Find a Lawyer

M. A. FAROOQI, REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 59 (3), 56, 61, 13 (1) (AA) and Second Schedule, CLS (39) and (77A) of the Supreme Court Rules, Part II, R24 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman's Ordinance Establishment (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Self Assessment Salaries and Income Tax Orders Receipts from Sections 61 and 13 (1) (a) of 1979 Claims for income from rent were filed by the complainant / SCC only pay certificate (LT11E) while income tax return (IT11B) under IR 190 (3) of Income Tax Rules 1982 ) Had to be submitted, because apart from the salary, the complaint Nanda / assysy was therefore not properly income from home. Instead of issuing a notice under Section 576 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, instead of issuing a notice under Sections 61 and 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, a valid return was filed and the claim of being a special allowance tax officer. was done. And the Demand Notice was created by IT 30 which was prepared by Section 59 (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, PRAL which is evidence of defamation due to inability to fulfill the obligation. That if there was no valid return, a notice under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was required to appear for a valid return stating that the notice under section 61 could be issued only if there was a valid return. Be back Therefore, it was against the law to take action under section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. For the issuance of a notice under section 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the above facts had no basis. So contrary to the law; the Complainant / Assisi claimed some exceptions, which were not valid. law websites from Sajawal lawyer