COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE versus AZGARD NINE LTD.
Explanation of Sections 124 (2) and 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, making the estimate effective, the period for ordering a new assessment under section 124 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The limitation period provided in section 124 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, will import the mandatory nature of the limit listed in Section 124 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The question before the High Court was: Whether its period was mandatory or a directory set out in section 124 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, where it was disclosed by reading section 124 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, where the appellant tribunal and the Commissioner filed the Assessment Order. Was isolated. A new assessment has been directed to submit to the Commissioner a remand order within one year from the end of the fiscal year, the term used in section 124 (2). The Income Tax Ordinance was not accidentally mistaken in 2001, but was consciously and consciously registered by lawmakers who knew the implications of the words or could be a traditional application of these terms when they entered into a law I'll show up. This word may include a choice, and that word will include an order in some cases, when the object of a given authority was to exercise a legal right, such as an existing right, even an active word. It may also be necessary to have the words in section 124 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, that the Commissioner was bound to order a new estimate from the end of the financial year when the clear reasoning behind the issuance of the remand order under section 124 (2). Was presented. The Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was because of the limitation of the various types of diagnostic orders.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
