Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.3556/LB OF 2003, 5575/LB, 5576/LB, 5947/LB TO 5949/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 31ST OCTOBER, versus I.T.AS. NOS.3556/LB OF 2003, 5575/LB, 5576/LB, 5947/LB TO 5949/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 31ST OCTOBER,

Sections 111 and 116 have no negative indication of suppressing the fine stocks to cover the fine income etc. The appellate authority found that although the issue of suppressing the stock was brought on record, it directed it to issue a notice under section 116. Did not remove any negative signal. Since the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, no such finding was made, it was later illegal to prosecute and impose penalties. The Assessing Officer had neither fixed the hidden sales nor made any increase due to the stocks under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and was fined without contributing to the circumstances. This was confirmed by the appellate tribunal of legality. The first appellate authority, justifying it, pointed out that the representative appellate court encountered, for precautionary reasons, or by any law that could not be changed, contrary to the appellate tribunal. Can agree on having a view. The first appellate authority did not sustain the contradictions established by the sentencing order, which was properly vacated by the first appellate authority, excluding fines imposed under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by the appellate tribunal of the first appellate authority. Order was maintained. Under the circumstances ask a advocate free from Naudero lawyer