Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.2948/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 28TH JANUARY, 2005. versus I.T.A. NO.2948/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 28TH JANUARY, 2005.

Section 156, 62, and Second Schedule, CL (118E) Workers \ Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971), Section 4 (2) to receive tax under the second schedule total (118E) for error correction income. Was not worth it. Tax Ordinance, 1979 Workers' Welfare Fund Income Tax Ordinance, was not received at the time of the order sanctioned under section 62 of 1979 but it was alleged in IT 30 Appeal against such post was filed by the Assessment. The correction request was not rejected by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that Asmayi did not seek the questioning rule in the Workers' Welfare Fund's appeal under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 The order was approved, there may be no error record. The request for correctness and correction of section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not deemed appropriate where the Workers' Welfare Fund was unlawfully charged. Under section 4 (2) of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, on an industrial establishment whose income was exempt from the imposition of income tax or its income could not be assessed by law or His income was estimated at a loss. The first appellate authority was not legally justified in retaining, nor was the Assessing Officer prosecuted under the law for making unlawful allegations of the Workers' Welfare Fund, and the income tax due to the error record. The ordinance must be valid under section 156 of 1979. The Workers' Welfare Fund was not legally charged because it did not receive income tax from the Essex. female advocates from Shorkot lawyer