Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.1933/LB TO 1935/LB, 2103/LB, 2096/LB AND 2104/LB OF 1996, DECIDED ON 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005. versus I.T.AS. NOS.1933/LB TO 1935/LB, 2103/LB, 2096/LB AND 2104/LB OF 1996, DECIDED ON 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005.

No order was approved under section 59 (1) (4), 55A, 64 and 65 of the Finance Act (1 of 1995), section 59 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Reopening the assessment under section 65 of the 1979 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it was claimed that the order was considered an order even before the assessment year 1995. 96 Provision of accuracy which was a confession issued under section 55A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Since a deemed order was entered into by the Finance Act, 1995, the need for determination of income through an order before such an amendment was a part of the law, which ended 1990 91 91 to 1992 93, which ended No diagnosis should have been made. The next financial year; this means that the ban was timed on June 30, 1993; pending returns cannot be estimated after such date. Such an amendment made such an interim order. But even these returns may not apply. Question, An assessment order question arises because the pending withdrawal on June 30 became time-barred, the provision of section 59 (4) was similar to section 64 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Returns cannot be finalized after two years from the end of the assessment year in the said section in which the return was filed, Section 59 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was banned on return and unless the legislature In no uncertain terms it is mentioned that the return of such an all-time restriction would also be considered as an assessment, the assessment could not be given, the action initiated was illegal and It was canceled by the appellate tribunal. list of supreme court advocates from Machh lawyer