CIR, (LEGAL), RTO, ISLAMABAD versus COMPETITIVENESS SUPPORT FUND, ISLAMABAD
Sections 2 (48), 127, Sixth Schedule, Part I and RR 14 (/), 2 (1) (e) Income Tax Rules, 2002, R94 Applied Provident Fund Jurisdiction Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Appeal) Has cleared this order. The Commissioner (Legal) declared that the application for the approval of the Provident Fund met the criteria laid down in Part I of the Sixth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. And the petition for its correction failed as well, claiming that the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority was specified in paragraph 4 of section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and was limited to the above mentioned sections. And the first appellate authority had no jurisdiction in matters falling under section 2 (48) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, read with Income Tax Rules 2002, KR 94, beyond its exclusive jurisdiction. Since the Assisi had claimed that the Income Tax R94 Tax Rules, 2002, along with the nominated Federal Board of Revenue, as well as the Commissioner (Appeal), did not recognize the appellate authority or withdraw the identity of the predecessor. I was registered as an appeal because of the Income Tax Rules 2002, KR 94. The Federal Board of Revenue / Appeal Commissioner restored the appellate jurisdiction; and the First Appellate Authority exercised its jurisdiction because the Income Tax Rules 2002, KR94, obtained its appeal. And were subject to the red tape of the Assisi Regional Tax Offices, which refused to give effect to the decision of the First Appellate Authority on the approval of Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 nor of the adoption of the Income Tax Ordinance of the Sixth Schedule. had been. Income Tax Ordinance,
