Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 427(IB) OF 2005, 721(IB), 722(IB), 723(IB), 724(IB) AND 725(IB) OF 2004, DECIDED ON 9TH versus I.T.AS. NOS. 427(IB) OF 2005, 721(IB), 722(IB), 723(IB), 724(IB) AND 725(IB) OF 2004, DECIDED ON 9TH

Sections 5 (1) (C), (2) (3), (4) and 66A Income Tax Authority Jurisdiction of Sheikhupura from the Mianwali File Central Board of Revenue without obtaining the NOC and inspecting Additional Commissioner Cancellation of Resource Assessment The Department of Sargodha could not prove whether it resided in the area having jurisdiction or had a business and how the file was transferred without obtaining the NOC from the Central Board of Revenue. In each case, Mianwali authorized the transfer of file from Sheikhupura to the transfer of jurisdiction through the Central Board of Revenue. The legal procedure for assigning jurisdiction was set out and can be transferred to the Central Board of Revenue, which is why it has two responsibilities. While the Central Board of Revenue has approved the transfer, officials from two different areas could not exchange themselves in the jurisdiction of the matter. In this case there was a breach of any of the statutory legal provisions that inspected the Municipal Commissioner of Mianwali or the Additional Commissioner of Sargodha on 26-4 2003, not only that the exercise of territorial jurisdiction by the Inspector Additional Commissioner Sargodha was legal. Was not as accurate. But declaring its previous order `` incorrect as '' was not based on the definition of the above word but it was said that Syed's term was never due to poor quality or for reasons of better order after cancellation. Was not implemented. This order was found to be such that without further jurisdiction, no further discussions were required, the Assisting Officer and the Inspection pakistani advocates Tobatek Singh lawyer