Find a Lawyer

M.A. (RECT.) NO.488/KB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 28TH OCTOBER, 2003. versus M.A. (RECT.) NO.488/KB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 28TH OCTOBER, 2003.

R 34 Miscellaneous Request for Hearing on the Request for Reference The Department argued that a copy of the order by the appellate tribunal was mistakenly provided to the Commissioner of Income Tax, in which the respondent Commissioner of Income Tax Also mentioned in the appeal and limitation period. Starting on the day the respondent commissioner received the copy of the order by the Income Tax Assistant, the appellate tribunal instructed the department to file the conditioning application but when the department failed to file the conduit application, the departmental reference Was requested to be rejected due to time constraints The copy of the order was properly sent to the Income Tax Commissioner as well as the Commissioner Income Tax Office before the time limit expired, the respondent From the date of the copy of the order by the Commissioner Income Tax, the application was filed as it was deemed to be Be aware that the copy of the order was not properly submitted to the respondent's department by the appellate tribunal, therefore, the delimitation began on the day that the copy of the order was received by the respondent, again sought by the appellate tribunal. Was done and the roster section was instructed to fix the reference request for a re-hearing patent advocate from Chak Sheza lawyer