M.A. (AG) NO.13/LB OF 2007 AND I.T.A. NO. 5071/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 29TH MARCH, 2007. versus M.A. (AG) NO.13/LB OF 2007 AND I.T.A. NO. 5071/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 29TH MARCH, 2007.
Sections 59 (1) and 62 CBR Circular No. 4 Date 2001 18 18 2001, Para 9 (A) (ii) CBR Circular No. 7 (7) Section Assistant 2001 Dated 26 3 2002 Self Assessment Assessment Year 2001 02 Gross As the case was chosen due to the reasons that the net profit rate was very low and the overhead costs seemed lower, the accuracy guidelines issued by the Central Board of Revenue were pressing revenue, resulting from income. Includes evidence of potential litigation, loss of income, creation of new assets. Discrepancies in utility costs, such standards were never met by the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax; all relevant parameters of the business showed far better results than in previous years, as the first appellate authority. The order was vacated and the Ising Officer was instructed to accept the return under the Self Assessment Scheme.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
