Find a Lawyer

MRS. UZMA KHURRAM ALI ABIDI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 14C, 35 and Second Schedule, Part I, CL (12) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Taxes, errors on certain immovable property owners Correction, non-payment of a limited refund, was the basis for the final payment of tax liabilities on the basis of the correctional orders of the property assessing officer, which declared the refund as non-refundable. The accuracy assessment officer validated the original assessment under mistaken belief and the consequence was that the demand was not made even though it was under section 14C of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, The demand could be created legally by modifying / modifying the assessment. The precise point was that the certificate was not created. Loans were allowed on any demand but only for the taxpaying department when at the end of the day, section 17A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, on 17B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, acting under both section 35 and section (4) and 17B (3) were banned after the proceedings, contrary to the issuance of a notice under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act 1963. Due to lack of legal authority and full of mismanagement, the Federal Ombudsman recommended that the taxpayer of the Central Board of Revenue terminate the proceedings by issuing a notice under section 35 on 27 7 2004. Be instructed It initiates inquiries about how the inspection officer did not face the flaws made by the diagnostic officer despite the expected inspection and was found responsible for the wrong inspection. immigration advocates from Ukba lawyer