SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE versus C.I.R., ZONE-I, LTU, LAHORE
Sections 37, 97, 97A, 75 and 122 (5A) arrangement of assets properly approved by the Capital Gauge High Court of Companies under which the taxpayer asserts that wholly owned subsidiaries. The integration of has been legally approved. The High Court was fully covered under the provisions of Section 97 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which will result in no loss or loss of assets. Earlier, the appellate authority applied the provisions of section 97A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, certifying the officer's action in the presumption of non-acceptance of the claim, under which there was no loss in the settlement of the assets under the scheme. Or will not be harmed. Approval and reconstruction were regularly approved by the High Court, and that the first appellate authority erred in verifying the proceedings of the Sizing Officer, under which it was believed to have been approved by the High Court. A wholly owned subsidiary was merged under the scheme of arrangements. Under section 75 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the liquidation of a share of two or more companies was the process of subsidiary corporate reconstruction under which the assets of the merged companies were clubbed. Or was added to a new company, however, the ownership rights of the assets remain that I have no financial transactions with the Ring Companies in the merger management scheme, to generate revenue as a result of any revenue or profit. Taxpayers have any kind of duty from companies that meet all conditions
