I.T.AS. NOS. 2613/LB TO 2619/1 13 OF 2001, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER; 2001. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 2613/LB TO 2619/1 13 OF 2001, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER; 2001.
The Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 86, 88, 80 cc, 143 b & 50 additional tax was levied on the tax due to the difference between deduction and deduction. The L / 2% tax deduction was correct and the additional tax charge could not be retained that the compensation was not a result and had to be decided separately as a separate action, may be academically correct but a 1/2% deduction. There was a valid deduction, the extra tax would not be retained for the default tax on the 0 25% O tax, and even if there was a default, the SCCC would be required to pay the Income Tax Ordinance under Sections 86 and 88. The additional taxing agent should not have imposed a penalty on the default of the charge. Tribune
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
list of advocates from Nilore lawyer
