Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 6284/LB AND 6285/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 6TH JUNE, 2006. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 6284/LB AND 6285/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 6TH JUNE, 2006.

Section 13 (1) (a) details of the increase through investment were presented as a result of the long life and savings of the jewelry and the sale receipts were also presented on which the taxation officer explained. Rejected and added to it despite the fact that Assessie had provided all the details, but without confirming to the tax officer that the jewelry was sold / bought, he explained that he did not justify it. Even though it had reduced the issue. Added by the tax officer but there was no justification for the increase which was dismissed by the appellate tribunal which allowed the appeal of the SC registration advocate from Gujranwala lawyer