C.I.R. (LTU), LAHORE versus F.M.C. UNITED (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE
Sections 35 (4), 34 (3) and 122 (5A) provide for stock obsolete stock in trade The scope of taxpayer's claim that certain expired pesticides were returned by retailers / wholesalers who stocked in trade. Became part of the That, at the end, the value of the return pesticides had diminished, and the stock price in the trade was almost scraped as sc; This supply was created from a permanent loss in the form of expenses under the Profit and Loss Account. The reliance by the tax officer on section 34 (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was brought to the wrong place. That the value of the stock was made under section 35 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which envisaged the closing price of the stock at the end of the year, and under this section, the closing price or Then the cost may be less than or equal to the cost. ?????? The net recoverable value of the available stock was valuable; the value of this stock was at \ net realizable value and the difference in the form of loss was claimed, as the Department of Expenditure claims that the supply of obsolete stock could not be allowed. Unless obsolete stock is transcribed, and such supply may be allowed. The obsolete stock was actually written on section 35 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which allows taxpayers to write off their closed stock price in the trade, either at a lower cost or \ net worth recovering \ deprecated stock. Was. Not found in any provision of the law as required earlier, the law did not require that the obsolete stock could not be booked at zero price as it could get some value if it was disposed of. ?? ??
