Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AUDIT, LAHORE

z Sections 22 (9), 122 (1) and 137 (2) of section RO 633 (I), dated 149 constitution of Pakistan 2002 (1973), Article 199 deduction for constitutional petition reduction, count for amendment of assessment In order to pay the notice, the tax authority had demanded that the non-binding notice issued under section 12 (9) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, with the super-structured section under Section 22 (9), Income Tax Ordinance 2001, be made illegal. It also sought to declare that the authority to influence the collection of tax on the basis of the demand notice issued under section 137 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, unless it is stated that the decision of the constitutional petition. ??? States that the matter has been raised, the decision has already been solved by the high. The court reported in 2005 the PTD 1621 as the Council for Revenue, which did not dispute the ratio, Section R633 (I) / 2002 dated 149 2002 was not a legitimate part of the legislation. Where it was stated that Section RO is enforceable, no legally valid proceedings have been initiated under section 122 in respect of estimates already completed under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, canceled under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Can, for various reasons stated in the High Court's decision, be considered as an illegal and unlawful jurisdiction of the assessment order recorded under section 122 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, as amended and amended. given top advocate from Mangla lawyer