Find a Lawyer

TAYMUR COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE CANTT. versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of the Office of Sections 221, 170 (4) and 171 Income Tax Ordinance (XXXX of 1979), Sections 62, 64 (1), 34, 35, 73 and 102 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) rectifies the error, the damages for the refund announced by the predecessor were brought forward and the request for the transfer of the correction application was made, which is predicted by the prediction year 1999 and 2000. The losses presented in 2001 should be brought forward and assessed against the income fixed in the year 2001 2002. Under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, the 1979 application was rejected on the ground that the case does not fall under the purview of Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 because of the record damages of 1999 and 2000 and 2000 2001 review. No estimates were made. Were available for adjustment and since the complainant was not correct in claiming that the return was filed for the initial years in accordance with Section 64 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1976 and was accepted by law enforcement. 9 The result of the accuracy was unforgivable that under Section 64 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, returns were filed and final status was obtained by the process of law from 1999 to 2000 and 2000 2001, the loss brought to the complainant. Was entitled to terminate the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, subject to the satisfaction of Section 73 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the 1979 Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that if the reason for eliminating further losses Refund to the complainant, permissible, within 45 days of the date of application pursuant to section 170 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 divorce advocates from Narowal lawyer