I.T.A. NO.2082/KB OF 2001 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001), DECIDED ON 12TH MARCH, 2003. versus I.T.A. NO.2082/KB OF 2001 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001), DECIDED ON 12TH MARCH, 2003.
Sections 27, 28 and 16 (2) (C) (1) of the Sales of Goods Act (III of 1930) CBR Letter No. F7 (3) SectionState / 97 1295 Pt, dated 26 26 1997 Capital Gonds Weapons Was received and capitalized on intellectual property under Section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, because the first appellate authority excluded the increase where the asset itself was lost and the entirety of the asset business. Source will be shielded from receipt of compensation. Since capital and non-tax revenue and the income derived from it could not be brought to tax under section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it was a voluntary agreement to transfer the trade mark and intellectual property bills which resulted in the sole earning of the assets. Was the source of And this agreement affected the business structure of the Assisi business and deprived them of their sole source of income, nor was any evidence present on record nor presented during the hearing or trademark and intellectual property. The assessee's interest was not the sole income of the assessee or he did not deprive them of the aforesaid source of income. The assessee's interest income was the fruits of different field crop trees. The appellate tribunal retained the appellate authority first. Kept and the department's appeal dismissed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
famous high court advocate from Noorpur nooranga lawyer
