Find a Lawyer

SHAUKAT HAYAT BALOCH versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 122, 170 (4) and 15 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXX of 1979), the establishment of the Office of the 96 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXX of 2000), Section 2 (3) of the CBR Circular No. 5, Date 30 6 2003 Amendment Tax Year 2004 Amendment Claims The process for amending the review was initiated on the basis that information on the return was not announced and income was adjusted against the tax demand. The complainant / reviewer claimed that it was his wife. The person who received the rental of the subject property and submitted a separate return and paid income tax on the declared income and also acknowledged that the property owned was not officially transferred to his wife's name. The Complainant of the Review / Assisi admits that the property was not real estate. The name of the spouse was officially transferred and the Complainant / Assisi continues to keep the property in his own name, the information of the Knight in which the Complainant / Assisi had rented the property but he has been able to return it. Failure to declare rental income in the notice was only given to the complainant / reviewer who is required to respond to this notice and also to submit the relevant account / documents to the competent authority. Enabling him to determine the correct income and receive the actual tax deduction was only a notice of reason. The complainant / reviewer will have the right to defend his position. No defective minist was found. Must include the proceedings initiated under Section 12. Prior to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the competent authority's complaint was accordingly moist top advocate from Sangla Hill lawyer