Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.2327/KB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 17TH MARCH, 2003. versus I.T.A. NO.2327/KB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 17TH MARCH, 2003.

Section 13 (1) (D), 13 (1) (AA), 63, 62 and 132 Income Tax Rules, 1982, R207A Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 201 Illegal investment, etc. Is considered a partner. The section additions made under section 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, were first designated by the Appellate Authority as unclear investments. In the second stage, the sources of investment specified by the Assisi. Was accepted but additionally added under section 13 (1). (D) the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the basis that the declared value of the property is low, ignoring some parallel issues in view of the same value declared by the other co-owner / partner partner with the department. Has accepted. The accuracy of the property is not open to the department to adopt different prices for different parts of the same plot in the hands of different estimates unless the former appellate authority did not comply with the High's decision. There was no difference between the sections. The appellate tribunal rejected the UP Revenue's tendency to ignore or pass the Supreme Court's decisions, observing that it had to maintain good governance, discipline, discipline and consistency rule. The trend needs to stop. There was no justification for an increase under section 13 (1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which was dismissed and the orders of both officers were vacated by the appellate tribunal below. power of attorney advocate Wahi hassain lawyer