KOHI NOOR INDUSTRIES, LAHORE versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE
Income Tax Act 1922 Section 10 (2) (iii), Second Prodigo [As introduced by the Finance Act (? 1967)] Sales Tax Act (III of 1951), Section 17 (1) Permissible Expenses The relevant proportional interest is not allowed The second time the retro-competent assuming officer of section 10 (2) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, denied interest on the claim as expenditure under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, The order was upheld by the verification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the fact that interest was claimed before the second introduction of section 10 (2) (iii) of the Borrowing Act. Even the interests were claimed but not enough to satisfy the borrower to prove that the request was not made on the Provo Retro Spectacular Burden. The reduction in working capital was certainly of the SC, which failed to provide any evidence regarding the permit granted in the second clause of section 10 (2) (iii) of the denial. The e-Tax Act, 1922, was properly formed by the authorities during the period under review
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
