Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 2697/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 1ST DECEMBER, 2005. versus I.T.A. NO. 2697/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 1ST DECEMBER, 2005.

Section A 66A and Third Schedule, R (()) (E) To amend the Deputy Commissioner's order, add Assistant Commissioner's inspection powers to claim the payment of loan installment in the profit and loss account. Was incurred as a revenue expenditure, which the appraising officer rejected by the inspector's additional commissioner as inspector and incurred the loss as $ 8. The Third Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and accordingly the assessment order was amended to justify the loss due to the volatility of the change, but the fact that the profitability of the loss was prejudicial was wrong. Assessee did not fall into the category of capital S loan loan, which attracts the provisions of the law framed under Rule 8 (8) (e) of the Third S.C. The main component of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was the purchase of machinery or plant which was not available in the case of short-term loan payment by the Assisi and it was properly shown in the statement of accounts which the inspector The additional commissioner ignored the fact that the second loan was in Pak Rupees and it was taken advantage of in Pakistan and was refundable in Pak Rupees, thus, R8 (8) (e) of the Third Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance 1979. ) Did not cover the case on the request of section 66A. ; If the aforesaid principle of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not apply to debt, then how could the loss of exchange payment fluctuations taken under Section 66A of Income Tax Ordinance 1979 be applied without any basis and The Revenue Appellate Tribunal had the inspection edition unstable and original how to become a advocate from Mangla lawyer