Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD., KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 102, 129, 136, 137, 138 and 166 (2) (l) Income Tax Act (XI of 1922, Section 10 (2) (vii) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3), 9, 11, 14 (6) and 22 (1) non-payment of compensation Assets left by complainant in East Pakistan Government First Appellate Authority and the Commissioner (Review) agreed with the Issuing Officer that the complainant should be It was not entitled to take advantage of Section 10 (2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, as such assets were not excluded or demolished / deleted because it was stated that the constitutional petition filed by the complainant Rejected by the High Court But the Supreme Court accepted his appeal and allowed it to deduct under section 10 (2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, due to the compulsory acquisition of assets by a complainant of a competent authority. Under the Income Tax Act, 1922, which deals with non-payment of compensation under 5% of the Income Tax Act, 1979 and delay of more than 7 years in the issuance of refunds after the Supreme Court decision. And prayed for compensation under section 22 (1). In addition, proceedings under section 14 (6) of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, called such delay ambiguous in law and claimed that under Section 102 (2) (a) the complainant Compensation has been requested by. ) Was not bound by the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, because it was stated that this section would apply only if the result of an appeal or a review order or a refund in an appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court. 13 136 or 137 of the Ordinance, and was not related to the constitutional petition in the Income Tax Ordinance immigration advocates email from Kotli Loharan lawyer