' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Since common controversy has been agitated in the aforesaid reference applications, therefore, by consent of both the learned counsel, above reference applications are being disposed of through this common Judgment. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to Order dated 30.10.2013 passed in I.T.R.A.
No,42/2013, which reads as follows:- "30.10.2013 Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Mirza, advocate for the applicant
1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Through instant reference application the applicant has proposed the following question of law, which according to learned counsel arises from the impugned order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Pakistan) Karachi in I. T.A. No,868/KB-2010 (Tax Year 2009) under section 122(5A).
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was justified to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in case of EFU General Insurance Ltd reported as 2011 PTD 2042 despite the fact that the same deals with general insurance wherein Rule 5 of Fourth Schedule is relevant whereas the instant case pertains to life Insurance wherein Rule 1 of the Schedule is relevant?"
' Learned counsel for the applicant states that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself while deciding the case by referring to a decision which was relevant in the case of General Insurance Company which dealt with in General Insurance, whereas in the instant case respondent is dealing in Life Insurance, which is governed by a separate Schedule i,e, Schedule-IV of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2011.
' Let pre-admission notice be issued to the respondent to be served through first three modes."
2. Learned counsel for applicant while reiterating the above arguments further submits that above question arises in all the aforesaid reference applications, which is a question of law, same may be answered in favour of applicant against the respondent.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset submits that the question, as referred to hereinabove, does not arise from the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, as according to learned counsel, in all the three orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in the aforesaid cases, it has been decided that computation of income of a insurance company is required to be made under the Forth Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whereas, there is no provision for apportionment of expenses under Rule 5 of the IV-Schedule. Therefore, per learned counsel, the provisions of section 67 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, will not apply in insurance cases. Learned counsel for the respondent has read out the impugned orders passed by Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid cases and submits that the Appellate Tribunal while recording above findings has placed reliance on the reported Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner (legal) Inland Revenue v. Messrs EFU General Insurance Ltd. 2011 PTD 2042.
' Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that similar questions have already been decided by this Court in the number of other reference applications including I.T.R.A.
No,105/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Central Insurance Co. Ltd. And I.T.R. No,296/2010 Commissioner (legal) Inland Revenue. LTU, Karachi v. EFU Life Insurance. Copies of such orders have also been placed on record.
4. While confronted with above factual and legal position, as argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for applicant could not controvert such factual or legal position, however, submits that under the new law i,e, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, there is deviation from the provisions as contained in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, relating to computation of insurance business, therefore, proration of expenses is permissible in the case of insurance business.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the record as well as the impugned order passed in the instant case and also examined the earlier decisions of this Court on the subject controversy as referred by learned counsel for the respondent.
6. We are of the opinion, that the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for respondent, to the effect that the subject controversy relating to computation of income of insurance business to be made in terms of Forth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, has already been decided by this Court in the afore cited cases, is found to be correct. The controversy in the above references also relates to the same legal issue, which has already been decided in above terms, whereas, there has been no finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal with regard to any distinction of life or general insurance business as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid reference applications, whereas, the question proposed as such do not arise from the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, as there has been no discussion either in the impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal or the orders passed by the authorities below to the effect as to whether the respondent is engaged in the business of life insurance or general insurance. The orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the above cases are based on decisions of this Court on the subject controversy, therefore, does not require any interference by this Court.
' Accordingly, aforesaid reference applications are dismissed along with listed application.