Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.1481/LB TO 1483/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 13TH JUNE, 2006. versus I.T.A. NO.1481/LB TO 1483/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 13TH JUNE, 2006.

Sections 56, 58 (1) and 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 239 (1) (2) (4) of the Income Tax Notice for Supply of Returns for the year 2000 2001, 2001 2002 and 2002 2003 Issuance of legal notices under section 56, 58 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001, after 2001, 61 Assisi claimed that since the Income Tax Ordinance was declared invalid, This diagnostic option has no jurisdiction to revoke the above provisions. It was not a legal obligation to comply with the notices issued under the Income Tax Ordinance, and under section 56 of the 1979 Income Tax Ordinance, the first appellate authority revoked / revoked the estimates of 1979 on which 1 1 was released on 2004. Who indicated the commencement of proceedings, no substance / substance was considered in the air or under the authority of any authority, as no assets had submitted tax declaration subject to the inquiry. ? Under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, proceedings against the assessee were started on 3, 2004 while considering the implementation of section 239 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The meaning of the term was pending at the beginning of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. It is clear that either party may have already taken any action at the time of the issuance of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Was not pending. 2002 2002, the matter will be removed from the scope of section 239 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 The Assessing Officer also got in error when he issued a notice under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, even in the tax year 2002 to 2003 as well. Cue immigration advocates phone number from Talamba lawyer