Find a Lawyer

MESSRS CHENAB FIBRES LTD., FAISALABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 96,50,156 and 102 of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 of XXV), Section 9 Refund Claim, to provide credit for the payment of the entire tax payment and the balance Subsequent tax demand was not deliberately avoided to generate a refund, while neither the payment of tax nor evidence of tax deduction was presented with the return by the complainant. He was present at the hearing because it was not possible to recommend immediate release of his return because there was no evidence of any evidence. Tax deduction or payment on record was not provided by the complainant, nor was such evidence provided by the complainant, nor could any certification be available from the records of the department by which it It was ensured that all tax payments, whether through deductions or otherwise, appearing in the taxpayer's records were taken to the separate Revenue Division, but in the present case the Federation Rail Tax Ombudsman recommended That the diagnostic officer should verify the claimant's payment by the complainant, including the deductibles. Complaints should also be made to other relevant sources, and with the help of any evidence available to the complainant, the refund, if confirmed, should be paid immediately afterwards, the description of the officer who has served for the year 2000 2000 The order was passed, giving a credit of Rs 2,837,604 without giving any confirmation of the date of 30, 2000, calling and presenting with the Revenue Division's comments and explaining why the Issuing Officer should explain why 5,086,230. Did not pay for Rs top advocates from Mirpur Mathelo lawyer