Find a Lawyer

SOFIA NAVEED versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 59 (1) (3) (4), 11 (20 (b) and 143 b) of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XVX of 2000), Section 19 CBR Circular No. 12, 1991 30 30 , 1996 Cell Assessment CBR Circular (21 of 2000, Articles 119 (2000), paragraphs 4 (h), 5 (a) and 6 (Self Assessment Scheme 2000 2001) with a statement under Section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979) The return was filed under the Self Assessment Scheme. Returns were returned for belting and fed back to the computer which was not selected for the total audit, after which, a notice was issued to exclude the withdrawal from the Self Assessment Scheme. Was not presented correctly and if so. The income was raised by the check rather than declared income and the provision of Para 4 (j) of the Self Assessment Scheme to cover the income was attracted. Chart expenditures were regularly assessed in relation to the commission under section 80 in the calculation chart. C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, but no expenditure has been allocated for expenses that cannot be treated as misrepresentation of facts which may be equivalent to concealment or withdrawal from the Self Assessment Scheme 2000 2001 in the light of paragraph 4. Disqualify you. h) Or otherwise, it was mostly a matter of opinion and estimation rather than a matter of boosting costs \ legally unacceptable deductions \ claiming that the best appraising officer declares under Section 59 (3) of the Revenue Can make adjustments in the income. Tax Ordinance, 1979 was correct The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Assessment Officer review the complainant's return year law websites from Shangla lawyer