Find a Lawyer

M.A. (RECT.) NO. 274/KB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 31ST JULY, 2003. versus M.A. (RECT.) NO. 274/KB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 31ST JULY, 2003.

Section 13 (1) (c), 62, 63, 132 and 134 error correction department filed an appeal from the appellate tribunal to remedy the alleged error arising out of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under which it Received the Income Tax under the former Income Tax Part Order. The Tax Ordinance, 1979, estimated the sale of the Assamese at Rs 2 lakh and added Rs 1,40,000 under section 13 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, while the Assessment Appeal Commissioner Income Tax. Estimates of the sale were reduced from millions of rupees to Rs 2,860,000 and while they set aside the issue of an increase of Rs 1,40,000 from the commissioner's order, the department appeared before the appellate tribunal. Appeals filed on the matter. Appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, consisting of section 132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Commissioner shall enforce the Deputy Commissioner's Income Tax Appeal Order. On the issue of sale under the direction of the Commissioner but under section 13 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, it was granted that the Assisi submitted and stated the reasons for the less frequent occurrence of the Assisi and The Deputy Commissioner acknowledged that the Department of Exploitation had alleged that DCIT did not diagnose De Novo because Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 had no mention of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 which it had The arguments taken by and filed for correction of the order based on them were not based on proper definition of facts. The impact of the CIT's order can only be justified to the extent of the reduction in sales, as the CIT has directed, although the department said there was an appeal before the tribunal on the matter. And the Income Tax Ordinance immigration advocates contact from Noor kot lawyer