Find a Lawyer

R.AS. NOS. 426/KB TO 429/KB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 15TH FEBRUARY, 2005. (A) INCOME versus R.AS. NOS. 426/KB TO 429/KB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 15TH FEBRUARY, 2005. (A) INCOME

In section 136 and 66, the High Court's question was referred to whether the appellate tribunal was authorized to vacate the order of the Additional Commissioner, which section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 cannot be made on the basis of audit observation. ? Disregarding the provisions of Section 7 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and inspecting the fact that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner requested Section 66A, etc., only after implementing his own mind and concluding that such The trial case is based on the evidence / content of the record. The appellate tribunal additional commissioner inspected the review under section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as did not raise the question of the law framed by the department: operating revenue and payment of technical fees. Capital loss was rejected. Additional Commissioner inspecting, but no question was raised on these two issues, and it was also mentioned in the statement of facts filed by the Appellate Tribunal of the FATA Ct that the appeal was allowed after being informed of the facts. And gave his decision on the basis of facts and recorded the fact finding and there was no law in this regard. The permission to estimate costs between exempt capital gains and the payment of taxable income and technical fees prohibited by the Inspector Additional Commissioner was made aware of the facts and the decision in this regard was based on facts and In addition, previously binding decisions were followed. The Appellate Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court questions which ap attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Multan lawyer