Find a Lawyer

LEATHER INN, SAHIWAL versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 59 (1) of the CBR Circular No. 4 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Self-Assessment Scheme of 18 6 2001, paragraph 9 (a) (i) of the assessment year 2001 2002 of computer random belt The pre-NTN issues with the Regional Commissioner of NTN Accuracy, rather than the Income Tax with Temporary NTN, were found to be correct to the extent that NTN's specific or designated feature of the NTN in the program Could not be found with. The return of the AOP, RF / URF was found to be unnecessary due to an error in matching the member / partner's NIC number with ANT / RF / URF's NTN and It was suggested that the return of the complainant / reviewer could not be made on the ballot. The question of the benefit of the doubt was not properly raised to the NTN where two interpretations / instances benefiting the assessee were possible where the selection of the return for audit in the Complainant / Assisi case was finalized. ? The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue audit direct the withdrawal from the list of selected cases under paragraph 9 (a) (i) of the Self Assessment Scheme and under its self-assessment scheme Be approved Discrepancies in the allocation of NTNs through the computer program are ignored by PRAL in designing the ballot software, and related tax employees' investigations of such programs and operations. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends (i) that the Central Board of Revenue's nationwide network of computerized operations be treated in connection with treatment failures best advocate from Rajanpur lawyer