☰
Latest News TLQC3542= Budget FY 2026–27: PBC Proposals, etc | Case Law title | Islamabad Capital Territory (Tax on Services) Ordinance, 2001 | Consultant Support Materials
Logo

We would like to send you push notifications

You can unsubscribe at any time.

logo

Broad Interpretation of “wholly & exclusively" as Admissible expenses - --HC

11 May 2026

Author: Mr Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB).

Tax, Company, etc Laws Quick Commentaries (QC) and Daily News & Video Clippings Services' Flyer, click here. For video as  to the details about services, please click link.  For Comments by High Level Professionals & Subscribers views, please click here. For 15 days FREE Samples as Trial, please fill Form, if not filled earlier. 

 

Today Important Videos & Quotation

 

A. Mr. Haider Patel - Tax Partner E&Y, Core Committee Member of PBC & Former Senior VP of KTBA covers about Kasbati Brand Click on the Link to watch video

 

B. Get Timely Updates & Commentaries for Better Planning, Saving & Proper Compliance Click on the Link. For High Level Professionals & Subscribers views, please click here.

 

Below is the QC Sample released earlier. For having the same on a timely basis and with all links, please subscribe today by calling Abid 0335 2204 786 or UAN 0331 1118 786

============================================================

From: Asif Siddiq Kasbati <asif.s.kasbati@professional-excellence.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:24 PM
Subject: TLQC3480=Broad Interpretation of “wholly & exclusively" as Admissible expenses - --HC
 
 
590+ Taxes & Levies Quick Commentary - TLQC 3480

 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 

A.   General: The --HC addressed whether Taxpayer could deduct CEA payments u/s 20(1) of ITO, 2001, as expenditures "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business." The court upheld the CIR(Appeals)' order allowing the deduction, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's disallowance. 

 

B. Core Legal Principles: "Wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" is broader than "for earning profits," encompassing commercial expediency (e.g., ------------------------ v CIT). 

 

Expenditure need not be "necessary" but must be genuine, not for tax avoidance. Assessee bears initial onus to prove business purpose; Revenue must then disprove via evidence (reconciled from ----------------------------). 

 

C. Key Arguments & Rebuttals

 

1. Revenue's Position: CEA not deductible; relied on --------------

 

2. Court's Ruling: Rejected Revenue's precedents as inapplicable or misinterpreted. CEA is a statutory/contractual business necessity for taxpayer's survival, akin to deductible penalties/statutory deposits (e.g., ----------------). No equity pleaded—purely statutory entitlement under Sections 20/21. 

 

D. Outcome: Question answered affirmatively: CEA deductible. References allowed; CIR(Appeals) order upheld (dated ----------).   

 

II. DETAILS

 

A. Reference 

 

---------------

 

B. Reference u/s 133(1) read with 134A(2) – SNGPL (AY 2010)

 

1 to 2 with several sub paras

 

C. LHC Decision

 

1 to 2 


 

III. FURTHER DETAILS & SERVICES

 

Should you require any clarification or explanations in respect of the above or otherwise, or require Income Tax, Federal & Provincial Sales Tax or Withholding Tax Statement, Advisory, Return Filing or Review services, please feel free to email Mr Amsal at amsal@kasbati.co with CC to info.kasbati@professional-excellence.com, asif.s.kasbati@professional-excellence.com.

 

Best regards for Here & Hereafter
Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Managing Partner 

Kasbati & Co (1155+ Tax, Levies, Companies, Economy, Inflation, HR, Banking, Finance, etc Quick Commentary Service Provider and High Level 440+ Tax & Levies Laws Consultants) 

 


×