Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 1101/LB OF 2001 AND 1102/LB OF 1997, DECIDED ON 24TH JUNE, 2004. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 1101/LB OF 2001 AND 1102/LB OF 1997, DECIDED ON 24TH JUNE, 2004.

Sections 62, 65, 66A, 134 and 156 Income Tax Rules, 1982, R94 (2) Reinvestment expense reinforcement The original assessment for the 1989 assessment year was placed on 3 3 1996, the re-evaluation was completed and estimated. The officer had reopened the case under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance. 1979 issued notice to the assessee, examined under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and after considering all the facts of the case, made the assessment which was presented by the assessee and related to payment of gratuity. An assessment of any deficiency or stress in the material evidence was not found by the Assessing Officer. Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 may amend and deny a claim under any order, if, in income, the assessee had claimed expenses under the head gratuity payment which, in fact, the assessee provided to the employers of the Employees Gratuity Fund Trust. If the Income Tax Ordinance could amend and deny a claim under section 156 of 1979, the claim by review, since the matter was a simple issue of acceptance or non-acceptance of expenditure and it had Did not call for action under section 65 of the ordinance, reviewing material available on record 1979 Cannot be used to open because a change of opinion which was not permitted under the law, once the assessment has been completed and finalized, under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance to make the assessment for the reopening of the assessment. The Officer of the Officer could not use the jurisdiction to review this assessment, reopening the case on the basis of the 1979 Assessing Officer record which was already in place and on which basis immigration advocates contact from Shadiwal lawyer