Find a Lawyer

BEFORE JAMEEL AHMAD BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER versus BEFORE JAMEEL AHMAD BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 12 (18), 66A and 59A Additional Assessment Years 1996, 97, 1997 98ses and 1998 house 99 Assisi obtained prior to his company being a director and employee of the company which he acquired. The additional commissioner inspecting was declared a loan. And the Additional Commissioner, who inspected the additional validity for three years under section 12 (18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, failed to recognize that section 12 (18) was present at the relevant time and under that assessment. The income related to the years is applicable to the years The appeal was not attracted because the two conditions had to be satisfied simultaneously, first, that in this case a loan was obtained which was received under the Income Tax, Secondly, it was claimed in connection with the taxation of income tax. The Ordinance, 1979 was to be interpreted in the sense in which it was used and cannot be ignored as it could result in injustice with the Assessment as the two requirements of section 12 (18) are By 1998, the alternative to section 12 (18) was not met. Particularly when this amendment made in 1998 supported the assessee that at the relevant time, irrespective of its nature and use, the advance tax was considered as income under section 12 (18) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Can go Section 12 (18) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was not applicable at the relevant time for years and the exercise of the jurisdiction of the reviewer by the inspecting Additional Commissioner was unlawful and the affected order was restored by the tribunal. tax advocates from Pindi bhohri lawyer