Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.763/IB TO 765/113 OF 1998-99, DECIDED ON 18TH JANUARY, 1999. versus I.T.AS. NOS.763/IB TO 765/113 OF 1998-99, DECIDED ON 18TH JANUARY, 1999.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 50 (3), 52 and 86 Failure to receive tax at source deduction Tax Charge Extra Tax Power Generation Project Estimating the substantial costs / project development cost for the development of the project. This project was owned and released by section 50 (3), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for the reimbursement of development cost tax, with 10% discount to the sponsor, by the assessee while issuing the share default. Shares were not issued to the taxing ordinance, a sponsoring slicing officer with assistance as a deduction in 1979. Taxes were taxed under section 52, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 because the SCD failed to deduct tax under section 50 (3) of the Ordinance and it received additional tax under section 86, Income Tax Ordinance. , 1979 The appellate authority upheld the order of the appraisal officer. The Assissee's position was that Section 50 (3) of the Ordinance applies only when money (cash) is paid to the sponsor, sponsored by the sponsor, in the settlement of his claim, accepted by the Assisi Company. Shares that were equal to cash receipts If the acquired shares were retained, the shares would be reinvested, the issuance of shares in exchange for the money, which is the cost of the Assisi company. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholds the money order, equal to the payment of money, the money order of the Assisting Officer. criminal advocate from New Saeedabad lawyer