Find a Lawyer

M.AS. NOS.14(PB) AND 49(PB) OF 2004, DECIDED ON 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. versus M.AS. NOS.14(PB) AND 49(PB) OF 2004, DECIDED ON 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2004.

Section 156 (3) and Second Schedule, Part 1, CL (118C) Error Assessment Determinant Claims that Due to Miscellaneous Request Not Passing Order on 8 3 2001, Section 156 (3) The automatic correction made under the recognized provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 6 30 place 2002, was, on request, dated 12 2001 3 2001, a one-year limitation of the alleged corrective application created during the approval. Was banned by the Department, which disclosed the information received by the Department as of 8 8 2001, while the date of receipt of any such original application was available in the Department records. The certified photocopies of the same application were to show the date of receipt as the registrations regarding the receipt of the correction application were made in 8 2002, the proper place of registration, these entries were as per the prescribed time. Photocopies of the alleged application made by Assisi for the receipt of the Income Tax Reform application were not found in any register after 2001 on the date of recognition and application registration. While photocopies of the same application, which were certified by the Ising Officer, indicate the date of receipt. Were eating Further investigation was needed in the Department 8 8 2002 and it was enough to dismiss the miscellaneous petitions that the department's record was tampered with after a controversial reform petition and the Appellate Tribunal agreed on the matter. An attempt was made to think later and intended. The appellate tribunal rejected the misleading application in circumstances lawer from fb area from Bunner lawyer