Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.1535/KB TO 1537/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2002. versus I.T.AS. NOS.1535/KB TO 1537/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

Section 52 and 50 (3), (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, claiming that the tax deduction or failure of the taxpayer to deduct the source tax from the reduction of liability tax claims that Section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 No order under the law can be legally binding. Section 50 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was approved against the holding agent for the default of tax withholding if the payments in the hands of the recipient were not finally able to be taxed and if it was held If it was not a holding agent, the law has the power to decide whether to pay or not, in the hands of the authorized recipients, this will result in extraordinary circumstances as all importers Has to deduct tax under section 50 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Of these payments to residents whose imports were affected, the validity clauses of Section 50 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 apply when the holding agent is proved as advised in the above section and Whenever he pays for contracts, supplies or services as prescribed, provided the withholding agent was not required to deduct any tax when the recipient commissioner If a certificate was produced in this regard, it was acknowledged that there was no such certificate. The recipient was not authorized to determine the taxability of the tax on the payments made by the holding agent and then to decide whether the tax should be deducted under section 50 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. pakistani advocates Baroute lawyer