Find a Lawyer

MESSRS BUSINESS SECURITY TECHNOLOGY (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 80C, 61 and 66A Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 9 Security Service Business Assessment Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Act that section 66A of the Company Such was the nature of the Assisi business. The service cannot be classified under the heading of service rendered, and therefore, was to be assessed under Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, representing the Central Board of Revenue, Commissioner Income Tax and Finance Given that the non-inclusion service provider's profession was due to the lack of proper information about security services, the concept, scope and scope of such services. The Central Board of Revenue failed to respond and remained silent on the matter and failed to respond to the complainant's letter. The implications of its duties and responsibilities should be deliberately misrepresented and communicated with the party and, if necessary, discussed with other stakeholders and unilaterally rejected or dismissed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman Should not be rejected, the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue or Member Central Board of Revenue should be recommended to hear the complainant's representation, having full opportunity to explain the matter and then the Complainant and Chairman, Central Board of Revenue. Should be ordered to explain the reasons for the offer made by him, as he sent them the letter above The answer is no. immigration advocates contact from Mailsi lawyer