I.T.AS. NOS. 1684/LB, 1685/LB, 2397/LB AND 2398/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 26TH MAY, 2005. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 1684/LB, 1685/LB, 2397/LB AND 2398/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 26TH MAY, 2005.
The increase in the lease income in the income received from Sections 30 (2) (d) and 62 other sources was deducted by the tax officer, which was supported by a lease agreement, only because of the years. During, operating fixed assets were increased. But the lease amount did not increase proportionately over the previous year, there was no dispute about the increase in fixed assets but this was not enough to rule out a legally executed contract which the Department Was accepted in two previous reviews. In the case of leasing, the tax officer failed to provide any evidence to prove that the amount of the original lease received by the SCCC was greater than the one declared. Assuming the lease costs were accepted, the taxation officer estimated the lease amount without any basis, which was not only understandable, but that the process of taxing a taxpayer with any legal assistance was itself disparate because a lease In the case of fraud, an increase in the lease amount was possible only by adding simultaneously under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The lease company was earning revenue from the lease amount and was adjusted through the same headers that existed under the header building; Had shown the religion correctly. Failure to identify any specific defects in the books and supporting documents was therefore without any legal basis for rejecting the version of the data and estimating the lease amount.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
