Find a Lawyer

I. T. A. NO. 1658/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 11TH DECEMBER, 200 versus I. T. A. NO. 1658/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 11TH DECEMBER, 2003.

Decisions on matters of Sections 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 134 were challenged by the Appellate Tribunal Department in its appeal on the basis of the Commissioner's Income Tax (appeal) finding that the Commissioner had to withdraw the money made in the account. Is not allowed to do Interest on securities on the basis of securities granted; in view of the provisions of section 23 (1) (x) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which was not allowed, the commissioner was not allowed to exclude the excess amount ? The commissioner was not allowed to clear the interest account on the suspense account. In view of the special provision of section 18 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the Commissioner was not justified in deducting the surplus amount in Federal Investment Bonds. The commissioner was not justified in excluding the surplus amount under the value of the funds used to earn exempt income because the funds deployed to obtain the exempt income were correctly included in the prices. That the Commissioner was not allowed to reduce the cost of claiming from 20 to 10 reductions due to free facilities accommodation. The Commissioner was not deemed to have waived the penalty imposed by the State Bank of Pakistan because the expenses were unreasonable under the provisions of Section 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, on the issue of securities interest already ordered by the appellate tribunal. Was fixed It ruled that the revenue received should be charged on the basis of receipts on the basis of interest on public securities, in which case the order of the Commissioner could not be interfered with and maintained. The appellate tribunal in its first decisions said that the provision of bad loans immigration advocate from Skardu lawyer