Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.90/PB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 19TH AUGUST, 2004 versus I.T.A. NO.90/PB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 19TH AUGUST, 2004

Sections 23 (1) (xviii), 24 (i) and 16 (2) (b) deduct the Income Tax Rules, 1982, R 3 \ The non-paid director of a company evaluates the re-profit and loss of medical expenses. In the account, the unpaid director was claimed to have incurred medical expenses, which were barred under section 24 (i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The first appeal was later directed by the authority to claim that the amount claimed was not taxable because of medical expenses. That it did not attract section 24 (i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and in fact that it was covered under section 23 (1) (xviii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Old Appellate Authority correctly As concluded. The director was not a paid director, therefore, section 16 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was read with section 24 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, not applicable and the claim for medical compensation was excluded. Was a matter of Under section 23 (1) (xviii) bf of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the language of Section 24 (1) of the 1979 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provided that the key word is \ Employee is and according to R 3, Income Tax Rules 1982 In order to be called an employee, he must receive his own compensation from time to time and in addition to working full time at the company. Assisi was not working full time for the company and was a director at various other companies. The Assisi was also not deducting salary, which the H Diagnostic Officer accepted in his assessment order; the appellate tribunal maintained the first appellate authority order under the circumstances. \ R \ n \ r \ n property advocate from Kohistan lawyer