Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 186-IB, 187-IB AND 188-IB OF 2002 versus I.T.AS. NOS. 186-IB, 187-IB AND 188-IB OF 2002

Sections 52A / 86, 50 (4), 59A, 80C of 1964 and 143BCBR Circular No. 4, dated 11 12 1964 CBR Circular No. 8 1986 dated 1986 1986 Recovery from the person who Taxes were not deducted from. Submission of statement under section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, filing the statement under Section 593A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Section 143B of 1979 and finalizing under Section 59A of the Income Tax Ordinance Went and issued a comeback. The Assessing Officer, who has jurisdiction over the SC, treats his partner as a non-resident company sub-risk because the Assisi's contract was not a signatory and he was sued by the partner's unrelated company. In the event of non-deduction of tax on the payments made by the plaintiff. See the company's legitimate facts that the payments received were credited to the joint venture's bank account by both partners of the joint venture and worked with the signatures of both parties. There was no inconsistency by the department which proved that payment was received jointly by both parties Assessing Officer, Co-parliaments clarified under the alleged sub-contract to evaluate the portion of work given by the non-resident company. Neither the amount of the payment nor the quantum of payment for the work contradicts the factual facts and documents produced by the Subcontractor prepared by the Assisi that this agreement contradicts the work of the Contract. The project was executed as a contract, the company jointly with the non-joint venture The existence of the joint venture as q nsuby tax advocates from Mir Ali lawyer