Find a Lawyer

FAQIR MUHAMMAD NASIR, LAKKY MARWAT versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 85 and 138 CBR, Circular Letter C No 7 (2) dated 14/94, Dated 241 1994 Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV 2000), Sections 9 and 2 (3) (ii) The demand notice SC was dead and the entire property income was assessed in the hands of a legal heritage / complainant and the tax demanded that the legal status be assessed in a very negligent and unusual manner. Which had no bearing on the Assessment Order submitted by the complainant. Whereas, a demand notice was presented to the complainant in addition to the inspection orders, a recovery notice was served before the demand notice was served, the assessee was unlawful in failing the complainant's full responsibility for the property. ? The record and demand notices were brought under section 85 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which should have been served before the release of the nineteen-seventies after the completion of the heritage review. E-Collection Certificate The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Commissioner, who created an illegal demand from the complainant in exercise of his powers under section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, should revoke the illegal review. If the limitation period allows, a legal review process should be initiated on all legal heirs according to their respective shares in the inheritance of the property, and the performance and discipline against the officer evaluating his actions. Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated under the Rule 1973. Little attention to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Circular C (7) (2) (dated 14/94, dated 24 1 1994) attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer