DEPILEX (PVT.) LIMITED, D.H.A., LAHORE versus ACIR, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE
Section 122 (5A), 120 and 210 Evaluative contradictions were: Advertising expenses need to be covered. That the lease assets were not announced but the lease rentals were claimed and the commercialization fee paid to the Development Authority as an order of income tax expense approved under section 120 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 It was claimed that the false and even biased notice read with Section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was issued in 2001 and amended the pre-completed assessment by making some additions to the actual estimated net loss. Was processed. In section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, it was the Commissioner who considered that the assessment order was wrong at that time because it was prejudicial to the interest of income tax. That it was intended to amend the Assessment Order but by no means does such exercise need to be performed by the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue. That, after doing so, the Commissioner may, under section 210 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, delegate his powers in writing to any officer of the Inland Revenue, the powers or all powers assigned or the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to the Commissioner. And that as the Additional Commissioner in Inland Revenue and not the Commissioner considered that the assessment order passed under section 2120 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was wrong and there was prejudice in the interest of the revenue and section 122 ( 9) issued a show cause notice under section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; the procedure of Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue in the validity section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was not sustained.
