Find a Lawyer

MESSRS UNITED INSURANCE CO. OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 62C, 23 (1) (X), 92 and Fourth Schedule: R5CL (C) Income Tax Ordinance (XLE X of 2001), Section 124A and 221 Insurance Act (IV 1938), Section 3 C (4), 11, 12, 15, 27A and 40C (1) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 XXV), Section 2 (3) Tax authority's authority to amend orders In the written statement of the appellate tribunal, the premium for management of powers, etc., stated that if the additional expenses of the administration were withheld from time to time in accordance with the law, the relevant provisions of the law could be allowed as well as written. In the absence of claim for absence due to premium, the application was rejected under Section 62C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Section 62C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, rejecting the Complainant / Reviewer's request for compliance with the appellate tribunal's instructions, has been requested to follow the Tribunal's decision in the assessment year 1999 to 2000 and so far The same applies. The question arises in the assessment yes 1998 r Waiting until the Tribunal's decision is overturned or amended, the disadvantage of the law was that the appellate tribunal was obliged to follow the judgment of the Assessing Officer Income of the year 1999 2000. As required under Section 62C of the Income Tax. The review of the appellate tribunal decision under section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 or section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 did not apply to the year 2000 2001 and thereafter, despite the provision of this clause. (c) the Federal Tribunal of the Federal Tribunal of R5 of the Fourth Schedule included by the Finance Act, 1999 online advocate from Neelam lawyer