10/07/2025
*Disallowance of Business Expenditure - Section 21(s)*
The Finance Act, 2025 has inserted a new clause (s) in Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which pertains to "Deductions Not Allowed." The newly inserted clause reads as follows:
*Quote*
(s) fifty percent of the expenditure claimed in respect of sale where the taxpayer received payment exceeding two hundred thousand rupees otherwise than through a banking channel or digital means against a single invoice containing one or more than one transactions of supply of goods or provisions of services.
*Unquote*
This amendment disallows 50% of the claimed expenditure related to any sale where payment exceeding Rs. 200,000 is received in cash or through any mode other than banking channel or digital means, in relation to a single invoice, regardless of whether it includes one or multiple transactions for the supply of goods or services.
We understand that the disallowance will apply to expenditure related to sales, such as freight, carriage, commission, and other distribution-related expenses.
*Example 1 (Below Threshold No Disallowance):*
A taxpayer sells goods worth Rs. 199,999 through a single invoice and receives the amount in cash. Since the payment does not exceed Rs. 200,000, no disallowance will apply.
*Example 2 (Above Threshold - Disallowance Applies):*
A taxpayer makes a sale of goods amounting to Rs. 200,001 through a single invoice and receives the payment in cash. Since the transaction exceeds the prescribed threshold of Rs. 200,000 and the payment is not made through a banking channel or digital means, 50% of the claimed expenditure related to such sale shall be disallowed under the relevant provision.
For instance, if the taxpayer has claimed Rs. 30,000 as expenditure directly attributable to such sale, Rs.15,000 shall be disallowed.
It is important to note, however, that there is no prescribed method, ratio, or formula under the law to determine what portion of expenditure is "directly attributable to such sale." This creates a significant ambiguity, as the FBR has no mechanism to assess which amount of expenditure pertains specifically to sales made through invoices exceeding Rs. 200,000 with cash payments. Consequently, due to such ambiguity, taxpayers may argue that a low amount of directly attributable expenditure has been made for such sales to mitigate the impact of disallowance which can defeat the entire purpose of this amendment and may lead in a revenue loss for the exchequer.
Furthermore, individuals are under no statutory obligation to have their accounts audited by an auditor, and similarly, AOPs falling below the prescribed turnover threshold of Rs.300 million are not legally required to undergo audit. This may lead to significant practical challenges in certifying expenditure attributable to sales.
This measure may prove counterproductive, as it could incentivize businesses to conceal such sales, thereby contributing to the expansion of the informal economy.
Regards