Thread by @JarriNajam

Another bogus piece by Noorani. He is assuming ITO is the prevalent law but it isn't. Judges DQ'd Nawaz for violation of ROPA, not ITO.

When the word asset is not defined in ROPA, Its ordinary meaning must be used. Definition from 1 statute cannot be imported into another.

Hence, the basic premise in the article is flawed. ITO is meant for taxation while NS was DQ'd for false asset declaration under oath.

Even the ITO section 69 c says income is said to be received by a person if it is "made available". Nawaz' salary was available to him.

He himself chose to not withdraw it. From the ITO 69c, he's still deemed to have received it. Noorani is denying this while quoting sections

that deal with income chargeable to tax. The tax is chargeable when you actually receive it. That's irrelevant to it constituting an asset.

Judges were not bound to import any definition from an irrelevant statute. Ordinary meaning of asset in BLD includes receivables.

So the mistake of quoting Business Dictionary does nothing to alter the result. BLD definition of asset also includes receivables.

Since there is no material difference in definitions, the headline is also irrelevant to the judgment's merits.

This is admitted by Noorani but he sidesteps it by saying that it's relevant to balance sheet. Asset declaration IS like a balance sheet.

Yet, he keeps quoting sections of ITO related to income and expenditure which are relevant to IT returns, not asset declarations.

The whole piece is a display of ignorance about law and disrespecting the SC judgment with zero legal basis. Easy to debunk in 5 minutes.

Here's the definition of asset in BLD. Includes accounts receivable. Much ado about nothing.
thelawdictionary.org/asset-2/