USMAN MAJEED CHOHAN versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 121, 115 (3) (b) and 114 (1) (vi) Best Review of Motor Decision Not Complying with Notice under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, claiming that the former assessor taxpayer is an orphan and At the time of acquisition of a motor vehicle less than 25 years of age, there was no need to file a return of income. Section 114 (1) (vi) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, disregarded the lawful officer's final amendment and an invalid final statutory dismissal. The Finance Act, 2009 and the tax year 2010 came into effect, while taxpayers purchased a motor vehicle in the tax year 2009. Further, because the complainant is an orphan and under 25 years of the date of purchase of a motor vehicle, exemption from filing returns was not required to file a return for tax year 2009 because the income tax An exception to section 114 (1) (vi) of the Ordinance 2001 was obtained under section 115 (3) (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001. Laws and Taxes became effective from 2010 through the Finance Act, 2009, Complainant was not required to file returns in tax year 2009, Complainant was also not allowed adequate time. Subsequent notice was issued under section 121 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 Applying for is a violation of the law and was subject to misconduct under section 2 (3) of the Federal Tax Ombuds Ordinance, the establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman 2000. Instruct the Board of Revenue Commissioners to file a review under section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, and after hearing the complainant, decide the matter according to law.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2013
