COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE versus CH. MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Sections 122 (4) (a) and 122 (4) (b), after the amendment of the assessment, were filed by the taxpayer / Assisi for use in section 122 (4) (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 29 2 2007, after which the taxpayer filed a revised return under section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 on 26 4 2008, under which the original assessment order was amended, followed by the Appellate Tribunal on 12 1, 2010. Further amended that there was a further violation of section 122 (4) (b) of the Amendment Ordinance in 12 12 2010, which provided for a period of one year for any amending department that was amended by section 122 ( 4) found two separate and separate timelines (in the section (F) provided one year in 122 (4) (a) and 122 (4) (b) and after that both timelines are used in Sections 122 (4) (a) and 122 (4) (b). Was available for the language of the department's accuracy. Was clear and unambiguous and both timelines were dealt with different periods of limitation modification (s), the only difference in the evaluation orders was that the different timelines had a different reference for calculating the thresholds. / The point was the beginning and the period in section 122 (4) (a) began at the end of the fiscal year in which the commissioner issued or acted the taxpayers' original order of assessment while section 122 (4) ( (B) I commenced at the end of the financial year in the one year period in which the commissioner issued or acted in which the amended order section 122 was issued. ()) (A) This did not mean that the diagnostic order could only be edited for the first time in a period of five years and that in fact it had the original assessment as a starting point for the start of the threshold period. Order is referenced. Five by the end of the financial year
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
