Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.102/IB TO 105/IB AND 324/IB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 3RD NOVEMBER, 2004. versus I.T.AS. NOS.102/IB TO 105/IB AND 324/IB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 3RD NOVEMBER, 2004.

Section 66A, 143, 80C, 50 (4), 50 (4A) and 30 Deputy Commissioner's Inspection Options to Revise the Commissioner's Inspection Options Bank Profit Cancellation of Interest Source Tax Reduction Evaluation This was not true in fact because interest income was suboptimal and subsidiary, from income to construction, and exclusionary taxes were not to be charged separately, as a matter of fact, there was instability in the assimilation claim which Revenue was not announced in the accounts as part of the construction business. Under Section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as a separate source under the account head, only those statements which were covered under the provisions of the tax regime, were filed under section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance. Come under charge. The Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was taxed under the provisions of Sections 50 (4) and 50 (4A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, said that the provisions were not applicable in any case. Was a separate income from the income from. It was income derived from other sources under the title, which was the same sub or subsidiary in construction work revenue, yet an independent source would remain. Such revenue source was part of the record of the proceedings in the case of accounts. ? At the same time, the tax deduction claim from this source was erroneous because the assessee's officer imposed a wrong tax, as well as his income tax under section 66A. Interest and jurisdiction were also invalidated. Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Similarly, the four corners of the law property advocates from Sangote lawyer