Find a Lawyer

KHALEEQ AHMED versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 22, 23, 61, 62, 63, 66A, 132, 156 (3) and 102 Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000X 2000), Section 2 (3) Prior Review of Refunds Best Decisions The Complaint Complaint filed with the Complaint Complaint Delay on the Evaluation Notice was unlawfully challenged with the Compensation as well as the Release of Refund for the assessment year 1997 98 and it was alleged that the complainant had been lodged in the earlier review with deductions. A validation request was not filed which was not decided in legal time and hence this error was considered corrected and refund was constituted = Department In response, it was never alleged that corrective application is not filed and adjusted to demand tax cuts and would not create any refund. Claim of justification for filing correction application was not established Commissioner Appeal directed to compute income under sections Income Tax Ordinance, 22 and 23 of 1979, no appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal The legal notice was previously reviewed by the department after a period of nine months from the date of non-compliance. Such order was paid after a period of two and a half years. No expenditure against receipts is allowed in the pre-order order. Was. The assessment should be a judgment of the best decision. The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 63/132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 20 6 2000 of 1979 was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and forcible tax ombudsman hence the persons belonging to the Central Board of Revenue. Recommended to direct the Commissioner Income Tax Estimates section 63/132 for the year 1997 for 98 top civil advocates from Darya Khan lawyer