Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS, NOS. 777/LB AND 778/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 21ST MAY, 2002. versus I.T.AS, NOS. 777/LB AND 778/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 21ST MAY, 2002.

Section 102 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, for the payment of late returns for assessment, created for 1984 85 85 and 1985 86 against the demand subsequently created under Section 62/65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Adjustment of Refunded Adjustment Year 1983 84 On the assessment of the year 1983, the appellate tribunal canceled the application for the issuance of additional refund / compensation, the appraisal officer rejected and after seeking an order regarding the period. Additional refund amount was calculated. Appellate Tribunal If the refund was to result in an appeal or review or an order in the Supreme Court on the date of the appeal or the receipt of such order, it means the receipt of the order. ? The High Forum became relevant only when the return was required to be submitted as a result of any order by this particular High Forum. In the present case, the return was not constituted as a result of any court order, nor. He was challenged in front of a high court forum, so the Assessing Officer misled himself by calculating the period, so that additional refunds could be calculated from the date the order was received from the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal vacated the defective order as well as the appraisal order and instructed the Assessing Officer to calculate the excess refund / payment after a period of 4 months from the date of original refund The date was 25 25 1985. Released 11.4 1998 immigration advocates from Pir Mahal lawyer