Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.6035/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER, 2004. versus I.T.A. NO.6035/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER, 2004.

Articles 62, 30, 32A, 34 and 80 for production, evaluation, evidence etc. Assessment was decided by rejecting the accounts, manufacturing trading results, production and sales rate profit and loss related account expenses and interest. Income Tax Ordinance, Income Tax was taxed under Section 30 of 1979; Due to loss, Demand was constituted under Section 80D of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Assisi claimed that in quality / quantitative form. All required details were submitted and the raw material consumption was shown in the step-by-step production record The Assessing Officer denied the fact and claimed that the reliability of accounting books could not be accepted in the absence of a manufacturing record. That was not presented. There is a record of the record at the diagnostic stage, while Assisi claims that such a record was made but the First Appellate Authority remained silent or such information about the record arose because the First Appellate Authority appealed. Was unable to make a decision on everything that made the arguments, regardless of any effect. Having vacated and the matter had to be sent to the First Appellate Authority for fresh judgment on the basis of appeal, the first appellate authority was directed to make a proper assessment after thoroughly examining / validating the assessment record. Pass the Speaking Order. Seeking a diagnostic officer and getting their comments; the appropriate opportunity to be heard can be done by the investigator and only after determining all the facts. property advocate from Bhirya Road lawyer