Find a Lawyer

versus

Section 56 Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 239 (2) Notice of Total Revenue Estimates for the Provision of Returns for the Year 1998 99 and 1999 2000 Claims that Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance The law asserted that the jurisdiction was mistaken. 1979 because no action was pending and section 66 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not protected by section 56 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, although in a procedure / machinery section. Not covered in section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Courts never allow the legislature to dig into the question of whether something is missing. Once section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was to be relied upon for the application of section 59, etc., had come under section 56 of the Income Tax. Before making the assessment under section 239 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, section 239 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the X Ordinance, 1979, was to be summoned to the Assisting Officer. It is widely evident that under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, only proceedings pending on or before 6, 2002 2002 can be continued. It was on record that no proceedings were pending on 30 6 2002 and hence the proceedings could be initiated only by the request for supply of machinery provided under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 if any provision of law There is an ambiguity in translation. , Advertising under Article 66 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 that could be adopted by the issuance of the notice supporting the Assisi, was not a decision in the eyes of the law and was unacceptable if all proceedings were initiated. power of attorney advocate Khanewal lawyer