Find a Lawyer

LT.A. NO.3121/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2002. versus LT.A. NO.3121/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

Section 66A and 17 CBR Letter No. 17 (1) / 94 dated 28 5 1994 CBR Letter C No 1 (1) / DTPI 94, dated 28 5 1994 CBR Circular No. 154 1954 Inspection Options to modify Additional Commissioner Deputy The interest rate on the commissioner's securities was calculated based on the receipt of interest income from the securities of the Mercantile Accounting System, section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 With the help of the provisions of the Directive, the Assistant Commissioner inspecting the Additional Commissioner was instructed to examine the same as an estimate. Mercantile accounts were maintained despite the fact that the same interest income was taxed on the basis of recovery later in the assessment year. Additional Commissioner examining the validity failed to establish any revenue deficit for the department. The method of accounting accepted by the department during one year may be in error but the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for the attention of Section 66A, This would not only be a wrong order but would also be prejudicial to the tax interest as well as the income on the interest income that was later accrued on the basis of realization in the checking year. By not ordering such money to be deleted in the next year, the inspector additional commissioner twice taxed on the same amount double taxation practice was discharged, inspecting the additional commissioner in its entirety. I failed to see and emphasized section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance. 1979 and that too for only one year without understanding its effects in the following year while the department will suffer tax advocates from Nilore lawyer