Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.2758/LB OF 1995, DECIDED ON 19TH MARCH, 2002 versus I.T.A. NO.2758/LB OF 1995, DECIDED ON 19TH MARCH, 2002

The purpose of hearing additional tax compensation for non-payment of tax with the return of Sections 88 and 156 should be given to review the right to be heard before any additional tax is levied under any provision of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. In any case, the taxpayer's demand for an additional tax was made by the Assessing Officer as part of his assessment order, which allowed the Assessing Officer to approve the correction order under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Was granted after providing the appropriate opportunity, considered and considered under section 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 After hearing the SCC for a year to apply the tax, the First Appellate Authority rejected the review by the First Appellate Authority that the additional tax was mistakenly imposed under section 88. The facts of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 clearly show that the additional tax is available and was imposed by the Assessing Officer and it was retained by the first appellate authority after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the case of additional taxation. That it should be assessed in this case so that they can express their views. The amount of tax due, tax period, delay etc. should be calculated on a full basis: In the present case the acquisition is not achieved for the purpose which was not heard. advocates from Chitral lawyer