Why publish this at all
Because a tax site that has never corrected anything is either brand new or not checking. The errors below were not found by users complaining — they were found by re-deriving each rate from the statute and discovering the site disagreed with the law. That process is only credible if its results are visible, including the embarrassing ones.
It is also useful to you directly. Several of these wrong figures are still circulating on other Pakistani tax sites and calculators, because they were copied from the same sources we copied them from. If you have used any calculator for a property transaction or a phone import in the last year, the rows below are worth reading against whatever number you were given.
Corrected rates
Property withholding tax for non-resident NICOP and POC holders
27 Sep 2026Clause (111AC) switches off the higher non-filer rates on sections 236C and 236K for these individuals, with or without a Roshan Digital Account. Five pages told them to expect the non-filer rates, and one of them, the currency converter guide, already stated the clause correctly, so the site contradicted itself. The error ran against readers: on a Rs 40,000,000 purchase it showed Rs 4,200,000 of withholding where Rs 500,000 applies. Found by a claim audit on 27 Sep. Capital gains tax is not affected.
Settled by: Income Tax Ordinance 2001, Second Schedule Part IV clause (111AC), inserted by the Finance Act 2022 (FBR consolidation to 30 Jun 2026)
Capital gains tax on property — the holding-period table
9 Sep 2026Division VIII has six columns, not two, and the site had been using one of them for everything. The error ran against readers: on a Rs 5,000,000 gain on a flat held two to three years, the old table charged Rs 500,000 that is not owed. The eight-year rule does not exist; the statute gives open plots 0% after six years. The table was carried with a caveat for a month while it waited to be read; it was read, corrected in the calculator and the guides, and the caveat removed.
Settled by: Income Tax Ordinance 2001, section 37(1A) and First Schedule Part I Division VIII (FBR consolidation to 31 Jul 2025, pp. 511–512); all 256 pages of the Finance Act 2026 gazette searched — Division VIII unchanged
Customs Valuation Ruling number cited for phone assessed values
9 Sep 2026The right document was used and every published Apple value was read off it correctly — the citation was wrong by one digit. Its text layer is a scan and garbles the number, so page one was rendered as an image and read directly: “VALUATION RULING NO. 2070 / 2026 … DETERMINATION OF CUSTOMS VALUE OF OLD AND USED MOBILE PHONES”. The ruling number appeared in eight files. Raised by an external review, then confirmed against the document rather than taken on trust. The values did not change; only the citation, and the pages now also state that the ruling covers old and used handsets.
Settled by: FBR Directorate General of Customs Valuation — Valuation Ruling 2070/2026, page 1, read as an image 9 Sep 2026
§148 income tax on phone registration — the PTA guide
9 Sep 2026The calculator and the two model pages agreed to the rupee; the guide did not, and contradicted itself twice over. §148 on a handset is a fixed amount set by band, not a percentage of value, so every percentage figure on that page was wrong regardless of which one a reader believed.
Settled by: Income Tax Ordinance 2001, First Schedule Part II second proviso; Tenth Schedule Rule 1 for the doubling
§236K — advance tax on property purchase, non-filer
14 Aug 2026The calculator applied a single flat rate where the statute tiers by property value. A non-filer buying a Rs 120M property was shown roughly one-seventh of the real liability. A flat rate cannot express this — the function needed a property-value parameter.
Settled by: FBR Withholding Tax Rate Card, corroborated by six independent practices
§236C — advance tax on property sale, non-filer
14 Aug 2026Less than half the real rate. The filer side, 2.75%, was already correct.
Settled by: FBR Withholding Tax Rate Card, corroborated by six independent practices
§236K — advance tax on property purchase, filer
14 Aug 2026This is the most instructive error on the page. The 1.5% figure traces to FBR's own overseas-Pakistani FAQ — which is still live, and still shows the pre-Finance-Act-2026 pair of 1.5% / 4.5%. An official source is not automatically a current one. Publication dates have to be checked even on fbr.gov.pk.
Settled by: FBR Withholding Tax Rate Card (TY2027)
§153(1)(a) — withholding on supply of goods
14 Aug 2026The old entry matched no category in the statute at all. The section distinguishes companies from individuals/AOPs, and separates general supply from toll manufacturing — one rate could not cover it.
Settled by: FBR rate card + PwC Worldwide Tax Summaries (identical across both years)
§151 — profit on debt (bank deposits)
14 Aug 2026The page contradicted itself — it stated 20%/40% elsewhere in the same article. The 15%/30% figure is the rate for "all other cases" under §151(c), not for a bank account or deposit. Several Pakistani tax sites still publish 15%/30% for bank profit.
Settled by: FBR rate card §151 Division-IA Part-III First Schedule + PwC
Historical salary slabs — Tax Year 2026
14 Aug 2026A year-labelling error rather than a rate error, but it produced wrong answers for anyone checking a prior year.
Settled by: PwC Worldwide Tax Summaries — Individual (reviewed Jan 2026, i.e. pre-Finance-Act-2026, which is what makes it authoritative for TY2026)
Section 7E — deemed income tax on property
1 Jul 2026 onwardSection 7E was abolished on 1 July 2026. Two contradictory claims about court rulings on the same page were also reconciled.
Settled by: Finance Act 2026
PTA mobile tax — all four components
25 Aug 2026Three mutually incompatible rate regimes were live on the site at once — the same phone gave three different answers depending on which page you landed on. An iPhone 15 was published at roughly Rs 60,000–65,000 for a filer; the correct figure is Rs 39,915.
Settled by: SRO 1064(I)/2026 · Sales Tax Act Ninth Schedule · Income Tax Ordinance First Schedule Part II + Tenth Schedule · Finance Acts 2018/2022/2026
Claims removed entirely
These were not wrong rates — they were statements with no source at all. Rather than correct them, they were deleted.
| Claim | Why it went |
|---|---|
| "Flat $5 customs processing fee, one phone per year" on the passport route | No source supports it. It appeared in prose, in two visible FAQs, and in the page's FAQ structured data. |
| "1 phone duty-free, value limit Rs 50,000" | Directly contradicted by PTA's own FAQ: the free baggage exemption was withdrawn on 30 June 2019. The real facility is 120-day temporary registration — one device, per visit, not permanent. |
| "Register within 30 days of arrival" | The official window is 60 days. |
| "Tax is the same for CNIC and passport" | FBR indicates the passport line is lower. The rupee difference is not verifiable, so no figure is published either way. |
| Regulatory duty quoted as "$180 to $36,000" | Those figures are rupees, not dollars, and the amounts themselves were wrong. |
| Fabricated FBR statistics, a "45–60 day refund" service level, and a "passports are 10–20% cheaper" claim | None had any source. All removed. An automated check now fails the build-time audit if this class of phrase reappears. |
| Bylines crediting rate checks to an in-house editorial or research group | No such group exists — this site is one developer. Removed sitewide, and the exact wording is now blocked by the same automated check, which is why it is described here rather than quoted. |
One page was withdrawn rather than fixed, because its central claim could not be verified at all. It now carries a short retraction explaining why, instead of quietly disappearing.
Still unresolved — so still unpublished
These are open questions. No figure is published for any of them, because publishing a confident number here would repeat exactly the mistake this page documents.
- A “late filer” category for property transactions. Several practices describe three categories for §236C and §236K, not two — filer, late filer, non-filer. FBR's rate card shows only ATL and non-ATL columns. The category was introduced for property by Finance Act 2024; whether it survives under Finance Act 2026 is unclear, and the secondary sources disagree with each other (6% versus 7.5%). Our property calculator's binary filer/non-filer model may therefore be structurally incomplete. We would rather say that than invent a third rate.
- Whether PTA/DIRBS applies the non-ATL doubling to an individual registering one phone, as opposed to a commercial importer. The statute sets the doubling; it does not describe collection practice.
- Which customs valuation ruling governs used phones. VR 2070/2026 appears current but has not been confirmed against the rulings index.
- Provincial vehicle token tax notifications — some rates rest on provincial Excise & Taxation notifications rather than a federal source, and are marked as such on the page where they appear.
Given the size of the property corrections above, having §236C and §236K independently confirmed by a practising tax adviser is a recommendation we make to ourselves as much as to you.
Found something wrong?
If a rate on this site does not match the official notification, please say so via the contact page — it will end up on this list rather than being quietly changed. See also the primary sources we work from, how we verify rates, and the disclaimer.