Find a Lawyer

HAJI AMIN SONS &CO., SIALKOT versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) in section 96, 85, 80C, 50 (4), 143B and 156 CBR letter No. 1 (17) WHT / 91 Pt IV, 28 1992 1992. , Section 2 ()) The total amount of income tax deducted on the refund, while the paying competitor / complainant claimed that in this way more than one tax amount was withheld which was a refund but it was determined Was not done by A corrective order was approved in 1979 while setting up the assessments under Section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, which could result in a refund or a refund of any confirmation order passed And the total amount of receipts was taxed to confirm the certification. The complainant / SCC regarding the accuracy of the documents was with the relevant document which could not be submitted to the department for verification of the claim, nor was the opportunity provided for a hearing, nor was the Central Board of Revenue responsible for it. On the letter, it was noted that the claim for refund was dated 28 28 1992, which was unacceptable and, in order to be a difficult justice and to achieve the pursuit of justice, the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended Received the case with the Commissioner of Income Tax that the matter should be personally investigated and the military authorities (if any) If any) the complainant may wish to perform reasonable opportunities for a hearing to offer the relevant contract agreement. General Chat Chat Lounge n solicitors from Kamokey lawyer