Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 2675/LB AND 4360/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2006. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 2675/LB AND 4360/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2006.

Under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, section 205 was adopted under the Income Tax Ordinance (1979 Constitution XI 1979), Section 88 Additional Tax Order / Section 205 (88) under; Order was not in the view of the law for all the reasons that were not disclosed to the jurisdiction of the order by the Assisting Officer under section 205 (88) under, because the review of the Income Order Was taken under section 62 for the taking. Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 clearly states that jurisdiction was mandated to pass an order under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, without stating how \ section 205 ( 88) An order under under was approved for an order. Not believing the jurisdiction before it, the whole proceeding was illegal and invalid, and thus it was canceled / canceled. The proper way was to first decide the order under Sec. On the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, with the official seal / stamp affixing the signatures, only after the second order has the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction been reviewed by such ignorant officer in such a manner. What was unusual was that only the top management in a tax structure could take any notice to stop this illegal practice. \ r \ n \ r \ n advocate for immigration from Hujra Shah Muqeem lawyer