Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.6183/LB, 6182/LB, 6180/LB, 6181/LB, 853/LB AND 854/LB OF 1999 versus I.T.AS. NOS.6183/LB, 6182/LB, 6180/LB, 6181/LB, 853/LB AND 854/LB OF 1999

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Section 80C, 143B & 50 (4) CBR Letter C No.1 (l7) WHT / 91 F1T (iv), Date History 28 4 1992 Taxes on the income of some contractors and importers Taxes could not be levied on the value of the material provided by the client by the taxpayer because the title of such material was not transferred to the Assisi and the transaction would not be subject to payment as \ There was no evidence to present. Assisi submitted that, in the performance of the construction contract services and such agreements, Assisi used some of the material provided by his clients; in accordance with the agreement, such materials were to be provided at a fixed cost and The client had to subtract / recover the cost. This type of content estimator raised a question at the same fixed price from the bills presented to the client as to whether or not the SCC became the owner of such material and was receiving payment against such material, If purchasing such material from a client such as Assisi W., then the title reviewer should have been thereby liable for the loss of title in such material or in this case as a liability. No one was said to be held responsible. As part of the receivables receivable under Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, there is no evidence of any obligation that can present such a transaction as payment. In 1979 the appellate tribunal did not approve and in this case exclusion in relation to the material provided by the client of the assessment was excluded. online advocate from Shujabad lawyer