Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.4764/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 31ST MAY, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO.4764/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 31ST MAY, 2002.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Act of section 86, 85 and 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, by notice under Section 85 of the Income Tax Assessment Officer, proceeded to impose additional tax under section 86 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Was gone For the 30 years under consideration for IT, the additional tax was less that should have been actually attracted. For the proper application of retail, the First Appellate Authority designated it for a period of time, assuming that Assisi once taxed under section 86 of the Act. The Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 cannot be taxed under this section and if the Assessing Officer wants to correct the mistake and raise the additional tax, the required notice should have been issued under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and According to the law, this order should have been canceled rather than an additional tax on the accuracy under section 86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and section 86 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 The sissing officer started to increase it. Additional taxation under section 86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which cannot be allowed under the law, cannot be used by this Assessing Officer at the same time, also the Assisting Officer for double taxation Failed to calculate correction. Because additional taxes cannot be increased without the issuance of notice required under section 156, the Assessment Order of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not state which legal officer raised the additional tax because In the case of correction, Esmatan online advocate from Astore lawyer