Tax Details of MNAs.
- Thread starter SBD-3
- Start date
Norwegian
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 19,001
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
WishLivePak
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,424
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Sir, the point is, if PTI is just like PMLn, PPP or alike, where is the change in that? If PTI wants me to support them, they need to stop being hypocrites. If PMLn gets their arrested people out from police illegally, how is PTI doing it not condemnable?
If PMLn doesn't pay tax, why doesn't PTI either? Then they come and say "naya Pakistan."
Also, inb4 insane comments like "why pay tax when it's gonne go to swiss accounts anyway"
You're known potian. Hell, you actually do a part time job. I hope you read thread about Qadri telling supporters not to deface currency.
Super Falcon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 15,816
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Where is moulaba diesel tax payments sabse phele us gaddar ko pakdo bhai
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Had you noticed, the details were published as per sequence of NA.But Dimagh hota to PTI main kiu hotay....Parhay Likhay Jahil....
https://defence.pk/threads/tax-details-of-mnas.334170/#post-6180437
Banda comment karnay se pehlay at least ek baar thread view zaroor karlay
Jzaib
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 6,574
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
please post the total net worth of each. According to Wikipedia Nawaz SHarif net worth is 1.6 billion dollar
these members .
these members .
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Geo election website has the numbers filed till 2008. It not working right now, I don't know why.
http://election2013.geo.tv/
election2013.geo.tv/parties/results
Jzaib
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 6,574
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Only three of the people in the list has sources to be traced to i.e. Shahid Khan, Mian Mansha and Asif Zardari.
Jzaib
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 6,574
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
well just see the worth os hassan nawaz flagshipinvestement. If we just count that he is more rich then zardari. read this article witha cool mind . Not as a PMLN supporter. May be u will find something
The Rs110 million returned by NAB to the Sharif family-owned Ramzan Sugar Mills in January 2012 as a consequence of a Supreme Court judgement is also shown as an asset of Nawaz Sharif which according to the petition is an attempt to adjust entries and is illegal.
The petition also says that a ‘gift’ of Rs35 million given to Maryam Safdar is not reflected in the nomination papers of her husband Captain Safdar which also establishes that different entries were adjusted in mysterious ways to conceal facts.
Important points of the petition which in legal terms is called “Information placed before the Appellate Tribunal under section 14(5A) of Representation of People Act, 1976” are given below:
That the nomination form contains statement of assets and liabilities as on 30-6-2012. Nawaz Sharif (Candidate) instead of filing that statement has attached his wealth statement prescribed under section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for Tax Year 2012 and Tax Year 2011. These have been filed to fulfill the requirement of S.No.2 & 3 regarding Net Wealth last year and increase/decrease therefrom.
That as per income tax/agricultural income tax return attached with the nomination form the total income from all sources, personal expenditure and surplus is showing a deficit of Rs4 million
It is evident that out of declared and taxed income, no recourse is available for accretion in net wealth over the period from 30.06.2010 to 30.06.2012
That even from the aforesaid available information for the latest two years it is crystal clear that net wealth has increased from Rs63.7 million as on 30.06.2.010 to Rs245 million as on 30.06.2012 and this is beyond the taxed sources of income.
The Wealth Reconciliation Statement for the Tax Year 2012 prescribed with the Wealth Statement has not been filed by the candidate with the nomination papers; however the candidate has attached Wealth Reconciliation Statement for Tax Year 2011 on the format prescribed under the Income Tax Rules.
From the aforesaid data it is evident that the accretion is on account of gift from the son of Rs.129836905. Since earlier there have been allegations of money laundering on the candidate in the context of Hudabiya Paper Mills case hence the aforesaid gift from the son warranted some application of mind by the Returning Officer. The name of son from whom gift has been received is not mentioned though the name of other two children to whom gifts have been made are mentioned. The other son left is Mian Hassan Nawaz who is reportedly doing business in UK.
Mian Hassan Nawaz is the sole Director/Shareholder of Flagship Investments Limited Registration No.04199377 and its accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant for the period ending 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 are available on the website of the Company’s House UK which is their regulatory body like SECP. These accounts indicate that since incorporation this company as well as its subsidiary company Flagship Security Ltd are in continuous losses and has never paid any taxes hence there is no possibility at all that Mian Hassan Nawaz has been paid any dividend or such a salary etc. out of which he could gift an amount of Rs.129,836,905 to his father (candidate).
That the called up share capital is £1 only and the shareholder funds of £213,002 are in fact after deducting loss of £875008 from revaluation of property reserves of £1088009. As such no funds whatsoever are available to the son for gifting to the candidate.
8- That from the accounts it is also evident that during this year a property purchased at £1,650,000 was disposed off for profit of £ 88181 and the sale proceeds were utilized in repayment of Building Society Loan of £1120849 as on 31.03.2010 appearing at note 9 which as on 31.03.2011 is NIL. Hence the sale proceeds have been utilized for repayment of loan and were not legally or factually available with the son Mian Hassan Sharif for a gift to the candidate.
That as per section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 any amount claimed as gift should be received through banking channel from a person holding a National Tax Number. Hence to prove the factum of gift the candidate without prejudice to the foregoing was required to produce the evidence that his son has a National Tax Number in Pakistan and the amount has been received through the prescribed banking channel and he had the sources on record with HMRC, UK to make such a gift.
That as per Annex-B of return of total income for Tax Year 2011 the tax collected by bank on cash withdrawals has been shown at Rs.333,330 which when worked back at the prescribed rate of 0.3% comes to cash withdrawals of Rs111,110,000. The cash withdrawal is a pattern wherein exemption is claimed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on account of foreign remittances from the undisclosed sources. Therefore the Returning Officer should have examined the bank statement.
Whereas (Captain) Muhammad Safdar, an MNA from NA-53 is the husband of Mrs Maryam Safdar and he has submitted his Statement of assets & liabilities as on 30.06.2011 to the ECP which stood published in the Official Gazette. He has shown that there is no change in the assets during the year. This means that the amount was not gifted to the daughter rather the gift shown is an afterthought to reduce the net wealth as the accretion was substantial and without having explained / taxed sources.
That as per section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the gift to children should have been through prescribed banking channel whereas it has been mentioned earlier that an amount of Rs.110,000,000 was withdrawn in cash from bank accounts of the candidate. This again indicates that the claim of gift of both the amounts is merely to reduce the net wealth to a level which as per candidate’s opinion was explainable.
In the Wealth Statement as on 30.06.2011 filed with the Nomination Papers a liability of Rs110,000,000 payable to Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited has been shown and the said amount is not appearing as liability in the Wealth Statement as on 30.06.2012 resulting into accretion in net wealth of Rs. 95,597,172 during the Tax Year 2012. This liability shown as on 30.06.2011 has reduced the total assets of Rs.259,398,035 by 110,000,000 to arrive at net assets of Rs.149,398,035. The background of liability is that the candidate was sentenced and heavily fined in the Pervez Musharaf regime and when the candidate went into agreed exile he was required to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.110,000,000 towards the fine imposed by the courts. This amount was paid to the NAB by the Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd on behalf of the candidate and that is why he has claimed this liability payable to the said company. Later on the sentences / fines were quashed by the superior courts and NAB had refunded the amount to the candidate. The candidate in turn has paid off the company and that is why the liability is not appearing as on 30.06.2012. But the arithmetic of the total assets is not in accordance with the facts and accounting and the liability has erroneously understated the net wealth as on 30.06.2011 as the corresponding asset should have been shown as receivable from NAB. As such, without showing asset of receivable amount from NAB the liability has been claimed to reduce the net wealth to a level where it appear to be reconciled though it was not.
Hence in the wealth statement as on 30.06.2011 the amount receivable from the NAB has not been shown in total assets and therefore the net wealth would increase to Rs.259398035 and the increase would be out of untaxed, unexplained sources meaning thereby that the candidate has given a false statement in material particular about his assets. That as per Sr.No.12 of the Nomination Form, the candidate is required to indicate the income declared and tax paid thereon in the last three years and to attach copies of the income tax returns as well. Accordingly the candidate has shown the income declared and tax paid at Sr.No.12 and has attached the income tax returns as well. Under section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 an individual is required to file his income tax return by 30th September each year.
Identical note appear in the acknowledgment of the other two years and this note is in the context of the mandatory requirement contained in section 116(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 that where the declared income exceeds Rs.500,000 the individual shall furnish Wealth Statement and Reconciliation Statement for that year alongwith the Return of Total Income.
That contrary to the provisions of section 116(2) the Wealth Statement was neither filed with the return of total income nor soon thereafter even when pointed out through note on the Acknowledgment Slip mentioned above. Rather the Wealth Statements for the Tax Year 2012 and 2011 have been filed just before the filing of nomination papers.
However, the Returning Officer has not followed the guideline and late filing of more than one year has not been taken as tax default for applicability of Article 62(1)(d)
That after return of the candidate to Pakistan in late 2007 the aforesaid Wealth Statement is the first Wealth Statement filed on 21/22.03.2013 is the first declaration regarding the assets and liabilities and increase from the assets as on 30.06.2007 declared in the Nomination Papers of 2008 General Elections. The Wealth Statements have not been filed on due dates to hide the assets from the department/public and accretion thereof until and unless it becomes essential to disclose due to General Elections. That is the reason that Wealth Statements have been filed just before filing the Nomination Papers as the candidate intended to attach these with the nomination papers instead of filling the assets statement prescribed in the nomination form.
That in the nomination form the candidate has indicated that he is living with his mother and that may be his understanding for not declaring anything under Sr.No.12 of the statement of assets and liabilities contained in the nomination form requiring declaration at cost of furniture, fittings and articles of personal use. Even assuming that where the candidate is living there he/her spouse does not own any furniture and fittings even then personal effects are missing as well, which means that the candidate has not incurred any cost on his wearing apparels, watches, mobile etc. etc.
That as per website of the Lesco, Ittefaq Foundries Limited has been shown as their defaulter for electricity bill of Rs40,436,412 for the last 103 months. The candidate is one of the shareholder/director of the said concern and this issue is independent of the surrendering of assets of that unit and other units for the settlement of bank loans. If the candidate did not mainly own or control the said unit even then the default of electricity bills pertaining to the period when the Unit was in operation cast a shadow on the good character requirement of Article 62(1)(d).
Therefore, the nomination papers of the candidate accepted by the Returning Officer ought to be rejected on multiple grounds including making false statement envisaged under section 14(3)(c) and disqualification under Article 62(1)(d), (e) and (f).
Govt de-notifies appointment of Wapda chairman as power sector coordinator
ISLAMABAD: A petition filed before the Election Tribunal in Lahore seeking disqualification of Nawaz Sharif shows that besides many other discrepancies and concealment in assets and income statements, as per his nomination papers, the PML-N chief has received a ‘gift’ of Rs129.83 million from his London-based son but official UK documents establish that the companies of Hasan Nawaz faced losses in the mentioned period.
The Rs110 million returned by NAB to the Sharif family-owned Ramzan Sugar Mills in January 2012 as a consequence of a Supreme Court judgement is also shown as an asset of Nawaz Sharif which according to the petition is an attempt to adjust entries and is illegal.
The petition also says that a ‘gift’ of Rs35 million given to Maryam Safdar is not reflected in the nomination papers of her husband Captain Safdar which also establishes that different entries were adjusted in mysterious ways to conceal facts.
Important points of the petition which in legal terms is called “Information placed before the Appellate Tribunal under section 14(5A) of Representation of People Act, 1976” are given below:
That the nomination form contains statement of assets and liabilities as on 30-6-2012. Nawaz Sharif (Candidate) instead of filing that statement has attached his wealth statement prescribed under section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for Tax Year 2012 and Tax Year 2011. These have been filed to fulfill the requirement of S.No.2 & 3 regarding Net Wealth last year and increase/decrease therefrom.
That as per income tax/agricultural income tax return attached with the nomination form the total income from all sources, personal expenditure and surplus is showing a deficit of Rs4 million
It is evident that out of declared and taxed income, no recourse is available for accretion in net wealth over the period from 30.06.2010 to 30.06.2012
That even from the aforesaid available information for the latest two years it is crystal clear that net wealth has increased from Rs63.7 million as on 30.06.2.010 to Rs245 million as on 30.06.2012 and this is beyond the taxed sources of income.
The Wealth Reconciliation Statement for the Tax Year 2012 prescribed with the Wealth Statement has not been filed by the candidate with the nomination papers; however the candidate has attached Wealth Reconciliation Statement for Tax Year 2011 on the format prescribed under the Income Tax Rules.
From the aforesaid data it is evident that the accretion is on account of gift from the son of Rs.129836905. Since earlier there have been allegations of money laundering on the candidate in the context of Hudabiya Paper Mills case hence the aforesaid gift from the son warranted some application of mind by the Returning Officer. The name of son from whom gift has been received is not mentioned though the name of other two children to whom gifts have been made are mentioned. The other son left is Mian Hassan Nawaz who is reportedly doing business in UK.
Mian Hassan Nawaz is the sole Director/Shareholder of Flagship Investments Limited Registration No.04199377 and its accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant for the period ending 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 are available on the website of the Company’s House UK which is their regulatory body like SECP. These accounts indicate that since incorporation this company as well as its subsidiary company Flagship Security Ltd are in continuous losses and has never paid any taxes hence there is no possibility at all that Mian Hassan Nawaz has been paid any dividend or such a salary etc. out of which he could gift an amount of Rs.129,836,905 to his father (candidate).
That the called up share capital is £1 only and the shareholder funds of £213,002 are in fact after deducting loss of £875008 from revaluation of property reserves of £1088009. As such no funds whatsoever are available to the son for gifting to the candidate.
8- That from the accounts it is also evident that during this year a property purchased at £1,650,000 was disposed off for profit of £ 88181 and the sale proceeds were utilized in repayment of Building Society Loan of £1120849 as on 31.03.2010 appearing at note 9 which as on 31.03.2011 is NIL. Hence the sale proceeds have been utilized for repayment of loan and were not legally or factually available with the son Mian Hassan Sharif for a gift to the candidate.
That as per section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 any amount claimed as gift should be received through banking channel from a person holding a National Tax Number. Hence to prove the factum of gift the candidate without prejudice to the foregoing was required to produce the evidence that his son has a National Tax Number in Pakistan and the amount has been received through the prescribed banking channel and he had the sources on record with HMRC, UK to make such a gift.
That as per Annex-B of return of total income for Tax Year 2011 the tax collected by bank on cash withdrawals has been shown at Rs.333,330 which when worked back at the prescribed rate of 0.3% comes to cash withdrawals of Rs111,110,000. The cash withdrawal is a pattern wherein exemption is claimed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on account of foreign remittances from the undisclosed sources. Therefore the Returning Officer should have examined the bank statement.
Whereas (Captain) Muhammad Safdar, an MNA from NA-53 is the husband of Mrs Maryam Safdar and he has submitted his Statement of assets & liabilities as on 30.06.2011 to the ECP which stood published in the Official Gazette. He has shown that there is no change in the assets during the year. This means that the amount was not gifted to the daughter rather the gift shown is an afterthought to reduce the net wealth as the accretion was substantial and without having explained / taxed sources.
That as per section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the gift to children should have been through prescribed banking channel whereas it has been mentioned earlier that an amount of Rs.110,000,000 was withdrawn in cash from bank accounts of the candidate. This again indicates that the claim of gift of both the amounts is merely to reduce the net wealth to a level which as per candidate’s opinion was explainable.
In the Wealth Statement as on 30.06.2011 filed with the Nomination Papers a liability of Rs110,000,000 payable to Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited has been shown and the said amount is not appearing as liability in the Wealth Statement as on 30.06.2012 resulting into accretion in net wealth of Rs. 95,597,172 during the Tax Year 2012. This liability shown as on 30.06.2011 has reduced the total assets of Rs.259,398,035 by 110,000,000 to arrive at net assets of Rs.149,398,035. The background of liability is that the candidate was sentenced and heavily fined in the Pervez Musharaf regime and when the candidate went into agreed exile he was required to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.110,000,000 towards the fine imposed by the courts. This amount was paid to the NAB by the Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd on behalf of the candidate and that is why he has claimed this liability payable to the said company. Later on the sentences / fines were quashed by the superior courts and NAB had refunded the amount to the candidate. The candidate in turn has paid off the company and that is why the liability is not appearing as on 30.06.2012. But the arithmetic of the total assets is not in accordance with the facts and accounting and the liability has erroneously understated the net wealth as on 30.06.2011 as the corresponding asset should have been shown as receivable from NAB. As such, without showing asset of receivable amount from NAB the liability has been claimed to reduce the net wealth to a level where it appear to be reconciled though it was not.
Hence in the wealth statement as on 30.06.2011 the amount receivable from the NAB has not been shown in total assets and therefore the net wealth would increase to Rs.259398035 and the increase would be out of untaxed, unexplained sources meaning thereby that the candidate has given a false statement in material particular about his assets. That as per Sr.No.12 of the Nomination Form, the candidate is required to indicate the income declared and tax paid thereon in the last three years and to attach copies of the income tax returns as well. Accordingly the candidate has shown the income declared and tax paid at Sr.No.12 and has attached the income tax returns as well. Under section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 an individual is required to file his income tax return by 30th September each year.
Identical note appear in the acknowledgment of the other two years and this note is in the context of the mandatory requirement contained in section 116(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 that where the declared income exceeds Rs.500,000 the individual shall furnish Wealth Statement and Reconciliation Statement for that year alongwith the Return of Total Income.
That contrary to the provisions of section 116(2) the Wealth Statement was neither filed with the return of total income nor soon thereafter even when pointed out through note on the Acknowledgment Slip mentioned above. Rather the Wealth Statements for the Tax Year 2012 and 2011 have been filed just before the filing of nomination papers.
However, the Returning Officer has not followed the guideline and late filing of more than one year has not been taken as tax default for applicability of Article 62(1)(d)
That after return of the candidate to Pakistan in late 2007 the aforesaid Wealth Statement is the first Wealth Statement filed on 21/22.03.2013 is the first declaration regarding the assets and liabilities and increase from the assets as on 30.06.2007 declared in the Nomination Papers of 2008 General Elections. The Wealth Statements have not been filed on due dates to hide the assets from the department/public and accretion thereof until and unless it becomes essential to disclose due to General Elections. That is the reason that Wealth Statements have been filed just before filing the Nomination Papers as the candidate intended to attach these with the nomination papers instead of filling the assets statement prescribed in the nomination form.
That in the nomination form the candidate has indicated that he is living with his mother and that may be his understanding for not declaring anything under Sr.No.12 of the statement of assets and liabilities contained in the nomination form requiring declaration at cost of furniture, fittings and articles of personal use. Even assuming that where the candidate is living there he/her spouse does not own any furniture and fittings even then personal effects are missing as well, which means that the candidate has not incurred any cost on his wearing apparels, watches, mobile etc. etc.
That as per website of the Lesco, Ittefaq Foundries Limited has been shown as their defaulter for electricity bill of Rs40,436,412 for the last 103 months. The candidate is one of the shareholder/director of the said concern and this issue is independent of the surrendering of assets of that unit and other units for the settlement of bank loans. If the candidate did not mainly own or control the said unit even then the default of electricity bills pertaining to the period when the Unit was in operation cast a shadow on the good character requirement of Article 62(1)(d).
Therefore, the nomination papers of the candidate accepted by the Returning Officer ought to be rejected on multiple grounds including making false statement envisaged under section 14(3)(c) and disqualification under Article 62(1)(d), (e) and (f).
Govt de-notifies appointment of Wapda chairman as power sector coordinator
Saifkhan12
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 564
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Very misleading thread based on unreliable sources.
Jzaib
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 6,574
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
what can u expect from a pmln supporter
Jazzbot
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 10,382
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Parhay Likhay Jahil dangar, then complete the series in sequence and post them all. Or shut the F up.
Similar threads
- Article
