' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, respect of the Assessment year 1980-81 of the Assessee/Respondent, on the application of the Department, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion"
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that provision/liability for tax falls within the purview of the expression 'income as retained for meeting working capital requirements' as used in Para 'A' of Part III of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 read with section 10 of it and hence it is to be excluded from the total income for levy of surcharge."
2. We have heard the learned counsel. This question has been considered and decided in various previous references by this Court and the matter has been settled now by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries Limited, 1993 PTD 343. The Supreme Court has decided the matter against the Department.
3. In the circumstances, following our earlier decisions and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the question referred to us in the present reference application is also answered in the affirmative. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.