Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Articles 93 and 63 Establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance Office (2000 XXV), section 2 (3) and 9 tax recovery Inappropriate pressure to recover. Against the prediction was born, yet there was no nexus of affiliation between the two departments, nor was there any plausible explanation for these irregularities, nor was there any link between the two different business names. Or it may justify pressuring the complainant to pay for the demand without establishing a relationship. Under section 556 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, from the execution of the notice to the service of the demand notice, the assessment process was carried out in a very irresponsible and irresponsible manner, including negligence, negligence, inadequacy of duties and responsibilities. I was given proof of incompetence. There was no legal basis for the complainant to pressurize, but the recovery process, along with the demand, was grossly unfair, unfair and arbitrary, leading to the establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance of 2000 for the Office. The Federal Tax Ombudsman has recommended the Commissioner of Income Tax. By emphasizing the provisions of Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, it was directed to set aside the joint studies set out under section 63 for the period 1997 to 2000 and 2001 that the recovery process should be stopped and examined immediately. The officers and inspectors involved should be stopped. Under consultation and be directed to improve their performance advocate for immigration from Sikandarabad lawyer