IMTIAZ AHMAD ROOHANI, MULTAN versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MULTAN
Sections 122 (5), 177 (10) and 121 of the Evaluation of Definitive Information Taxpayers, a newspaper publisher, claimed that the revenue was collected by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which they said they had There is no valid evidence under the law of evidence and there was no point. The details are available for the purpose for which this information was provided and the basis on which this information was provided. Section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 does not mean that the information provided by the Ministry cannot be taken as definitive information. That no supporting evidence on the amount of publications and sales was brought to the record which could be the basis for proving the department's position. All of this is based on anecdotes, speculations and speculations that may not qualify for a judicial inquiry. In addition, section 177 (10) of section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was incorporated by the Finance Act, 2010, which could not have been applied pre-tax for tax year 2005 as it was applicable after tax year 2010. And no assessment was made under Section 121 of this. The Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could be made, where returns were filed under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the accuracy of the information submitted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in matters selected for audit for the tax year before 2010. The information could not be grounded. In order to file a lawsuit against taxpayers, sub-section (5) of section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 did not mean such information, if it was certain information, then reduce the value of the newspaper by the value of Rs 4 as income. Not to
