Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

Sections 121, 116 (1) and 111 (1) (b) were given the appropriate opportunity of hearing the judgment review notice by the First Appellate Authority that the notices issued were not properly presented and provided an evaluation. The reason why the taxpayer failed to give the tax officer a legal notice in accordance with the law was perfectly justified to cancel the assessment made under Section 121 of the First Appellate Authority Income Tax Ordinance, filed by the 2001 Revenue. Was denied any qualifications

Related judgments — Inland, 2012

• ZIS TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 370
• ATTOCK REFINERY LTD., RAWALPINDI v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (AUDIT), L.T.U., ISLAMABAD 2012 PTD 442
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, R.T.O., FAISALABAD v. KAMAL FABRICS, FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 453
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALS-I), ISLAMABAD 2012 PTD 459
• MEHAR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN 2012 PTD 472
• PEACOCK RESTAURANT, MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA, (SOUTH), CHAKWAL v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALS-III), ISLAMABAD 2012 PTD 478
• AL-MEHDI INTERNATIONAL SHAH PLAZA, MUREE ROAD, RAWALPINDI v. C.I.T.(A), RAWALPINDI 2012 PTD 498
• HUB POWER COMPANY LTD., ISLAMABAD v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT), ZONE-III, LTU, ISLAMABAD 2012 PTD 507

All Inland judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates from Mian Walli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes