Sections 122 (5A) (9) and 177 Amendments to Profit and Loss Costs The acknowledged facts of the negligent validity based on past history were that during the audit proceedings, the taxpayers made complete details of all expenses, including disputed costs. Enter The books of accounts, bills and vouchers were prepared and inspected by both officers before the amended orders were approved. The taxation officer suggested in the notices that, on an acupuncture, specific instances of unavailability of expenditures and certain unauthorized expenditures on any notice were not detected. At any stage, the taxing officer could not allow the expenditure on the basis of past history or UN certification, while amending the order under section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, capable of confirming the UN. Could not identify the tax official. Neither the taxpayers deal with specific cases nor the refusal was approved, nor was the appellate tribunal's permission removed from the claim for such things, in strict adherence to the law. Permission that was neither usable nor suitable for human beings. Usage and ignore are also excluded in this rule \ r \ n \ r \ n
