Find a Lawyer

versus

Section 156, 66A and 13 (1) (a) error correction Scope Revenue claimed that the addition was dismissed on the basis that it was made without the approval of the inspecting additional commissioner. And since Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance had been approved by the Additional Commissioner Income Tax on 1979 itself, the approval of the higher authority was not required. Was given by the appellate. The Tribunal and the Department failed to disclose any errors on the record, the scope of correction that could be corrected was very limited and could only be corrected for errors that could be detected by simply reading the order. A new set can be supported without checking the evidence. Arguments As there was no clear error at the order level, it did not need to be corrected and the Appeal Tribunal rejected the request made by the department.

Related judgments — Inland, 2013

• 2013 PTD 1418 2013 PTD 1418
• 2013 PTD 1429 2013 PTD 1429
• BROTHERS ENTERPRISES, KARACHI v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, RANGE-B, ZONE-II, RTO-II, KARACHI 2013 PTD 1557
• TRG PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI v. C.I.R., R.T.O., KARACHI 2013 PTD 1600
• C.I.R., R.T.O., ISLAMABAD v. INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1684
• USMAN JAVED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD v. CIR (LEGAL DIVISION), FTO, FAISALABAD 2013 PTD 1705
• CIR, RTO, ISLAMABAD v. DAZZLE GLASS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1723
• DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD v. CIR, LTU, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1749

All Inland judgments of 2013 →

tax advocates from Rawala Kot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes