Find a Lawyer

LT.AS. NOS. 4222/LB, 4752/LB OF 2004 AND 296/LB, 5203/LB, 5204/LB, 6233/LB TO 6235/LB OF 2005, DECID versus LT.AS. NOS. 4222/LB, 4752/LB OF 2004 AND 296/LB, 5203/LB, 5204/LB, 6233/LB TO 6235/LB OF 2005, DECID

Sections 62 and 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), section 128 (1), production of accounts, evaluation of evidence, etc., denial of account on the basis that the first appellate authority submitted the books of accounts on 12-5 2003, Under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, without any notice being issued, the assessment was finalized on 13th 2003, 1979 Additional tax was also excluded The department claimed that the notice was issued under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Was based on the details filed during the 12 4 2003 evaluation process and since this information was based on the books of accounts, the Income Tax Order Ordinance 1979 was fulfilling the legal requirement to issue a notice under section 62 that it was permissible since the account books. Supply of section 62 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, although the books of accounts were not appreciated in the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, in the notice proposed under section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the cash book, ledger, journal, Special mention of stock registers, bank passbooks, original purchase vouchers and cash copies of cash memos / bills for sale. The diagnostic order data mentions that none of the books / documents requested by them have been prepared, it can be inferred that the books of accounts considered under Purdue are in support of the announced version. Were prepared. Books of accounts maintained on the double entry system of accounting and each entry was supported by vouchers reflecting the debit and credit effect of each transaction assessment, in violation of section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. top advocates from Havelian lawyer