Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.639/KB, 640/KB, 641/KB, 642/KB AND 643/KB OF 2002. versus I.T.AS. NOS.639/KB, 640/KB, 641/KB, 642/KB AND 643/KB OF 2002.

Section 13 (1) (a), 62 and 65 of the unexpected investments, which are considered to be income increases, were deleted by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the Additional Commissioner inspecting the surplus amount was regularly removed. But notices under section 13 (1). (AA) Income tax ordinance did not meet the requirements of the law in the nature of the notice under section 65/62 of the Income Tax Ordinance of 1979; the Assessing Officer countered with different amounts than the actual additions to the orders. To take such notice under section 13 (1) (A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, under various sub-sections of section 13 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 There was no alternative. The notice required under section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was properly presented and there was no record capable of recording this notice to the First Appellate Authority under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, I did not substitute the notice of the Tax Ordinance, 1979; the officer assessing the appellate authority's search prior to 1979 was based on the erroneous fact that the Income Tax Ordinance. No notice was found under section 13 of 1979. Unlike the facts, the entry was not able to ascertain the facts in compliance with the notice under section 13 of the Tax Ordinance 1979, there was no need to go into further details, moreover, under section 13 (2) of the notice. The Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was required in the case of the amount of expenditure mentioned in the amount of expenses mentioned in clause (c) of clause (a), (b), (c), or (d) of subsection (1), The Deputy Commissioner's opinion was minimal while present us immigration advocates from Sagri lawyer