Find a Lawyer

DAWOOD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, KARACHI versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE-D, LTU, KARACHI

Section 21 deductions are not allowed Financial taxes are not allowed The taxpayer asserts that the absence of financial charges is equivalent to double taxation and such decision was not granted by the first person appellate authority. It was confirmed on the basis that the payment was not made. In order to approve the legal clearance and order of the lease, the approval and further approval of the lease rent payments were sent to the First Appellate Authority as the first appellate authority was approached by the ground taxpayers regarding the financial charges. The verdict was not given. It faces twice the taxation charges for the allegations, keeping in view the opinion of the first appellate authority taxpayer, as well as the moderba approved by the taxpayer / reviewer. It should also take into account the relevant provisions of the law relating to expenditures.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• SACRAL RICE MILLS, Proprietor Girdharilal Khorwah v. C.I.R., AUDIT DIVISION, RTO, HYDERABAD 2011 PTD 2704
• C.I.R., ZON$-II, R.T.O., KARACHI v. H.R. COTTON INDUSTRIES, KARACHI 2011 PTD 2712
• RAKHSHANI BUILDERS, QUETTA v. CIR (APPEALS), HYDERABAD 2011 PTD 2758
• PREMIER SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY CO. LTD., MARDAN v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), PESHAWAR 2011 PTD 2770
• MODEL STEEL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE 2011 PTD 2788
• C.I.R., ZONE-II, L.T.U., KARACHI v. NAQSHBANDI INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI 2011 PTD 2809
• MEHR DASTGIR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN v. COLLECTOR SALES TAX, MULTAN 2011 PTD 2822
• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD v. SUN RISE FOOD INDUSTRY, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 20

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

famous lower court advocate from Manoabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes