Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 284/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 14TH MARCH, 2006. versus I.T.A. NO. 284/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 14TH MARCH, 2006.

Section 59 (1) CBR Circular No. 7 of 2002, Article 15 6 2002, Para 9 (A) (ii) CBR Circular No. 7 (7) / S Assist / 2002, Article 17 12 2002 Self Assessment Total Audit The case was chosen based on the fact that the revenue was quite low due to the volume of business as well as the investment in capital. Expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account are not in line with the declared earnings. The validity of such large expenditures was necessary to verify and determine who was paid the rent and salary and whether the tax was deducted under the provisions of the law, especially under head rent and salary. The review case was taken out of the scope of the Self Assessment Scheme for three reasons. The huge amount of money spent on repairs and maintenance and the huge amount of salaries when the case was finally evaluated after reviewing the major reasons for removing the matter from the Self Assessment Scheme, and the matter was dropped. There is no justification for this. Instead of accepting the version announced under the Self Assessment Scheme, take action under common law, which was equivalent to the unnecessary tinkering case and keep only those matters against the directives of the Central Board of Revenue, the potential for revenue. And where The common law assessment was a solid basis for raising higher profit rates and increasing costs on the basis of profit / loss not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and as directed by the revenue of the higher appellate authorities. Was not Assessment Officer was not approved Issue Issue Issue was not Revenue PO immigration advocates contact from FR Bannu lawyer