Find a Lawyer

BEFORE MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER versus BEFORE MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sections 66A, 62, 59 (1), 34, 36, 37, 116, 156 and Second Schedule, C1 (116) Additional Commissioner's Inspection Powers Complain with the Damage of Review Review for the Assessment of the Deputy Commissioner's Order The disclosure of proceedings under Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the revision of such order by the prosecution of the Additional Commissioner was valid under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 as the provisions of Sections 62 and 59 (t) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Orders approved under the Ordinance, 1979 were mis-profitable because they were fraudulent for the benefit of the taxpayer because the profit or loss on the shares and stock held temporarily. Even though they were to be retained temporarily, the calculation was made under the head \ Capital Gains \ Such loss was not deductible under section 34. Income tax ordinance 1979, but proceeding in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, is nonetheless not exempt. Under C1 (I 16) of Part I of Schedule I of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Director of the Inspection Additional Commissioner was removed from the instructions to initiate the prosecution and Section 66 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 An order issued under A was dropped. As was maintained by the Tribunal in such circumstances divorce advocates from Vehari lawyer