Find a Lawyer

MAZHAR EYE CLINIC, RAWALPINDI versus CIR, LTU, RAWALPINDI

Section 221 Error Correction Miscellaneous Appeal Tribunal observed in its order that the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax had informed the inquiry that its case had not been selected for audit while the case itself was an issue. Not eligible for assessment because there was no declared tax liability. 10% more than last year's estimated tax. ses Assisi said the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax was not informed that he himself was not eligible for the assessment. And in the matter of discussing the intention of selecting the matter for audit, there was no objection to the tax liability not exceeding 10% in the previous year's tax. And the withdrawal from the Self Assessment Scheme was not timely informed and there was already a considered order after which the order approved under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was illegal and void. And the Appellate Tribunal observes that - "Self-Assessment Scheme was informed at the time of discharge \ It was incorrect and contrary to the facts and documents / documents on record. The selection of the case and the non-selection of the case were quite different. The question is, was it not a matter of scarcity? Qualify for self-assessment because the declared tax liability was not more than 10%. There was no problem at the time of selection of the case. The problem and lack of documentation was not the basic summary and the main topic of the Self Assessment Scheme was that of the final assessment. 10% more tax was to be collected and if it was not deposited then this is not the case with the Self Assessment Scheme.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• C.I.T. LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, LAHORE v. MUHAMMAD MUNIR CHAUDHRY 2011 PTD 744
• GOOD LUCK TRADING COMPANY, RAWALPINDI v. CIR, RTO, RAWALPINDI 2011 PTD 748
• CIR, (LEGAL), RTO, ISLAMABAD v. COMPETITIVENESS SUPPORT FUND, ISLAMABAD 2011 PTD 751
• EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE LTD., LAHORE v. CIT, CIRCLE 13-CO, ZONE-II, LAHORE 2011 PTD 756
• AL-KISSAN SIZING INDUSTRIES, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 770
• CIR, PESHAWAR v. WAHEED HAFIZ GHEE INDUSTRY, HATTAR 2011 PTD 773
• C.I.T. LEGAL, RTO, FAISALABAD v. NIAZ MUHAMMAD 2011 PTD 784
• 2011 PTD 788 2011 PTD 788

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

female advocates from Shaheed Benazirabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes