Find a Lawyer

MESSRS HILAL TRAVEL SERVICES, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Article 59 (1) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) CBR Circular No. 7 of 2002, Dated 15 6 2002 Para 9 (a) (ii) CBR Circular No. 7 (7) / Section Assistant / 2002, dated 17 12 2002 Evaluation Year 2002 2003 Returns have been selected for the total audit which has been fixed in addition to the Commission allowing the consumers to decide the issue on the basis that Claims to pay exemption from the commission were not acceptable without detailed confirmation of 83%, this percentage of the commission was paid to the extent of 83% and retaining 17% of the revenue was extraordinary and so on. Like a matter of sorts Was not comparable and only claims could not be allowed. In the past, it was claimed / allowed because there was no exception to the law and every evaluation was an independent assessment year in which the department's administration provided no evidence of the principles of Estoppel and Race Judasta. Ignored case history. The record of justification for the dismissal of the date of this case was accepted by the percentage of discount given to consumers in previous years and it was confirmed in the appeals in the past even at a low profit rate of 22%. Was accepted while the net profit in the year under consideration was 10% 59% that the department ignored the history of the case without proper justification, thus the sufficient quarantine parameters stated by the Central Board of Revenue were not followed. There was no evidence, information or reason to believe that its true details were pressured into income nor income. Nor any reduction of income disparities in income that revealed higher utility costs family advocate from North Wazirstan lawyer