MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUL J.~ In this appeal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the following question has been proposed for our opinion:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing not to charge the minimum tax u/S. 80-D when ho specific exemption from levy of minimum tax u/S. 80D on turnover in shares whether of TCL or another ones is available.
2. Heard Mr. Jawaid Farooqi, learned counsel for the appellant, It is admitted position that the respondent derived receipts from sale of shares and the department attempted to tax the receipt from sale of shares as turnover, as defined in section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The ITAT has held that receipts from sale of shares do not fall within the definition of turnover, given in section 80-B, hence, it is not chargeable to tax under section 80-D.
3. Mr. Jawaid Farooqi, learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with the definition of capital assets given in section 2(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which shows that stocks and shares have been excluded from the purview of stock in trade. The learned counsel has been further confronted with CBR Circular No. 2-11/192. Dated July 1, 1972, explaining that, stock and shares held by all person will be considered as capital assets even they are held as stock in trade, and the gains earned out of the disposal will be taxed as capital gain.
4. When the provisions contained in section 2(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and CBR Circular, dated July 1, 1972 are read together with the definition of term 'turnover' given in section 80-D, no room is left for any doubt that the receipt from sale of shares cannot be included in turnover for the purpose of section 80-D. According to the definition of turnover in section 80-D, it is restricted to the gross receipt derived from the sale of the goods and is not extended to the sale of capital assets.
5. For the forgoing reason, we are of the opinion that the impugned finding given by the ITAT is in consonance with the provision of law and there is no point of law requiring any interpretation by us.
6. Since the proposition of law is very clear and obvious therefore, the appeal does not merit any consideration and stands dismissed in limine.