Find a Lawyer

M.AS. NOS. 579/LB TO 581/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 12TH NOVEMBER, 2005. versus M.AS. NOS. 579/LB TO 581/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 12TH NOVEMBER, 2005.

Sections 221 and 132 (2) of the error correction of the order taken by the appellate tribunal through the appellate tribunal dispute before the appellate tribunal are on the basis of the fact that any notice of hearing is authorized by the authorized representative or the SC / applicant. Was not presented as a company. The Assisi has also filed an affidavit stating that no notice of hearing was given in the appeal on any of the applicants of the applicant company, so as not to appear at the hearing date, Section 132 of the Income Tax (2) The order was not intentionally approved. The ordinance, 2001, was dismissed as invalid for any diagnostic error as the issue raised in the central appeals remained for illegal prosecution, which was passed in the interest of justice and the office was directed. To list the major appeals filed for regular hearings on disputed petitions. An appeal was allowed by the appellate tribunal in this case by the SC power of attorney advocate Kandhkot lawyer