I.T.A. NO. 8/LB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 3RD MAY, 2006. versus I.T.A. NO. 8/LB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 3RD MAY, 2006.
Section 12 (18) Income considered to be collected or originated in Pakistan was received by the mother through a gift check cross-check that was deposited in the account of the Association of Persons on the basis that the individual's gift was cross-checked. Was not received by. A gift should have been received in the bank account of the person to whom the gift was given. Assisi claimed that the provisions of the law do not apply where certain loans, gifts or advances are received through a cross check drawn on a bank and The law no longer offers. In order to avoid the mischief of Section 12 (18) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the only requirement was to keep the account receivable in a credit or credit or advance payment through a cross-check obtained through a bank gift. The cross-check prepared by the Hank authorities below was not only clearly mistaken in the expression of law in his account, which was not present, but also requested that for example But the issue was the supply of poor demand that should be strongly appealed on the basis of the expression used by the legislature, such as beyond the words used in the provisions of the law bank account, such as any scope of matters. Was not available. In fact, the bank account of the members of the Association of Persons was not viable, especially in the case of the payment of section 12 (18) in the background of the payment of the gift through cross check was not even considered. ? Genuine, identifiable and traceable transactions and transactions in this case were fully traced. Laws adopted by the authorities
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
