Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 1536/KB AND 1537/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 31ST JANUARY, 2007. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 1536/KB AND 1537/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 31ST JANUARY, 2007.

Section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Section 59 (4), 50 (5), 80 C&64 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 2 (16) of the Refund Assessment Year 1997 98 and 1999 2000 Refunds are available under section 59 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, because the taxpayers did not provide any proof due to industrial commitment and created a refund. Of The action in question was not to assess the income of the taxpayers but to ascertain the legality of the retraction of the claim and the statute of limitations would not legalize the illegal claim and examine the validity and legality of the claim's return. There is no restriction. The tax officer did not claim to have the refund canceled, because the matter was affected by the time limit in accordance with section 64 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, because the law department had to wait for a period. Did not allow any taxpayer to lose their original claim for return. Six years and four years from the date of filing of returns, especially when the review of these two years has been completed under the provisions of Sections 59 (4) and 59 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. At this stage the tax officer was not empowered to review / amend / reopen / reformat the completed assessments so that the reviewer's case could not be excluded from his own jurisdiction. Based on the assumptions made under Section 80C of the Assessment Scheme and Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the assumption and to the extent that the taxpayer was a commercial importer only faced the fact that the assessee A commercial importer best law firm from Kotla Pathan lawyer