Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 124 AND 125/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 10TH DECEMBER, 2002. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 124 AND 125/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 10TH DECEMBER, 2002.

Sections 156, 80D and 138 (2) (C) and Second Schedule, CL (118E) Error correction, taxation on the path of correction under section 156 of income under section 80D of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 The taxpayer was exempt from the claim. The Tax Ordinance, 1979, was rejected by the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision to restrict the request for correction. After the expiration of the four-year period, the acknowledgment was filed and the assessor was not open to the pursuit of time and the pursuit of the purpose. Any period of limitation set out in the law was to ensure that no issues were extended beyond a limited period of time, which would result in a time restriction in rejecting the assessment officer's correction request. The law does not guarantee interference in these situations. Do not delay for certain reasons, the appraising officer also did not have the option to pardon the delay. In view of the Supreme Court's decision in determining, the Assessing Officer had the authority to amend the order. Under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the path of reform is not more than a limited period of four years. Extensive powers were available, either on its own motion or on the request made by the Assisi and no limited time was provided for the Commissioner to review the order on his own motion and divorce advocates from Sambrial lawyer