Find a Lawyer

MASOOD & COMPANY, MIANWALI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 9, 102 and 66A Income Tax Ordinance (XLEX of 2001), Section 221 Establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) (I) (A) and (B) The complainant complaining of a self-assessment showcase notice of refund alleges that the non-refundable payment for the year 1994 95, 1995, 96, 1996 97 and solely for harassing the complaining department Issuing notices on grounds, the reply was held that the tax was not paid in the name of the firm in which it was paid. Returns to partners' names were improperly formatted and were issued for display under section 2121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which assesses the validity of the years 1994 95 and 1995 30 1997 1997 and 23 6 was made under sections 62 and 59 (1). The 1996 showcase notice was barred from time to time by exceeding the 5 year limit from 28 to 2003 and therefore had no legal effect. The return of 1996 was filed under the Self Assessment Scheme before the appointed time, Was accepted on 30 6 1999 and was ordered to pass the full tax deduction / tax credit under section 59A dated 30 6 1999 and the alleged corrective order under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was unlawful. Was admitted on 30th 1997, and was accepted. Section 59 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was banned in the notice issued after the Law, 6 2002 2002, which the Federal Tax Ombudsman proposed for the Income Tax Ordinance for the years 1994 95 to 1996 97. Recommended the showcase notice under section 221 of 2001. For these years the complainant was withdrawn because of the complainant and was entitled to a refund property advocate from Daud Khel lawyer