Find a Lawyer

M.A. (RECT.) NO.418/KB OF 2002 IN I.T.A. NO. 415/KB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2002. versus M.A. (RECT.) NO.418/KB OF 2002 IN I.T.A. NO. 415/KB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 156 and 80B Errors At least the tax society company appellate tribunal on the income of some persons held that the society was not included in the definition of company and that the Assessing Officer was required to comply with Section 80 D of the Income Tax Act. Was not authorized to collect the minimum tax. Tax Ordinance, 1979 An application for correction by this department was submitted on the basis that all persons were liable to the minimum tax under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the Appellate Tribunal erred. Was It is recorded in the judgment that at least the tax was not applied to the society even though it was not considered as a company if the request for validity transferred by the department was made under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance. Was misconstrued, was entered into it by the Finance Act 1991, 1979 and the least tax was only levied in the affairs of the companies, then the firms registered by registering with the Finance Act 1992 included this assessment. Was required to collect the minimum tax and, through the Finance Act, 1999, an individual, an association of persons, unregistered , Or a Hindu undivided family section was also responsible to pay less tax than under 80-D. Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 The Appellate Tribunal held that the Society was a fictitious jurisprudence and that the fictitious jurisprudent was liable to the least tax by entering into section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 through the Finance Act, 1999 The request was not made, the request was rejected immigration advocate from Tando Adam lawyer