I.T.AS. NOS.1473(IB) AND 1129(IB) OF 1996-97, DECIDED ON 31ST JULY, 1998. versus I.T.AS. NOS.1473(IB) AND 1129(IB) OF 1996-97, DECIDED ON 31ST JULY, 1998.
Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 62 and 68 (4) Assessment of registered partner firm during the financial year, a new partner was formed under the Partnership Act 1932 and with the introduction of the partner continuing the business continued The newly constituted firm, which was also approved under the officer, had submitted two separate returns of the Income Tax Ordinance for the first and second periods on the basis that the assessee, Section 68 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, There were two separate registered firms in the year. Income from both periods The first appellate authority observed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in meeting the income of the two periods, saying that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raised the first appellate authority with the remarks that the accounting year was two separate. There were separate firms. Assessing officer misdiagnoses himself in collecting income for two periods
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
