Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 5223/LB TO 5225/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 17TH FEBRUARY, 2007. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 5223/LB TO 5225/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 17TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

Sections 184, 190, 239 (3) and 137 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) This penalty was imposed under the same section of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and the required Inspection Additional Commissioner under Section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Was not approved, therefore, the penalties were justified Section 239 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically provided that those expires on or before June 30, 2002. In making any assessment in relation to any income year, they are related to the total income count, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. And applicable taxable tax, as the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not enforced, Section 239 (3) further provides that the procedure for them is to enforce or charge a single tax in accordance with the same provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. And the procedure for penalties was section 85 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which was related to payment of tax on demand or the issuance of IT30 as a penalty. Demand Ordinance with Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and related section in Income Tax Ordinance 2001 as well as Section 137 (2) of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and required for such documents as IT30 due to penalty under Income Tax Was not Ordinance 2001 was compensated by a fine order The first appellate authority properly canceled the appellate tribunal had previously upheld the appellate authority's order and the appeals filed by the department were dismissed. patent advocate from Killa Saifullah lawyer