Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI versus ABDUL GHANI

Sections 56, 65 65 and ?66 Re-review of the Inaccurate Supplement to Law The re-evaluation officer re-evaluated the previous estimate years and the case was finally decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following the declaration, the decision was made on the basis of the issuance of a notice under section 566 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, instead of section 556 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, in the exercise of powers under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, and the amendment. Order maintained. The correctness of the High Court was not identified in the Tribunal's preliminary injunction in the judgment, so in the absence of any error on the record relating to the decision, the Tribunal should exercise jurisdiction under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Should have refused. 1979 Only one error in the exercise of such jurisdiction can be found on record by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but in fact the tribunal acted as an appeal forum against its own judgment, which was not sustained by law in the High Court. Failure to enforce the law and appeal was dismissed without providing any legal justification, the High Court also failed to confirm the matter, under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the appeal against the order / decision of the High Court. Tried to circumvent the law while refusing to file a reference, but the High Court also rejected the fact. He lost that under the law, the tribunal could not sit on its verdict / the error could not be identified at the recording level of the order or the floating high court could not be identified while saying that there was no prejudice. lawer from fb area from Kasur lawyer