Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 1442/KB/DB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 24TH APRIL, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO. 1442/KB/DB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 24TH APRIL, 2002.

The first schedule of Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Part I, Para-CCC and Sections 52A and 88 Tax Rate of the officer evaluating the officer were passed under section 52A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, considering the matter Additional taxes were required to be collected along with additional taxes. Each recipient exceeded 30 million, the tax was to be deducted at the rate of 6 percent under the first paragraph of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Assisi claimed that the issuing officer had misinterpreted the law where Contract receipts from a single payer exceed Rs 30 million, due to the deduction rate under section 50 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the implementation of review agreements under Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. 6% of the revenue representing the payment was to be taken and further request has been made. According to subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of sub-paragraphs (a) of paragraph CCC, sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a), the price of the contract which was material, however, was not, however, Despite the amount of payments. The word contract was used in the same word in paragraph CCC (i) (ii), which means that a higher rate of 6% was to be applied on payments if part or all of this agreement was related to different agreements. In relation to receipts from a single payer, the total deal value exceeds Rs 30 million. The Validity Appellate Tribunal agreed with the submissions made by the SC and stated that the price of a contract is a deciding factor in the application of a rate of 5 or 6% as the matter may be due to the execution of the agreements. Representative income at all costs in the current case jobs for advocates from Mansehra lawyer