Find a Lawyer

M.A. NO.338/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 30TH JULY, 2004. versus M.A. NO.338/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 30TH JULY, 2004.

Error 155 and 136 Correction of error This request of the plaintiff requires correction that there was an extraordinary delay in recording and receiving the order, which delayed the decision not only on matters but also on the terms. Was also discriminated against. The arguments at the hearing at the defense, both factual and legal, were not properly resolved due to the increase in material time, valid order passed within six months from the expiry date of the justification. had gone. Under the controversial application, the Department wanted to get another round of argument appeals that were not valid under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, especially when the appellate tribunal already refused to cite the proposed law (s). Was. The Department had the appropriate course available under Section 136 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, instead of filing a reference to the High Court, under section 136 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 The appellate tribunal had discussed matters extensively in its order and had made a significant decision in this regard. There was hardly any room or justification for the department to review the decision that the miscellaneous application was found to be grossly overbearing, by the appellate tribunal. family advocate from Kalar Syedian lawyer