Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 1502/KB OF 1998-99, DECIDED ON 18TH JUNE, 1999. versus I.T.A. NO. 1502/KB OF 1998-99, DECIDED ON 18TH JUNE, 1999.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 65 and 59 (1) Additional Assessment Assessment was made under the Self Assessment Scheme The Assessment was reopened or: On the basis that the Assessment was allowed a discount on the purchase, the stock was incorrectly And the cost of claiming revenue was less than that. The overall statement of expenditures as described in the Profit and Loss Account statement stated that the discount received was given to retailers and further submitted that the discount was adjusted to the cost of sales in the trading account as it was a trade discount. , The opening stock was inadvertently rejected by the Income Assessing Officer because of a one-page return and telephone and travel costs, non-business related, profit and loss account that this assessment had Shows less than the amount shown. In which, according to the certificate, Asselsee, in the appeal, allowed the waiver, that the proceedings initiated under section 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were violated by law because the assimilation officer was previously appellant. The Authority did not have the exact revenue cover information that no new information was available at the time the reopening of the proposed assessment and description was available. Reasonable rationale was First Appellate Authority, under the circumstances, it was not legitimate that any new information was not available to the Assessing Officer, which was the information received about the discounting of the Assessing Officer's purchase after the original assessment, it was certain that the first appellate authority The order was vacant and the appeal tribunal obtained the appeal remand family advocate from Rahimyar Khan lawyer