Find a Lawyer

versus

Section 156 (3), 62 and Second Schedule, Part I, CL (118d) Correction of error Extension of the limitation period related to the High Court's limitation, the Department requested that the taxation officer be entitled to reject the request for correction. Because the High Court directed the judgment to be corrected within two months from the date of this order and the validity of the extension of the High Court in this direction within the period provided by section 156 (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 The directive was doubled: the decision of the petition was directed on the one hand within two months but on the other hand the direction was not banned. One of the people with this particular word meant to dispose of or should be in the form of law and allow entry since been provided for this period. The order to take and pass the petition is terminated; no recourse could be made to the request of the subject, which was already proceeded by law and once expired within the stipulated time. The time provided by law to decide upon an application after termination cannot be extended when the law provides for a particular function to be performed, in the same manner as it should and Failure to approve an order as provided by the Law Taxation Officer In the timeframe provided under, the correction request was not considered to be rejected. The law was wrong in both the authorities' decision that, under the direction of the High Court, it provided for action under section 156 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 patent advocate from Kotri lawyer