Find a Lawyer

C.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE versus DESCON CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE

Section 122 (5A) and 120 amendments were amended on the basis of errors in assessment because it discriminated against the interests of revenue through multiple additions. Justification for exclusion due to The First Appellate Authority had extensively discussed the matter and examined the record and the evidence available on the case law and with the observation that it excluded the taxation as per the details given by the audited accounts. The lenders had enough funds to fund the loan in related steps. After confronting the taxpayer, the tax officer did not make any increase after confronting the taxpayers and accepted that the money in question was not a loan but a balance of inter-group transactions under which the first appellant. Authority was to be ascertained. With this matter and the facts of the law and no interference required, the appeal filed by the taxpayer was dismissed as being vacant.

Related judgments — Inland, 2013

• MAVERICK PETROGAS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE v. A.C.I.R., MAC-01, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE 2013 PTD 595
• TECHNO FABRIK (PVT.) LTD. v. C.I.R. UNIT-VIII, R.T.O., KARACHI 2013 PTD 639
• ROYAL EXPORTS, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2013 PTD 654
• WORLD TELECOM LIMITED, LAHORE v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-I), LAHORE 2013 PTD 718
• UNITY TRADERS, LAHORE v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALS-III), LAHORE 2013 PTD 740
• SHAHEEN PAPER AND BOARD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KASUR v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE 2013 PTD 755
• D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, LAHORE v. C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., MULTAN 2013 PTD 777
• SAEED BUKSH (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., LAHORE 2013 PTD 788

All Inland judgments of 2013 →

immigration advocates email from Jalozai lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes