Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 38/KB OF 1998-99, DECIDED ON 1ST DECEMBER, 1998. versus I.T.A. NO. 38/KB OF 1998-99, DECIDED ON 1ST DECEMBER, 1998.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 65, 62, 50 (4), 80 C and 8 PDCRR Circular No. 12, 1991 30 199 1991 CBR Circular No. 7, Date 18 3 1992 Evaluation Year 1991 was 92 92 assessment. Was completed under common law. The Assessing Officer re-opened the Assessing Officer regarding the assessment of the asset tax because the receipts were suppressed because the receipts announced in the Wealth Tax record were different from the receipts announced for the purpose of income tax. Income tax deductions had to be made. Under Section 50 (4), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 under Section 80C, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, however, it was found that the grounds on which the reopening of the Assessment was not correct and due to wrong method. Was the result of a misunderstanding. The Wealth Tax Officer's assessment was revised on the income tax under section 80C Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which could not be used to reopen the assessment of the legitimate materials available on record in 1979. Similarly, changing the opinion, which was not allowed, if there was an error, the Assigning Officer could rectify the error under Section 156, Income Tax Ordinance 1979, or if the order was wrong and the interest on the income tax If there is a prejudice, the Assessing Officer may pass information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who may review the assessment under Section 66A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the assessment made under the Assessment Commissioner inspecting under Section 66A of the Ordinance. Could not approve the jurisdiction to modify. After examining the estimating officer after confirming that the reopening, identification law firms from Sagri lawyer