Find a Lawyer

MESSRS SARINA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY ZONE, PESHAWAR

Section 66A, 122 (5) and 133 Income Tax Ordinance (XXXX of 1979), Section 65, 118 (C) and Second Schedule, CL (118C) Reference Assessment Order Amendment Final Information Auditor's Opinion Previous Impact, 2001 Scope During the first assessment in 1994, the initial production of the tester was accepted as a test product under the Second Schedule Total (118C) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and eight years later. Evaluation modified. On the basis that the audit report was accurate, the trial production was termed commercial production. Once all the facts were put before the authorities through the facts and they took a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case, then the decision cannot be amended. Only by audit report has it shifted the proceeds from the sale of the goods during the trial production to the value of the commercial product. n If there was any report of the audit that the Assisi had concealed some income or cheated in filing returns, it would have been such information that if all the facts had been put before the authorities, the Commissioner would have believed that a certain period of time had been fixed. To produce a case. Thereafter, the views presented in the audit report approved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal will not be considered commercial production, but it has suffered inherent legal constraints and violation of the Constitution as the order is mechanically approved. Was done, there was no justification for verifying the tribunal. Order under section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, 2001 through the prior application of the Assessment 2001 and the year of estimation. family advocate from Chaghi lawyer