Find a Lawyer

M.A. NO. 944/LB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 11TH DECEMBER, 2006. versus M.A. NO. 944/LB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 11TH DECEMBER, 2006.

Section 221 Error Correction Tific request for correction on the basis that sales promotion costs were confirmed to be discriminatory was discriminatory. The Appellate Tribunal of Magistrates could not return its order for a new decision because it was subject to income tax law or Authority was not granted under the provisions of Income. There was no error in the tax appellate tribunal's rules for doing so, either on the record or at the level of the order in which the first appellate authority's order had obtained reasonable results on the issue of exemption and the tax appeal was not approved. Was made and there was miscellaneous request. Refused to qualify how to become a advocate from Bhimbar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes