M.AS. (R) NOS.33/113 AND 34/113 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 17TH AUGUST 2004. versus M.AS. (R) NOS.33/113 AND 34/113 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 17TH AUGUST 2004.
Section 226 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Section 156, Second Schedule, Part IV, CLS (9A) and (913) Correction of error was amended by the appellate tribunal order on which the appellant. The tribunal made a mistake. Supporting the Department's view that the SC was obliged by law to file an option for review under the Primitive Tax Regime, and that failure to file such an option constitutes a liability for the scam under normal law. Which was not a valid issue raised by Scsi. Qualify for correction under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 because no error was identified on the face of the record as the appellate tribunal could not review or otherwise fail to decide its own orders. Lives The Appellate Tribunal rejected it by r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
