Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.147/KB OF 2001 AND IN M.A. NO.743/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 25TH OCTOBER, 2004. versus I.T.A. NO.147/KB OF 2001 AND IN M.A. NO.743/KB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 25TH OCTOBER, 2004.

Section 52, 50 (7C) and 156 tax deductions and the liability of persons who failed to pay were considered defaulters under section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Under Section 50 (7C) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the best evidence for determining tax liabilities was an agreement between the two parties, with special terms as part and parcel of the agreement. He also had enough evidence to keep the supplement. It was the Contractor / Assisi's sole responsibility to deduct the withholding tax from the Car Winner, in writing or otherwise in writing by the Contract Specifications contained in the Contract and License Agreement of the Car Raffle Scheme. Has not shown that it cannot make the Civil Aviation Authority responsible for tax payments and withholding taxes, especially when all the basic requirements have been brought to black and white by the terms of the agreement. It was wrong to misunderstand the terms, assemblies and derivatives terms in advance of the terms of the agreement. The ajuaz. The licensee / contractor was exclusively responsible for tax deduction under section 50. (7C) The Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and not the Civil Aviation Authority Ordering Officer's estimator, was predetermined for tax absence from the winner of the car under the Earl Ticket Scheme. The first appellate authority was maintained by the appellate tribunal attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Astore lawyer