Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.5628/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. versus I.T.A. NO.5628/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2004.

CBR Circular No. 13 of Sections 156, 65 and Second Schedule, CL (172) 1985, dated 22 12 1985 of CBR Circular No. 14, 22 of 1985 error correction, of the order sanctioned under section 65 Instead of filing an appeal against the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, a reform petition was approved, claiming to increase its income against investments made in SNF bonds under the Central Board's white scheme, Revenue Correction The request for the additional commissioner's inspection submitted by the diagnostic officer was rejected. An appeal was also filed before the First Appellate Authority which was also rejected. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the First Appellate Authority with some directions for a new hearing after hearing the case and Assessing Officer First Appellate Authority directs the Assessing Officer to comply. The decision of the appellate authority was not considered before the correctness of the High Court, as per the directions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the matter was followed by the order of the High Court, which was observed by the Supreme Court. That should be ignored, the appellate authority's order was first set aside by the appellant. The Tribunal Supreme Court has directed that the order of the High Court should not be complied with and the appeal should be decided on merit. The first appellate authority should be allowed to appeal on the merit without being affected by the order of the High Court. Things should have been decided. The Authority should seek records and examine the declaration of SNF bonds and hear from the Assisi and Assessing Officer and their point of view. lawer from fb area from Sambrial lawyer