Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.177/KB, 921/KB AND 103/KB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. versus I.T.AS. NOS.177/KB, 921/KB AND 103/KB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004.

Section 80C (2) (a) (ii) and 50 (5) deduction of tax on tax sources on the income of some contractors and importers has affected the delivery of Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The issuing officer assumed that the seeds sold were not actually damaged and thus sold, and that such transactions fell under the scope of Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, No tax was deducted under section 50 (5) of the Act. The tax ordinance, 1979 was made, so the provisions of section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not attracted to such situation. The dependent authority was the collector of customs who had to collect the tax under section 50 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Provided discrimination tax on section 80C (2) (a) (ii) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, in the absence of time of import of goods and where the provisions of section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not attracted. In the case provided. The importers who were responsible for the tax deduction under section 50 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, were not enjoyed by the appellate tribunal as the disputed tribunal did not receive any tax on the importation of raw materials. Was because the provisions of section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 were such. Not attracted to this kind of reality immigration advocates contact from Kharian lawyer