What's new

Why Sharif’s ouster is dangerous for Pakistan

per process he should have been disqualified after the trial right?

He Was Given 1.5 Years To Prove Himself But The Only Thing He Came Up With Were Fake Documents and A Qatari Letter Based On Hearsay.Even Then The Judges Have Ordered NAB To File A Reference Meaning He Will Be Given Another Chance To Prove His Innocence
 
He is declared dishonest on basis of asset concealment.
Those assets are now being probed if they were illegally acquired.

Should i try Hindi? No wonder Indians shake their head and confuse the world

the rest of the world has one process- innocent until proven guilty. He is probably guilty but that doesn't mean that he couldn't present his case in a trial. The overlords should have gone through that process before booting him out.
 
yea true..giving disqualification before trail and then sending references to NAB don't make any sense even for some legal experts

Bhai kio mere sabar ka imtehan le raho.

Zameer malamat nahi hota?

the rest of the world has one process- innocent until proven guilty. He is probably guilty but that doesn't mean that he couldn't present his case in a trial. The overlords should have gone through that process before booting him out.

Dude asset concealment and thus by default tax evasion is unlawful everywhere.

Why are you running scared here in pdf?
 
Bhai kio mere sabar ka imtehan le raho.

Zameer malamat nahi hota?



Dude asset concealment and thus by default tax evasion is unlawful everywhere.

Why are you running scared here in pdf?

I didn't say it wasn't unlawful. All I said is that a commission is not a trial.
 
yea true..giving disqualification before trail and then sending references to NAB don't make any sense even for some legal experts

and Judges have set a very low benchmark for disqualification which if apply on others equally will leave no politician in parliament

Actually hiding Iqama can DQ MNA technically speaking. But I doubt he would have been DQ if he had provided proof of money trail of Panama case. Its a given NS will loss NAB trial case as well and likely end up in jail.
 
Dude asset concealment and thus by default tax evasion is unlawful everywhere.

Why are you running scared here in pdf?
I will refer you toward this post to explain how judges discovered a new definition of asset

Announcing its verdict, the five-member bench unanimously disqualified Nawaz Sharif for failing to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from UAE-based Capital FZE in his nominations papers for the 2013 General Election, stating that this meant he was not ‘honest’ and ‘truthful’, as per the Constitution.

"It is hereby declared that having failed to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from Capital FZE Jebel Ali, UAE in his nomination papers filed for the General Elections held in 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and having furnished a false declaration under solemn affirmation respondent No. 1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 24 ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and therefore he is disqualified to be a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)."

Now

The Section 12 of the ITO 2001 reads;

“12. Salary.— (1) Any salary received by an employee in a tax year, other than salary that is exempted from tax under this Ordinance, shall be chargeable to tax in that year under the head ‘Salary.’

(2) Salary means any amount received by an employee from any employment, whether of a revenue or capital nature, including —

(a) any pay, wages or other remuneration provided to an employee, including leave pay, payment in lieu of leave, overtime payment, bonus, commission, fees, gratuity or work condition supplements (such as for unpleasant or dangerous working conditions).

Section 12 of ITO 2001, the only relevant law of the land, clearly declares that only “received” amounts will be “salary” income. Hence, only “received” consideration of salary can be considered as “asset”. And only “received” money under the head ‘salary’ is required to be declared. What is difference between “received” and “receivable” in case of a salaried person and in case of ‘business’ can be well understood by comparing this section 12 with the section 15 of the same ordinance.

Section 15 of ITO 2001 reads;

“15. Income from property.— (1) The rent received or receivable by a person [for] a tax year, other than rent exempted from tax under this Ordinance, shall be chargeable to tax in that year under the head of Income from Property.”

Clearly in case of income from property, the ITO 2001 declares that both “received” and “receivable” will be the income and thus a person having income from his property will also declare the ‘receivable’ income. However, comparing it with Section 12 of the same ordinance clarifies that the scenario is entirely different in case of salaried person and salary is required to be declared if it is “received” and not required to be declared if it is “receivable” and hence the question of “receivable” to be considered as an “asset” in any way does not arise. It was not required and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was not under obligation under the only law of the land on this subject, the ITO 2001, to declare the “receivable” salary in his nomination forms or any other declaration. It would have been against the spirit of the ITO 2001 had the former PM Nawaz declared the “receivable” salary in his nomination forms or declare it as an “asset”.

Most interestingly, along with filing annual returns, one has to submit his wealth statement as well as has to reconcile his income and expenses with his closing wealth. Had former prime minister Nawaz Sharif mentioned ‘receivable’ salary in his annual returns or had shown it in nomination papers under section 12(2)(f) of ROPA, he would have to declare the same un-withdrawn ‘receivable’ salary in his wealth statement. As he never received the salary and did not declare the same in his income in accordance with section 12 of ITO therefore declaration of salary “receivable” as an “asset” in his wealth statement would result that wealth statement would not remain reconciled. So in case of salary declaration, considering “receivable” as “asset” and requiring its declaration in nomination papers is simply misconception and is against all concepts present in the only relevant law the ITO 2001.

For any person it can be further understood by the fact that no person can be responsible for paying tax on salary which he has not received. If it is not considered income, how it can be considered “receivable” or an “asset”. Similarly even if a person receives, three years of salary in advance it is considered income and he is liable to tax in the same year and not the next three years. For “receivable” to be recognised, income has to be recognised and salary income can only be recognised if it is received. Further the judgment has failed to state that income was not recognised. If there was no income, how there was a receivable.
 
He was not punished for corruption. It was a mockery. Any case of corruption requires a trial. This was simply court ruling on a report JIT by the military intelligence guys.

As per article 62 he was ousted for not being sadiq enough. That's highly subjective definition. Judicial activism at it worst on the back of military support.

I Know How Much The Loss Of Your Beloved Sharif Is Hurting You Indians But That Does Not Allow You To Come Up With BS.It Was A 6 Member JIT Appointed By The Judiciary And 4 Of The Members Were Civillian Officers Belonging To Government Organizations Directly Under NS
 
Actually hiding Iqama can DQ MNA technically speaking. But I doubt he would have been DQ if he had provided proof of money trail of Panama case. Its a given NS will loss NAB trial case as well and likely end up in jail.
Main difference is what claimant perceived as assets and what judges defined as assets if you read #69
 
Main difference is what claimant perceived as assets and what judges defined as assets

Main reason is lack of money trail provided for London flats. NS could have gotten away if case was just Iqama. Now all depend on NAB trial.
 
Apka point kia hay.
Sab ka hona chaiye na?
Sabka hoga inshallah.

Agay bataen kia mantaq samajh nahi aayi
Mera point wohe ha jo Imran ne kaha tha

only angels can fulfil all the clauses under article 62 nad 63 and no politician will be left in parliament if it apply equally on others after full investigations

to kitni JIT banao ghey bhi
 
I will refer you toward this post to explain how judges discovered a new definition of asset

Announcing its verdict, the five-member bench unanimously disqualified Nawaz Sharif for failing to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from UAE-based Capital FZE in his nominations papers for the 2013 General Election, stating that this meant he was not ‘honest’ and ‘truthful’, as per the Constitution.

"It is hereby declared that having failed to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from Capital FZE Jebel Ali, UAE in his nomination papers filed for the General Elections held in 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and having furnished a false declaration under solemn affirmation respondent No. 1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 24 ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and therefore he is disqualified to be a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)."

Now

The Section 12 of the ITO 2001 reads;

“12. Salary.— (1) Any salary received by an employee in a tax year, other than salary that is exempted from tax under this Ordinance, shall be chargeable to tax in that year under the head ‘Salary.’

(2) Salary means any amount received by an employee from any employment, whether of a revenue or capital nature, including —

(a) any pay, wages or other remuneration provided to an employee, including leave pay, payment in lieu of leave, overtime payment, bonus, commission, fees, gratuity or work condition supplements (such as for unpleasant or dangerous working conditions).

Section 12 of ITO 2001, the only relevant law of the land, clearly declares that only “received” amounts will be “salary” income. Hence, only “received” consideration of salary can be considered as “asset”. And only “received” money under the head ‘salary’ is required to be declared. What is difference between “received” and “receivable” in case of a salaried person and in case of ‘business’ can be well understood by comparing this section 12 with the section 15 of the same ordinance.

Section 15 of ITO 2001 reads;

“15. Income from property.— (1) The rent received or receivable by a person [for] a tax year, other than rent exempted from tax under this Ordinance, shall be chargeable to tax in that year under the head of Income from Property.”

Clearly in case of income from property, the ITO 2001 declares that both “received” and “receivable” will be the income and thus a person having income from his property will also declare the ‘receivable’ income. However, comparing it with Section 12 of the same ordinance clarifies that the scenario is entirely different in case of salaried person and salary is required to be declared if it is “received” and not required to be declared if it is “receivable” and hence the question of “receivable” to be considered as an “asset” in any way does not arise. It was not required and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was not under obligation under the only law of the land on this subject, the ITO 2001, to declare the “receivable” salary in his nomination forms or any other declaration. It would have been against the spirit of the ITO 2001 had the former PM Nawaz declared the “receivable” salary in his nomination forms or declare it as an “asset”.

Most interestingly, along with filing annual returns, one has to submit his wealth statement as well as has to reconcile his income and expenses with his closing wealth. Had former prime minister Nawaz Sharif mentioned ‘receivable’ salary in his annual returns or had shown it in nomination papers under section 12(2)(f) of ROPA, he would have to declare the same un-withdrawn ‘receivable’ salary in his wealth statement. As he never received the salary and did not declare the same in his income in accordance with section 12 of ITO therefore declaration of salary “receivable” as an “asset” in his wealth statement would result that wealth statement would not remain reconciled. So in case of salary declaration, considering “receivable” as “asset” and requiring its declaration in nomination papers is simply misconception and is against all concepts present in the only relevant law the ITO 2001.

For any person it can be further understood by the fact that no person can be responsible for paying tax on salary which he has not received. If it is not considered income, how it can be considered “receivable” or an “asset”. Similarly even if a person receives, three years of salary in advance it is considered income and he is liable to tax in the same year and not the next three years. For “receivable” to be recognised, income has to be recognised and salary income can only be recognised if it is received. Further the judgment has failed to state that income was not recognised. If there was no income, how there was a receivable.

So...

It is clearer than the clearest water from the Aral lake.

Mera point wohe ha jo Imran ne kaha tha

only angels can fulfil all the clauses under article 62 nad 63 and no politician will be left in parliament if it apply equally on others after full investigations

to kitni JIT banao ghey bhi

Na rahe bhai.

Sannu ki.

If they broke the law or do not fit the criteria to lead than so be it.

Why do you want a dishonest person leading the country? Makes you proud?

Janaab sab per itlaaq hoga. Rok sakte hai to rok len.

Reminds of Lagaan dialogue: tum saala ghulaam log ghulaam hi rahega.

Dude that's pretty perverted.

Imran won't be next PM too.

Tehreek hai uski. Jab safal hojaegi to khatam hojaegi
 
Section 12 of ITO 2001, the only relevant law of the land, clearly declares that only “received” amounts will be “salary” income. Hence, only “received” consideration of salary can be considered as “asset”. And only “received” money under the head ‘salary’ is required to be declared. What is difference between “received” and “receivable” in case of a salaried person and in case of ‘business’ can be well understood by comparing this section 12 with the section 15 of the same ordinance.

Stop Confusing People Salary Is An Income It Is Not An Asset.A Salary Received Is Income A Salary Or Any Income Receivable Is An Asset
 
Back
Top Bottom