Find a Lawyer

versus

Section 156 (3) Error Correction, Request for Correction The Unsubscribed Depreciation Limit Order was approved by the tax officer after the expiration of the fiscal year, which was brought to its notice. Under the provisions of section 156 (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the Assessing Officer sought the correction of the order dated 12 6, 2000 in the office of the concerned Diagnostic Officer, 1999, where any such error was brought. The notice of any Income Tax Authority is through the Assessment and no order under section (1) of Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was issued by such authority after which the next financial Year expires. Notice, the error will be deemed corrected and in accordance with all the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the effect could be passed in the present case, the order of amendment passed on 30 6 2003 after the expiry of 30 2002 2002. Suffered a limitation and thus it was beyond the jurisdiction, so instability in the eyes of the law would not impose any further restriction. The appeal filed by the Assisi through the SC on 26-6 2005, against the non-existent order and under section 62/132/221 of the Ordinance was a timely process and the First Appellate Authority ignored the submissions. Was wrong to do The limitation passed by the taxation officer under section 62/132/221 of the ordinance will not go against the order of exclusion and dismissal of the appeal and the first appellate authority was not correct in dismissing the appeal. ? The time limit appeal filed by the appellate tribunal before the appellate authority is within time. how to become a advocate from Kunri lawyer