Find a Lawyer

AMJAD MAJEED KHAN versus C.I.R., R.T.O.-II, LAHORE

Sections 18 (1), 122 (9) and 177 (4) show the proceeds, profits and losses of receipts from the embroidery business estimated by the tax officer in the proceeds from the sale of the plot. Includes permissions from the account of and some other. The taxpayer on the sale of plots claimed that the taxpayer was never involved in the real estate business and his main business was embroidery receipts from the installation of embroidery machines, taking the taxpayers into the real estate business. Failed to go because the revised orders for tax years 2003 and 2005 revealed that no such case was made by the taxpayers and the revenue also stated that the source of income taxpayers Cannot establish an intention to prove that the sale and purchase of plots is reasonable So it was. An adventure in the nature of trade; it can be said that this was a strange transaction. The taxpayers bought a plot, which was still owned by the taxpayers, as the taxpayers made a statement in the bar. In addition, the appellate tribunal removed it or the real estate asset was not the domain of the federal government.

Related judgments — Inland, 2012

• C.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA v. USMAN RICE MILLS, GUJRANWALA 2012 PTD 835
• C.I.R., R.T.O., ISLAMABAD v. ASIF JAHANGIR 2012 PTD 839
• C.I.R., R.T.O., SUKKUR v. STAR LINK COMMUNICATION, Proprietor M. Raheel, Sukkur 2012 PTD 843
• ARZOO TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 846
• FRONTIER STEEL MILLS, GADOON AMAZAI v. COLLECTOR (APPEALS) CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, PESHAWAR 2012 PTD 854
• KAMAL SPINNING MILLS, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 858
• ISLAMABAD AUTOS, RAWALPINDI v. C.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI 2012 PTD 864
• PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY, ISLAMABAD v. C.I.T. (LEGAL) LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, ISLAMABAD 2012 PTD 868

All Inland judgments of 2012 →

divorce advocates from Gambet lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes