Find a Lawyer

BANO ROLLER & FLOUR MILLS, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 7070 (()) Income Tax Ordinance (I 1979 XXX of XXI) Section 44 and (1) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Refund In addition to the additional tax, the demand for 15 demands was paid. Appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Authority and the second review was canceled and the appeal was given effect and the refund was decided. But additional tax credit was not taken. The default refund was also not decided. The delay in the return of the claim was due to confusion. Hyderabad & Karachi Return Order R was approved by the Complainant / Reviewer through Commissioner Income Tax Hyderabad and Karachi Refund Order but the record regarding the issuance of return voucher could not be confirmed and the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax was immediately Upon verification, the department provides a copy of the refund order under section 170 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, after which the Department of Refund Amu has been indefinitely after a period of 10 months. The refund voucher was issued after the refund voucher was unable to offer any plausible explanation for the delay. , Despite repeated reminders that the department failed to justify non-payment of compensation, the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a delayed withdrawal of the complainant / diagnostic financial administration from the Central Board of Revenue-related taxation officer It should be submitted that the complainant's correction application is dated 27th 2003 and consequently a refund has been issued. Income Tax Ordinance 2001 famous lower court advocate from Kotli Loharan lawyer