IHSAN YOUSAF TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Sections 50 (4), 52 and 133 Section RO No. 368 (I) / 94 dated 7 5 1994 Refer to the High Court Tax deduction on source of tax paid before tax on sources provided in section RO No. Exception 368 (I) / 94 dated 7 5 1994 Payment for the supply of goods purchased in connection with the export of goods from Pakistan was the exporter of scope taxpayer garments and It did not deduct advance tax under section 50 (4). Tax Ordinance, 1979 ??? At the time of payment to third party suppliers from whom the taxpayers purchased the yarn. The department concerned the tax volatility of the taxpayers under section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the taxpayers were exempted from the provisions of section 50 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Section RO No. 368 (I) / 94 dated 7 5 1994, relating to the person paying against the supply of goods, has been provided in Section RO No 368 (I) / 94 dated 7 5 1994 but he The person did not exempt from the application against the provision of the payment of the terms of the Income Tax Ordinance, Section 50 (4) of 1979, which was paid to a third party against the offer of service or the execution of the contract. Payment and contract execution were three separate and independent. In the present case, the taxpayers were not a garment manufacturing unit. Nor was the taxpayer claiming that he had bought the cloth directly from the market. The taxpayers were of the view that it had exempted the advance tax deduction from payments made against the manufacture of textiles provided by the taxpayers under Section R. And said that the dispute is the wrong sim
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
