Find a Lawyer

W.T.A. NO.90/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2003. versus W.T.A. NO.90/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2003.

Section 12 (4) (7) Section 134 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) appealed the appeal against the appellant that the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 12 (7) of the Finance Act 1991 was repealed. The blasphemy and dependency was maintained by the CIT. (A) On ITA No. 1872 / LB / 97 (Evaluation Year 1992 93), there was a misunderstanding in the law on 26/5 1998, which relied on CIT (A) to exclude fines. Was for It was that the Central Board of Revenue issued a number of circulars. On the issue of filing a corporate asset tax return, corporate assets were confused and confused, and therefore it would not be appropriate to impose fines under Section 12 (7) of the Finance Act, 1991 as defaulted on them. It was not. The position in the case of Assisi when it was expressly indicated that there was a legal requirement to file a tax return of corporate assets under section 12 (4) of the Finance Act 1991, whose assets exceeded the prescribed limit. Are. Even the Supreme Court had expressly ruled out the legal challenge to taxing corporate assets that the Assessing Officer was capable of assessing the taxation of corporate assets and, in case of legal default, additional taxes and penalties. Implementation will not be valid. Under the corporate asset tax law, clear in his mind about legal liability, failure to submit a tax statement for the assets in sports and failure to respond to a showcase notice issued to him has resulted in an order imposing a fine. (C) was empty, in the conditions \ r \ n \ r \ n when you need a advocate from Karore Lalisan lawyer