Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 1094/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 26TH JANUARY, 2007. versus I.T.A. NO. 1094/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 26TH JANUARY, 2007.

Fourth Schedule, R5 (c) Insurance Ordinance (xn x x i x x of 2000), section 34 (2) (d) Insurance Act, 1938 (IV 1938), section 27 (2) (b) Securities and Exchange The Commission (Insurance) Rules 2002, R 11 calculate the profit and insurance business benefits for an unexpected risk not exceeding the limit of the Health Insurance Reserve 40 limit. The valid section of the Insurance Act, 1938, provides a reserve limit in terms of percentages. That is, 40% of the Insurance Ordinance was read with section 34, R11 of the 2000 Insurance Rules 2002, which is lower than the cost of insurance, performing the R 11 of the Insurance Rules 2002. Will not be less than the sum insured. The taxation officer did not justify limiting the claim to 40% because the Insurance Act, 1938, had not been applied since 2001 and 2002, as the assessee also determined the amount of the reserve under section 34 (2). The basis was not provided. D) The Insurance Rule of Insurance, the 2002 Ordinance, 2000 and R11, the First Appellate Authority's order was vacated and the nomination for the de novo order was dismissed by the appellate tribunal \ r \ n top advocates from Chowk Maitla lawyer