Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 2147 TO 2149/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 6TH MARCH, 2004. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 2147 TO 2149/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 6TH MARCH, 2004.

Section 108 (b), 143b and 134 imposing fines on late submission of statements under section 143b of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which had to be filed on or before September 30 for the respective assessment years, Was examined by. Every year, on December 31, the 90-day delay in filing statements under Section 143B of the Ordinance was fined under Section 108 (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was assessed in this appeal. I was told by the inquiry that its income was included under Sections 62 and 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the time limit was automatically extended to the date of filing of the general return, which was made every assessment year. I was filed on December 31, which was apparently diagnostic progress. The assumption that sustainability was based on appropriate legal grounds was because the law did not provide timely flexibility, except that when a reasonable cause was shown, the SC could not bring the case under which the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Under section 62 of the Income Tax Order, there was no provision of the law in the relevant income tax law, with different dates for filing statements. It was a deliberate predetermined amount of time to file a statement under Section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 as a self-made and controversial interpretation of the law. Such conduct was merely non-compliance. There was nothing else and therefore the element of negligence or error was imported, relating to loss of income, submission of confusion under confusion and service of notice to the reviewer jobs for fresh advocates from Faisalabad lawyer