Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.2467/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 18TH JANUARY, 2003. versus I.T.A. NO.2467/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 18TH JANUARY, 2003.

Section 12 (9A), Proviso (ii) and Second Schedule, Part IV, Cls 59, 66 A Finance Act (IV of 1999) Estimates of income from specific income or exemption from specific clauses Assessment of profit for the year 1999 2000 , The declaration of Dividend on Decree 21 8 1998 and 23 8 1999 was not related to the Assessment Year 1999 2000 as the Dividend Declaration was allegedly related to the Income Year of 1998 and it was shown that the Dividend Declaration Dates show. As a result of the Company, the distribution of more than 40% of the declared profits was found to be inferior to the profits declared by the Company on the basis of Section 12 (9A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, giving the company a tax return. Earnings validated by the Inspector Additional Commissioner. Both shares were held in the 1998 9999 time frame of the assessment year 1999. NT year 1999 2000 was misunderstood that the distribution of profit could not be related to the profit of the current years, only the profit was distributed only to the accumulated portion, the profit was brought forward ie any retained earnings of the company. There is no law that compels a company to split. Of the present-year profits, only a company can declare a profit when section 12 (9A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was announced, which came into force in July, 1999, when such profit The announcement was made in August, 1998 and May 1999, and when making these lucrative announcements, the Stacy Company clearly had no idea that Section 12 (9A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, under this Act in July 1999 The company did not commit any crime in arranging its affairs. Ink immigration advocates contact from Samundri lawyer