Court Grants Big Relief to Bank After FBR Tried to Tax Its Losses

The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Lahore, has ruled that minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 cannot be imposed in the absence of any “actual tax payable,” granting substantial relief to M/s NIB Bank Ltd (now MCB Bank Ltd) for tax years 2014 to 2016.

The Tribunal, while 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 the 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.

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 double 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.