Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 1125/LB OF 1994, DECIDED ON 4TH JUNE, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO. 1125/LB OF 1994, DECIDED ON 4TH JUNE, 2002.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 13 (1) (d) and 65 Income Tax Rules, 1982, R207 The parallel case of property connected with the property was declared in accordance with the document filed in the parallel case and declared thereon. The adjusted property, based on the price, was estimated and the net income was also added to it under section 13 (1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the first appellate authority to revoke this assessment on that basis. Had made that the Income Tax Ordinance was not section 65 of 1979. Applicable because the facts on record did not disclose to the Department any specific information that the value of this property was stated in accordance with R 207A of Income Tax Rules 1982 and its validation was not available to support the Department Was. case The amount paid in this case was high and the registered was low. Such evidence may be through a contract of the seller, some bank draft or similar bank registration, or by some other means section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. (2) In the opinion that the words used in section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 were not recorded in the record on the information but the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 could not be accepted. Reason for suspecting suspicion \ How strong can it be that the evidence can be used to reopen an assessment and to add it under section 13 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which admitted it The reason is that the assessee has paid more money than all the parameters required by the High Courts to finalize the assessment of Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, without any valid evidence. Without advocate from Kurram lawyer