Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.3773/LB OF 1999, DECIDED ON 15TH NOVEMBER, 2001. versus I.T.A. NO.3773/LB OF 1999, DECIDED ON 15TH NOVEMBER, 2001.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 62, 65, 59 and 59A CBR Circular No. 9 of 1993 1 71993 Additional Assessment The Self Assessment Scheme Assessment was reopened on the basis that the Assisi \ 's net assets were much higher than the para ratio. Was suggested in para 7. Circular No. 9, which states that in the case of new taxpayers, it will be considered that his / her business capital will be taken as triple the amount of business income declared by the appraisal at the end of the year. If the Assessing Officer had the opinion that the capital business was higher than the required required ratio of employment in the business, the Assessing Officer should have sought an explanation of the Assessment regarding excessive investment. If the explanation filed is unsatisfactory, May be out of range. The Self Assessment Scheme was not exercised by the Assessing Officer prior to finalizing the Assessment under Section 59A of the Income Tax Ordinance. 979, it was issued a notice seeking an explanation for the declaration of net assets and no negative indication was withdrawn in this regard, so it cannot be alleged that the assessee's "businessman" Capital "was high. 30 199 1993 Re-assessment Order made under section 62/65 of Income Tax Ordinance 1979, was canceled by the Tribunal, fixed ratio of 1 to 3 between income and capital canceled under Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the Self Assessment Scheme. The return was accepted under. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Kallur Kot lawyer