Find a Lawyer

AAMIR HUSSAIN versus C.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI

Sections 111 (1) (b) and 122 (5) of the declaration of unclear income or declared version of the assets, except if the only estimated value was to be minus the declared value and not to the total estimated value when declared. If the version was rejected, the officer would confirm the facts from the seller to prove the case collectively and not the arm's length transaction after the rejected record, then the tax officer was obliged. This increase should provide a reasonable and reasonable basis for what was found to be lost, when the transaction was not disclosed on the record, Xinjiang has also rejected a reasonable estimate was based, the First Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal order also removed as Verified \ r \ n

Related judgments — Inland, 2012

• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD v. KHALIL JUTE MILLS, FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 942
• Z.N. EXPORTS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 946
• DCWT, LEGAL-02, LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE v. RIZWAN AMJAD, LAHORE 2012 PTD 948
• HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK, KARACHI v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEAL), KARACHI 2012 PTD 954
• NEW DEFENCE ESTATE, 90-Y DHA, LAHORE v. C.I.R., AUDIT DIVISION-II, RTO, LAHORE 2012 PTD 1032
• COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION) INLAND REVENUE (RTO), FAISALABAD v. ZAHID JEE FABRICS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 1040
• C.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI v. ISLAM ELLAHI, KURRALA C/O Sohawa, Jhelum 2012 PTD 1050
• BANK OF PUNJAB, LAHORE v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE 2012 PTD 1055

All Inland judgments of 2012 →

online advocate from Khanewal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes