Find a Lawyer

R.A. NO.526/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005. versus R.A. NO.526/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005.

Referring to the statement of the High Court for Articles 62, 66A, 80C, 143B and 136 for the relevant assessment year, declaration of supply and deduction, the question relating to the law involved in this matter was stated under section 1433 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. To enter or not The signature signed by the taxpayer should be used as a legally valid option for the tax regime because of the fact that the Assessment filed a statement under 5 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the said ordinance. Income tax was not receivable under Section 80C of the. It will not be considered that Assisi had chosen the assumption tax system in relation to this provision under clause (9) of Part IV of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance 1979, as long as it was a valid proposal. Assisi did not choose the final option. Referring to the fact that the tax system, especially in return, the submission of statements under 5 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 will not be of any value and may not be misconstrued, in the circumstances in which the Income Tax Ordinance may , Was not considered justified in seeking the provisions of section 66A of 1979, the petition filed by the department with regard to the proposed question to the High Court had no power in the eyes of the law. He was excluded regardless of any qualifications and substance famous high court advocate from Orakzai lawyer