Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 19721KB AND 1973/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2003. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 19721KB AND 1973/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2003.

Sections 34, 35, 156 and Second Schedule, CL (118d) A Public Limited Company, Exempt from Damages, was exempt from taxation and accepted and accepted by the Assessing Officer of the Department, while the losses incurred further. In the years passed under Section 156 of the Enhanced Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, adjustments to exemptions for profits and gains from successes assessed have been adjusted for years before such verification by the Inquiry Officer The appellate authority did. There is no valid income in relation to successful estimated years, because the profits and income tax related to those years were not exempt under C1 (118 D) of the 1979 Schedule, it did not eliminate any further losses. can go. The exemption income, which was not assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 clause, was valid because the assessee's income was exempt with the provisions of section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 that the provisions of section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 The accompanying revenue assessment officer had a clear error in adjusting business losses, excluding expected earnings. Section 34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, states that the foregoing losses can only be assessed for successful estimation years. The Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority were not justified in holding that the asset There may be business losses. The Appellate Tribunal vacated the order of the appellate authority before 1979, against the income from years of its success, which is exempt under the CL (118d) of the Income Tax Ordinance. ask a advocate free from Dera Murad Jamali lawyer