was impugned before the Commissioner Appeals who vide his order dated 15.9.2017 in ITRA No.276/2018 for tax year 2011 dismissed the Appeals and went on to hold that the lump sum payments to the Doctors does not constitute salary and that the lump sum payments made to the specialist doctors by AKU is indeed a colorable device to substantially lower the taxes payable by the doctor(s) and not sustainable in law and thus the facility of rebate under sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-III of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 available on the salary component only, is neither available nor admissible on the lump sum payments paid by way of clinical supplement or incentive to the doctors by the AKUH8.

8.Insofar as one set of Appeals, for Tax year 2010 is concerned one portion of such income in question Clinical Supplement Income was accepted as falling within salary by the Commissioner Appeals; however, before the Tribunal, the Appeals in respect of tax year 2010 and 2011 have been decided together, including the Appeals of the department against the aforesaid finding of the Commissioner Appeals in favor of the Applicants for tax year 2010. The impugned order has set-aside that finding and so also the Appeals of the Applicants. The Tribunal has passed a very lengthy order, which we believe was quite unnecessary as it has also reproduced the entire pleadings and objections in totality. It has in fact also discussed some irrelevant definitions of the employee and salary components as well; but insofar as undisputed facts are concerned they have been recorded in Para-22 & Para-23 of the impugned order and the same are reads as under:-

22.Before us, the Ld. AR and the Ld. DR repeated their respective positions regarding allowance of rebate on clinical supplement and clinical incentive incomes and other payments, as has been done before the two forums, however, after discussions during hearing both the parties converged to arrive at the following undisputed issues:

A. Summary of undisputed issues

i. That the appellant doctors are full-time employees of Aga Khan University and employment contract as Teacher/Researcher was awarded by the Aga Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation (AKMCHF), which is a company bearing National Tax Number: 0709421-3 and established for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, administering and running teaching hospitals and other health care facilities and medical colleges under the overall umbrella of Aga Khan Development Network.

ii. That both the entities i.e. M/s Aga Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation (AKMCHF) are non-profit organizations.

Page 16 of the amended assessment order under section 122(5)A of the Ordinance.

Page 9 of the Order of Commissioner Appeals in ITRA 276-2018

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 7 of 22

iii. That the appellant doctors are Teachers/Researchers, eligible for tax reduction on their "Salaries" earned as Teachers/Researchers in accordance with sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-Ill of the 2nd Schedule.

iv. That the appellant doctors have received all sums from their employer i.e. monthly salary, clinical supplement income, clinical incentive income and other payments.

v. That the appellant doctors do not conduct independent professional clinical practice outside the Aga Khan Hospital.

vi. That "definite information" regarding break-up of monthly salaries, clinical supplement income, clinical incentive income and other payments was provided by Aga Khan University through their AR M/s A.F. Ferguson and Company, in response to a notice u/s. 176 of the Ordinance. Therefore, all amounts mentioned in the impugned amended assessment orders regarding monthly salaries, clinical supplement income, clinical incentive income(lump sum payments) and other payments are correct.

vii. That action taken by the Ld. ADCIRs did not suffer from any legal infirmity and remarks of the Ld. CIRs (Appeal) are conclusive and not pressed before this forum.

23.It was agreed by both the parties that the core issue involved in the appeal before us is: "whether clinical supplement income, clinical incentive income (lump sum payments) and other payments received by the employee doctors from their employer- Aga Khan University which were paid by the patients to Aga Khan Hospital for their treatment by the respective doctor, can be treated as "salary for the purpose of allowing rebate under sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-III of the 2nd Schedule to the Ordinance”.

9.After going through the impugned order and the findings of fact as above which have not been challenged any further by the department, the precise question before us in this matter is only to the extent that whether the two separate heads of income (Clinical Supplement and Clinical Incentive) of the Applicants fall within the definition of salary as provided under Section 12 of the Ordinance or not. When section 12 is examined as a whole, it appears that the salary has been given a very exhaustive meaning and means / includes any amount received by an employee from any employment, whether of a revenue or capital nature, including any pay, wages or other remuneration provided to an employee, including leave pay, payment in lieu of leave, overtime payment, bonus, commission, fees, gratuity or work condition supplements such as for unpleasant or dangerous working conditions, any perquisite, whether convertible to money or not. In fact, it goes on to include all sorts of other heads of income which one can imagine.

10.Before us it has come on record and is also deciphered from the order of the Tribunal that there are certain issues which are not in dispute, whereas, it is only the Applicants who are before us by way of these ITRA’s and not the department. It has been held by the Tribunal that Applicants are Teachers/Researchers, eligible for tax reduction on their "Salaries"; that they have received all sums from their employer i.e. monthly salary, clinical supplement income, clinical incentive income and other payments; that they do not conduct independent professional clinical practice outside the Aga

Khan Hospital; that it was agreed by both the parties that the core issue involved in the appeal before the Tribunal is "whether clinical supplement income, clinical incentive income (lump sum payments) and other payments received by the employee doctors from their employer- Aga Khan University which were paid by the patients to Aga Khan Hospital for their treatment by the respective doctor, can be treated as "salary for the purpose of allowing rebate under sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-III of the 2nd Schedule to the Ordinance”. This is the entire crux of the matter. And with respect we may observe that the learned Tribunal instead of dilating upon and giving its own interpretation to section 12 of the Ordinance in respect of the question framed by it, engaged itself into unnecessary and irrelevant observations which are not germane to the core issue in these matters. After having agreed on the facts of the case it was only left to decide that whether clinical supplement income and clinical incentive income would fall in “Salary” as defined in s.12 ibid or not. And for that it was only required to see that the Applicants were engaged in any other employment; or had any other source of income; or were engaged in any private practice. All these have already been addressed and answered in favor of the Applicants. The only issue then is that whether the income earned by the Applicants by way of performing their job in respect of consultation and other related matters, exclusively with AKUH could be termed as salary or and income on their own from rendering professional services. Once it has come on record that the Applicants are neither permitted nor are engaged in any other private practice, then the answer to this question was not that difficult. Nonetheless, on perusal of the record and without any specific finding to the contrary, according to us, the consultation which they are required to conduct within AKUH is not their independent practice as wrongly assessed by the forums below. It is within the control and administration of their employer; as neither the Applicants incur any expenditure; nor anybody is taken into employment by them for providing such services; nor do they pay any rent to AKUH for using any of the facilities required for performing this job. It is also not the case of the department that the fee charged to the patients is received by them directly in their names and is then shared with AKUH. In fact it is vice versa. And this sharing is not earned by them as independent professional service providers as they have surrendered and placed their professional expertise at the disposal of AKUH. They may have their own credibility which every professional including a doctor has; but at the same time for the present purposes, merely for the fact that this income is not certain and is paid in a manner which is not quantified until the entire year has passed, cannot be said to be an income which is other

than salary as defined in s.12 of the Ordinance. It has come on record that the entire operations of the Hospital is managed by AKUH, whereas, the amount of charges and fees is also fixed by them. The Applicants are only entitled for a portion of it which forms part of their salary, and is paid to them as an incentive for extending their professional expertise. It is nothing but salary; may be in un-quantified manner on a monthly basis. But for that the law is clear, it includes various types of such payments, like commission, fee and bonus payments to the employees under the head of salary. It appears that since rebate is admissible to the Applicants in respect of taxation to this kind of salary, the department has gone to this extent, whereby it has acted against the very definition of salary provided under the Ordinance. Merely for the reason that these two heads of income are variable and not fixed; it could not be treated as income from professional services. No doubt the Applicants are professionals; but for the present purpose, they are under exclusive employment and it is not in dispute, that whatever they earn is from their employment and is paid to them as a package in the form of salary. It seems that this incentive being variable has not been treated as salary by the authorities below, including the Tribunal, merely for this reason. This in our considered view was an incorrect approach and the authorities below including the Tribunal have seriously erred as the definition of salary does not require that it shall always be fixed in nature. It covers a host of different payments made to the employees including bonus, fees, commission etc etc. and mostly are not necessarily fixed; rather are variable. It also has nexus with the performance of the employee as it is paid either at the end of a particular period; or mostly at the end of the year. Merely for this reason that since this is variable in nature, it could not ipso-facto be treated as an income other than salary. The law does not support this stance of the department; howsoever, attractive it may be to increase burden of tax on the assessee.

11.Insofar as the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. A. Razzak Kazi (Supra) is concerned, the same was premised on an entirely different set of facts. In fact, as we read it, it is in favour of the Applicants. In that case the exemption was available to income other than salary and the department was insisting that it was a salary. It was an agreement between the doctor and the company to the effect that fee would be paid to him for his services; that he will render service for treating the employees of the company free of charge; that he will employ people to assist on his own which may include doctors, assistants, technicians etc; that he will be responsible for their salaries; that no relationship of employee and

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 10 of 22

employer would exist between the doctor and the Company. These are very crucial facts which are lacking in the present case; hence, the ratio of this judgment has to be understood and applied keeping in mind these basic divergent facts. Despite this, as noted earlier, this judgment in fact supports this opinion of ours and the case of the Applicants. It has been held as under; The question whether remuneration paid to person engaged to perform work is a salary or income from profession, vocation or business depends upon the facts of the case and the terms of employment. There is a thin line of distinction which can be visibly drawn by scanning the contract. Such difficulty arises in cases of professionals like lawyers, chartered accountants, doctors, engineers, artists, directors of a company and other categories of persons who lend their intellect, specialised knowledge and expertise. Where assessee's employment is temporary and incidental to or dependent on profession without any intention to he engaged permanently and further that he is free to lend his services to others as well the income so accrued will not fail under the head salary. When a person joins service and surrenders his profession or `exchanges it for service' thereby permitting the employer to control the manner in which he must work, the remuneration paid to him will be classified as salary. But where there is some doubt in determining such control then if the work performed by the assessee is an integral part of the business or vocation of the employer the relationship of master and servant will be created.

12.Application of the aforesaid ratio decides the issue in hand in favor of the Applicants. In the present case, it has not been disputed; rather admitted that the employment of the Applicants is under the control of the employer; whereas, in our considered view the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the element of control and supervision is missing between the University and the Applicants while conducting professional clinical services in hospital. This has come from nowhere; nor is supported by the record. The Tribunal has perhaps come to this conclusion pursuant to the variable nature of the said income of the Applicants which we are of the view is not only misconceived; but is based on a wrong presumption of law. We do not understand as to how the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that employer and employee relationship is absent when it has come on record that the Applicants are employees for a specific purpose pursuant to a contract and cannot engage in any other practice/business or service; nor hold consultation outside AKUH.

13.In somewhat identical facts in the Indian jurisdiction in the case of Dr. Mrs. Usha Verma (Supra) the learned Punjab and Haryana High Court has been pleased to hold that fee in the like manner is to be treated as salary within the mischief of section 17(1) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 which is almost similar to our section 12 of the Ordinance. The short question was does the share of fees from paying clinic paid to the assessees fall within the mischief of Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act? It has been held as under;

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 11 of 22

Admittedly, the assessees were serving in the Government Medical College. By virtue of their employment with the Government, they were permitted to work in the paying clinics run in the college. Those who chose to work were given a share in the fees. The permission to work in the paying clinic, the rate of fees, the share therein was given by the Government. This share as paid by the Government to its employees would fall within the expression "fees paid in addition to the salary". The doctors got this share by virtue of their being employed in the hospital. They used the facility and infrastructure provided by the employer. Their share of fees was determined by the employer. Thus, it is in addition to their salary for the services permitted to be rendered by the employer. It would fall within the mischief of Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act.20.

Mr. Amrit Paul contended that the payment is not made by the employer but by the patients. Thus, it should be treated as income from profession and not as a part of the salary. The contention is wholly misconceived. In one sense everyone draws salary out of the money paid by the citizen either in the form of tax or in some other form. However, in the present case, the share of fees is given to the doctors in accordance with the terms laid down by the employer. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be treated as income from profession.

.........These paying clinics were run by the employer. The doctors were paid their share of the fees in accordance with the conditions laid down by the employer. These fees form a part of the salary as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act.

14.A learned division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax9 has dilated upon section 12 of the Ordinance and has been pleased to observe that it provides and extended and widest possible meaning. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Malik Muhammad Inam10 has held that even an amount received in lieu of termination would cover under s.16 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

15.Lastly as to maintainability of connected petitions we are satisfied that the petitions are maintainable in the circumstances of the present case. As correctly contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners, the impugned show cause notices for tax years 2010, 2011, 2013 & 2014 are based squarely on the same issue which is now before us by way of ITRA against the Tribunal's order and the Department obviously would be bound to follow this order in respect of that petitioner's other tax years, and in the case of other petitioners similarly placed. Resort to statutory remedies below the Tribunal level would therefore be a mere formality. Furthermore, the Tribunal's order is itself before this Court in Income Tax References. In these circumstances, the petitions cannot, and ought not, to be dismissed as not maintainable11.

16.Finally, it appears that pending these proceedings before us, and after passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal, through Finance Act, 2019, a proviso has been inserted in sub-clause (2) of clause (1) of Part-III of the Second Schedule to the Ordinance which now provides that this clause shall not apply to teachers of medical profession who derive income from private medical practice or who receive share of consideration received from patients. On a Commissioner of Income Tax v I.B.M SEMEA (2011 PTD 2275)

Malik Muhammad Inam v Federation of Pakistan (2006 SCMR 1670)

Engro Vopak Terminal Ltd vs. Pakistan (2012 PTD 130)

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 12 of 22 plain reading, it clearly shows that now the intention of the legislature is that from 2019 onwards such income of the Applicants has been excluded from the purview of admissible rebate; and further shows that the earlier it was not excluded. If it had not been admissible earlier, there would have been no need for inserting this proviso for exclusion of this particular income. The legislative intent by not giving retrospective effect to this proviso shows that what was not excluded earlier has now been excluded; however, with effect from Finance Act, 2019. A legislature is deemed to be aware of the previous state of the law and if knowing this it makes a change when repealing it and re-enacting some of its provisions the intention is clearly to effect a change12. The proviso therefore, (though not under consideration for the present purposes), clearly shows by the intent of the legislature itself that even otherwise, the benefit / rebate was admissible at least prior to Finance Act, 2019

17.In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the correct proposition of law and the Ordinance to conclude that the two heads of income as above do not fall within the definition of salary in terms of Section 12 of the Ordinance. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative; in favour of the Applicants and against the respondents. All these Reference Applications are allowed, and as consequence thereof, the Petitions are also allowed to such extent. The notices impugned or pertinent constituents thereof are hereby quashed / set-aside.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd v Karachi Municipal Corporation (PLD 1967 SC 241)

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 13 of 22 Annexure “A”

1.ITRA 277 of Dr. Zafar Sajjad vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

2.ITRA 278 of Dr. Shahid Pervaiz vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

3.ITRA 279 of Dr. Shahid Pervaiz vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

4.ITRA 280 of Dr. Khalid Maudood Siddiqui vs. The 2018 Commissioner Inland Revenue

5.ITRA 281 of Dr. Shazia Masheer vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

6.ITRA 282 of Shazia Masheer vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

7.ITRA 283 of Dr. K.M. Inam Pal vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

8.ITRA 284 of Dr. K.M. Inam Pal vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

9.ITRA 285 of Dr. Syed Raziuddin 2018 Biyabani vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

10.ITRA 286 of Dr. Syed Raziuddin 2018 Biyabani vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

11.ITRA 287 of Dr. Muhammad Rizwan 2018 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 12. ITRA 288 of Dr. Muhammad Rizwan 2018 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 13. ITRA 289 of Dr. Nadeem F. Zubari vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

14.ITRA 290 of Dr. Nadeem F. Zubari vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

15.ITRA 291 of Dr. Muhammad Ataullah 2018 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 16. ITRA 292 of Dr. Muhammad Ataullah 2018 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 17. ITRA 293 of Dr. Bushra Moiz vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

18.ITRA 294 of Dr. Bushra Moiz vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

19.ITRA 295 of Dr. Naila Nadeem vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

20.ITRA 297 of Dr. Muhammad 2018 Khurshid vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

21.ITRA 298 of Dr. Naila Kayani vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

22.ITRA 299 of Dr. Muhammad Asghar 2018 Ali vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 23. ITRA 300 of Dr. Nida Najmi vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

24.ITRA 301 of Dr. Abdul Rehman vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

25.ITRA 302 of Dr. Iqtidar A. Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

26.ITRA 303 of Dr. Iqtidar A. Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

27.ITRA 304 of Ds. Abdul Monem vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

28.ITRA 305 of Dr. Abdul Monem vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

29.ITRA 306 of Dr. Muhammad Qamar Ul 2018 Hoda vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 30. ITRA 307 of Dr. Muhammad Qamar Ul 2018 Hoda vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 31. ITRA 308 of Dr. Fauzia Nasim Minai vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 14 of 22

32.ITRA 309 of Dr. Fauzia Nasim Minai vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

33.ITRA 310 of Dr. Hameedullah 2018 Saleemullah vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

34.ITRA 311 of Dr. Salman Naseem Adil vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

35.ITRA 312 of Dr. Waseem Ahmed 2018 Memon vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 36. ITRA 313 of Dr. Salman Naseem Adil vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

37.ITRA 314 of Dr. Bushra Afroze vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

38.ITRA 315 of Dr. Mohammad Asim 2018 Beg vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 39. ITRA 316 of Dr. Basit Salam vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

40.ITRA 317 of Dr. Zubair Ahmed vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

41.ITRA 318 of Dr. Mohammad Asim 2018 Beg vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 42. ITRA 319 of Dr. Hasanat M. Sharif vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

43.ITRA 320 of Dr. Hasanat M. Sharif vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

44.ITRA 321 of Dr. Mohammad Usman 2018 Shaikh vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 45. ITRA 322 of Dr. Hameedullah 2018 Saleemullah vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

46.ITRA 323 of Dr. Mohammad Usman 2018 Shaikh vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 47. ITRA 324 of Dr. Mubashir Ikram vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

48.ITRA 325 of Dr. Syed Athar Enam vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

49.ITRA 326 of Dr. Raheela Mohsin 2018 Rizvi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 50. ITRA 327 of Dr. Gauhar Afshan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

51.ITRA 328 of Dr. Gauhar Afshan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

52.ITRA 329 of Dr. Fateh Ali Tipoo 2018 Sultan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 53. ITRA 330 of Dr. Rashida Ahmed vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

54.ITRA 331 of Dr. Tahira Yasmeen 2018 Naru vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 55. ITRA 332 of Dr. Tahira Yasmeen 2018 Naru vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 56. ITRA 333 of Dr. Mubashir Ikram vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

57.ITRA 334 of Dr. Rumina Hasan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

58.ITRA 335 of Dr. Rumina Hasan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

59.ITRA 336 of Dr. Farhat Abbas vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

60.ITRA 337 of Dr. Tabish Chawla vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

61.ITRA 338 of Dr. Rozila Sadia Khan vs. C.I.R

62.ITRA 339 of Dr. Jamsheer J.Talati vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

63.ITRA 340 of Dr. Azam Ali vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

64.ITRA 341 of Dr. Khalid Samad vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 15 of 22

65.ITRA 342 of Dr.Azam Ali vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

66.ITRA 343 of Dr. Tariq Moatter vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

67.ITRA 344 of Dr. Shamma Munim vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

68.ITRA 345 of Dr. Haroon-ul-Rashid vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

69.ITRA 346 of Dr. Riaz Hussain Y.Lakda 2018 Wala vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 70. ITRA 347 of Dr.Farooq Ghani vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

71.ITRA 348 of Dr. Alliya Begum vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

72.ITRA 349 of Dr. Fauzia Anis Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

73.ITRA 350 of Dr. Tariq Moatter vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

74.ITRA 351 of Dr. Muhammad Hamid vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

75.ITRA 352 of Dr. Ahmeed Nadeem 2018 Abbasi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 76. ITRA 353of Dr. Rashid Jooma vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

77.ITRA 354 of Dr.Tabish Chawala vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

78.ITRA 355 of Dr.Farooq Ghani vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

79.ITRA 356 of Dr.Alliya Begum vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

80.ITRA 357 of Dr. Neelofur Babar 2018 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 81. ITRA 358 of Dr. Kausar Jabeen vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

82.ITRA 359 of Dr. Robyna Irshad Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

83.ITRA 360 of Dr. Faisal Shamim vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

84.ITRA 361 of Dr. Hasnain Zafar vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

85.ITRA 362 of Dr. Waseem Akhtar 2018 Mirza vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 86. ITRA 363 of Dr. Fauzia Anis Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

87.ITRA 364 of Dr. Muhammad Sohail 2018 Salat vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 88. ITRA 365 of Dr. Saad Shafqat vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

89.ITRA 366 of Dr. Yousuf vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

90.ITRA 367 of Dr. Murtaza Mohammad 2018 Kazmi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 91. ITRA 368 of Dr. Iffat Ahmed vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

92.ITRA 369 of Dr. Robyna Irshad Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

93.ITRA 370 of Dr. Sara Sajid vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

94.ITRA 371 of Dr. Muhammad Sohail Salat vs.

95.ITRA 372 of Dr. Fateh Ali Tipoo 2018 Sultan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 96. ITRA 373 of Dr. Shama Munim vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

97.ITRA 374 of Dr. Mohammad Farhan Raza 2018 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 98. ITRA 375 of Dr. Samina Ismail vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 16 of 22

99.ITRA 376 of Dr. Khalid Samad vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

100.ITRA 379 of Dr. Tashfeen Ahmad vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

101.ITRA 397 of Dr. Aliya Ahmed vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

102.ITRA 398 of Dr. Aliya Ahmed vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

103.ITRA 399 of Dr. Pervez M. Hashmi vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

104.ITRA 400 of Dr. Pervez M. Hashmi vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

105.ITRA 401 of Dr. Aamir Hameed Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

106.ITRA 402 of Dr. Aamir Hameed Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

107.ITRA 403 of Dr. Tanveer Anjum 2018 Chaudhry vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

108.ITRA 404 of Dr. Tanveer Anjum 2018 Chaudhry vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

109.ITRA 405 of Dr. Muhammad Muneer 2018 Amanullah vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

110.ITRA 406 of Dr. Muhammad Muneer 2018 Amanullah vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

111.ITRA 407 of Dr. M. Hammad Ather vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

112.ITRA 408 of Dr. M. Hammad Ather vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

113.ITRA 409 of Dr. Mahnaz N. Shah vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

114.ITRA 410 of Dr. Mahnaz N. Shah vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

115.ITRA 411 of dr. Rustam Khan vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

116.ITRA 412 of dr. Rustam Khan vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

117.ITRA 413 of Dr. Saulat Hasnain 2018 Fatimi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 118. ITRA 414 of Dr. Saulat Hasnain 2018 Fatimi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 119. ITRA 415 of Dr. Mubassar Fida vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

120.ITRA 416 of Dr. Riaz Hussain Y.Lakda 2018 Wala vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 121. ITRA 417 of Dr. Masood Umar vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

122.ITRA 418 of Dr, Afia Zafar vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

123.ITRA 419 of Dr. Rashid Baig vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

124.ITRA 420 of Dr. Imran Siddiqui vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

125.ITRA 421 of Dr. Uzma Chishti vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

126.ITRA 422 of Dr. Muhammad Nadeem 2018 Ahmed vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 127. ITRA 423 of Dr. Shahryar Noordin vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

128.ITRA 424 of Dr. Muhammad Irfan 2018 Akhtar vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 129. ITRA 425 of Dr. Muhammad Shehzad 2018 Shamim vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 17 of 22

130.ITRA 426 of Dr. Khadija Nuzhat 2018 Humayun vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

131.ITRA 427 of Dr. Aysha Almas vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

132.ITRA 428 of Dr. Seema Irfan vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

133.ITRA 429 of Dr. Muhammad Ehsan 2018 Bari vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 134. ITRA 430 of Dr. Shaista Afzal Saeed vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

135.ITRA 431 of Dr. Aysha Habib Khan vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

136.ITRA 432 of Dr. Shahid Javed 2018 Husain vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 137. ITRA 433 of Dr. Vaqar Bari vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

138.ITRA 434 of Dr. Shabbir Akhtar vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

139.ITRA 435 of Dr. Najmul Islam vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

140.ITRA 436 of Dr. Bushra Jamil vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

141.ITRA 1 of 2019 Dr. Mohammad Nasir Rehman vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

142.ITRA 10 of Dr. Zahra Hassan vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

143.ITRA 11 of Dr. Tanveer Ul Haq vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

144.ITRA 12 of Dr. Muhammad Arif Mateen 2019 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 145. ITRA 13 of Dr. Lumaan Sheikh vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

146.ITRA 130 of Dr. Khalid Maudood 2019 Siddiqui vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 147. ITRA 131 of Dr. Gauhar Afshan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

148.ITRA 132 of Dr. Muhammad Sohail 2019 Salat vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 149. ITRA 133 of Dr. Najmul Islam vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

150.ITRA 134 of Dr. Imran Siddiqui vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

151.ITRA 135 of Dr. Rahat Najam 2019 Qureshi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 152. ITRA 136 of Dr. Zahra Hassan vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

153.ITRA 137 of Dr. Muhammad Muneer 2019 Amanullah vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

154.ITRA 138 of Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed 2019 Bhutta vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 155. ITRA 139 of Dr. Shahid Pervez vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

156.ITRA 14 of Dr. Sheema Habib ul 2019 Hassan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 157. ITRA 140 of Dr. Shama Munim vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

158.ITRA 141 of Dr. Zafar Sajjad vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

159.ITRA 142 of Dr. Naila Kayani vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

160.ITRA 143 of Dr. Mohammad 2019 Khurshid vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

161.ITRA 144 of Dr. Vaqar Bari vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 18 of 22

162.ITRA 145 of Dr. Azam Ali vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

163.ITRA 146 of Dr. Muhammad Azeem 2019 uddin vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 164. ITRA 147 of Dr. Mumtaz Jamshed Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

165.ITRA 148 of Dr. Fauzia Anis Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

166.ITRA 149 of Dr. Pervez M. Hashmi vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

167.ITRA 15 of Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed 2019 Bhutta vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 168. ITRA 150 of Dr. Hameedullah 2019 Saleemullah vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

169.ITRA 151 of Dr. Mehnaz Atiq Ahmed vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

170.ITRA 152 of Dr. Wasim Ahmed 2019 Memon vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 171. ITRA 153 of Dr. Abdul Rehman Alvi vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

172.ITRA 154 of Dr. Riffat Parveen Hussain vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

173.ITRA 155 of Dr. Fateh Ali Tipoo 2019 Sultan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 174. ITRA 156 of Dr. Aysha Habib Khan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

175.ITRA 157 of Dr. Tanveer Anjum 2019 Chaudhry vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

176.ITRA 158 of Dr. Rumina Hasan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

177.ITRA 159 of Dr. Haroon-ul-Rashid vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

178.ITRA 16 of Dr. Seema Habibul 2019 Hassan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 179. ITRA 160 of Dr. Nehal Masood vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

180.ITRA 161 of Dr. Muhammad Nadeem 2019 Ahmed vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 181. ITRA 162 of Dr. Shahab Abid vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

182.ITRA 163 of Dr. Muhammad Mehmood 2019 Riaz vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 183. ITRA 164 of Dr. Tanveer Ul Haq vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

184.ITRA 165 of Dr. Farhat Abbas vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

185.ITRA 166 of Dr. Mohammad Asim 2019 Beg vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 186. ITRA 167 of Dr. Abdul Jabbar vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

187.ITRA 168 of Dr. Jaweed Akhter vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

188.ITRA 169 of Dr. Saulat Hasnain 2019 Fatimi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 189. ITRA 17 of Dr. Abdul Jabbar vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

190.ITRA 170 of Dr. Yousuf vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

191.ITRA 171 of dr. Rustam Khan vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

192.ITRA 172 of Dr. Muhammad Qamar Ul Hoda vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

193.ITRA 173 of Dr. Shazia Masheer vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

194.ITRA 174 of Dr. Nadeem F. Zuberi vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 19 of 22

195.ITRA 175 of Dr. Salman Naseem Adil vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

196.ITRA 176 of Dr. Javaid Ahmed Khan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

197.ITRA 177 of Dr. Muhammad Irfan 2019 Akhtar vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 198. ITRA 178 of Dr. Faisal Shamim vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

199.ITRA 179 of Dr. Farooq Ghani vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

200.ITRA 18 of Dr. Nehal Masood vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

201.ITRA 180 of Dr. Ahmed Nadeem Abbasi vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

202.ITRA 181 of Dr. Sheema Habib ul Hassan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

203.ITRA 182 of Dr. Rozilla Sadia Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

204.ITRA 183 of Dr. Abdul Monem vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

205.ITRA 184 of Dr. Shaista Masood Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

206.ITRA 185 of Dr. Raffat Bano vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

207.ITRA 186 of Dr. Muhammad Arif Mateen Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

208.ITRA 187 of Dr. Muhammad Rizwan Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

209.ITRA 188 of Dr. Syed Raziuddin Bayabani vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

210.ITRA 189 of Dr. Mubassar Fida vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

211.ITRA 19 of Dr. Rahat Najam 2019 Qureshi vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 212. ITRA 190 of Dr. Mohammad Hamid vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

213.ITRA 191 of Dr. Tabish Chawla vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue The Commissioner Inland Revenue

214.ITRA 192 of Dr. Aliya Begum vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

215.ITRA 193 of Dr. Zubair Ahmed vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

216.ITRA 194 of Dr. Husnain Zafar vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

217.ITRA 195 of Dr. Bushra Moiz vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

218.ITRA 196 of Dr. Mubashir Ikram vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

219.ITRA 197 of Dr. Syed Athar Enam vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

220.ITRA 198 of Dr. Aliya Ahmed vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

221.ITRA 199 of Dr. K.M. Inam Pal vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

222.ITRA 2 of 2019 Dr. Rozina Sikandar Sultani vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 223. ITRA 20 of Dr. Mohammad Abrar 2019 Barakzai vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

224.ITRA 200 of Dr. Raheela Mohsin Rizvi vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

225.ITRA 201 of Dr. Riaz Hussain Y.Lakda Wala vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

226.ITRA 202 of Dr. Shahid Javed Husain vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 20 of 22

227.ITRA 203 of Dr. Imrana Masroor vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

228.ITRA 204 of Dr. Mohammad Usman Shaikh vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

229.ITRA 205 of Dr. Iqtidar A. Khan vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

230.ITRA 206 of Dr. Khalid Samad vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

231.ITRA 207 of Dr. Samina Ismail vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

232.ITRA 209 of Dr. Mohammad sohail vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

233.ITRA 21 of Dr. Syed Faisal 2019 Mahmood vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

234.ITRA 210 of Dr. Rashid Baig vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

235.ITRA 211 of Dr. Muhammad Hasanat Sharif vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

236.ITRA 212 of Dr. Fauzia Nasim Minai vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

237.ITRA 213 of Dr. Mohammad Attaullah Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

238.ITRA 214 of Dr. Erum Khan vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

239.ITRA 215 of Dr. Tahira Yasmeen Naru vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

240.ITRA 216 of Dr. Lumaan Sheikh vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

241.ITRA 217 of Dr. Gohar Javed vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

242.ITRA 218 of Dr. Aamir Hameed Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

243.ITRA 219 of Dr. Rozina Sikandar Sultanali vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

244.ITRA 22 of Dr. Emad Uddin 2019 Siddiqui vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 245. ITRA 220 of Dr. Zafar Nazir vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

246.ITRA 221 of Dr. Masood Umar vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

247.ITRA 222 of Dr. Tariq Moatter vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

248.ITRA 223 of Dr. Mohammad Farhan Raza Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

249.ITRA 224 of Dr. Muhammad Ehsan Bari vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

250.ITRA 225 of Dr. Javed Majid Tai vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

251.ITRA 226 of Dr. Neelofur Babar Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

252.ITRA 227 of Dr. Mahnaz N. Shah vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

253.ITRA 228 of Dr. Robyna Irshad Khan vs. The 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue

254.ITRA 229 of Dr. Naila Nadeem vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

255.ITRA 23 of Dr. Ursula Chohan Rizvi vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

256.ITRA 230 of Dr. Rashida Ahmed vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

257.ITRA 231 of Dr. Afia Zafar vs. The Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

258.ITRA 24 of Dr. Mumtaz Jamshed 2019 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 259. ITRA 25 of Dr. Sarwar Jamil 2019 Siddiqui vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 21 of 22

260.ITRA 26 of Dr. Javaid Ahmed Khan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

261.ITRA 27 of Dr. Zafar Ali vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

262.ITRA 28 of Dr. Hafiz Muhammad 2019 Riaz vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 263. ITRA 29 of Dr. Amna Subhan Butt vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

264.ITRA 3 of 2019 Dr. Zehra Fadoo vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

265.ITRA 30 of Dr. Shaista Masood 2019 Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 266. CP D 3095 of Dr. Naila Nadeem and Others vs. F.B.R & 2019 Others

267.ITRA 31 of Dr. Raffat Bano vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

268.ITRA 32 of Dr. Mohammad Hamid vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

269.ITRA 33 of Dr. Munira Adil 2019 Mosaajee vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

270.ITRA 34 of Dr. Nadeem Ullah Khan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

271.ITRA 35 of Dr. Masood Umar vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

272.ITRA 36 of Dr. Muhammad Azeem 2019 uddin vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 273. ITRA 37 of Dr. Arshalooz Jamila 2019 Rehman vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

274.ITRA 38 of Dr. Tania Nadeem vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

275.ITRA 39 of Dr. Erum Khan vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

276.ITRA 4 of 2019 Dr. Zehra Hassan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

277.ITRA 40 of Dr. Aysha Habib Khan vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

278.CP D 4005 of Dr. Saliha Ishaq & Others vs. FBR & 2019 Others

279.ITRA 41 of Dr. Munawar Rehman vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

280.ITRA 42 of Dr. Zafar Nazir vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

281.ITRA 43 of Dr. Zafar Nazir vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

282.ITRA 44 of Dr. Shahab Abid vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

283.ITRA 45 of Dr. Shahab Abid vs. Commissioner Inland 2019 Revenue

284.ITRA 46 of Dr. Javed Majid Tai vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

285.ITRA 47 of Dr. Javed Majid Tai vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

286.ITRA 48 of Dr. Mehnaz Atiq Ahmed vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

287.ITRA 49 of Dr. Mehnaz Atiq Ahmed vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

288.ITRA 5 of 2019 Dr. Gohar Javed vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

289.ITRA 50 of Dr. Imrana Masroor vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

290.ITRA 51 of Dr. Imrana Masroor vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

291.ITRA 52 of Dr. Riffat Parveen 2019 Hussain vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue 292. ITRA 53 of Dr. Riffat Parveen vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

ITRA 276 of 2018 and other connected matters Page 22 of 22

293.ITRA 54 of Dr. Muhammad Sohail vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

294.ITRA 55 of Dr. Muhammad Sohail vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

295.ITRA 56 of Dr. Jaweed Akhter vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

296.ITRA 57 of Dr. Jaweed Akhter vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

297.ITRA 58 of Dr. Arsalan Ahmed vs. Commissioner 2019 Inland Revenue

298.ITRA 6 of 2019 Dr. Muhammad Arif Mateen Khan vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

299.ITRA 7 of 2019 Dr. Rozina Sikandar Sultani vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

300.ITRA 8 of 2019 Dr. Gohar Javed vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

301.ITRA 9 of 2019 Dr. Lumaan Sheikh vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue

302.CP D 2051 of Dr. Naila Nadeem & Others vs. Fed. of 2020 Pakistan and Others

303.CP D 2685 of Dr. Riffat Parveen Hussain and 2020 Others vs. FBR and Others

304.CP D 2959 of Dr. Ayesha Almas and Others vs. FBR and 2020 Others

305.CP D 1746 of Dr. Aliya Ahmed & Others vs. FBR and 2020 Others

306.CP D 2265 of Dr. Aliya Ahmed & Others vs. FBR and 2019 Others

307.ITRA 377 of Dr. Sadia Masood vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue

308.ITRA 378 of Dr. Imran Siddiqui vs. Commissioner 2018 Inland Revenue

309.ITRA 296 of Dr. Naila Nadeem vs. Commissioner Inland 2018 Revenue