Find a Lawyer

NEW SAKHAWAT JEWELLERS versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 65 and 59 (1) Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 V of 2000), Section 9 (2) Opinion of Opinion Jeweler Purchase and Sale Labor Charges Evaluation Section 59 (1) Income Tax Ordinance Was re-opened in 1979 on the basis that the nature of the business shown on the face of the return was `labor compensation 'but no receipt was announced from such sources and the entire declared income of jewelery. Purchase and sale shows Assisi says nature business was inadvertently written in terms of 'labor compensation / revenue chart A declaration was filed that the inspecting officer had certainly examined and observed and that it was a mistake or irregularity but did not say about concealing the income in terms of section 65 (2). can go. ) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on the record, there was new fact on record except for the goods which were already present before the Assessing Officer and `propose as follows: Act under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Prohibited in litigation proceedings, the reason being that it was pleasing because there was no labor charge received by the complainant on the basis that it could be on the basis of the Assessing Officer. He said that the complainant did not declare correct income. No income was estimated which could be considered as the basis for seeking the provisions of section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The proceedings were clearly illegal, the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the income tax famous supreme court advocate from Phagwar lawyer