Find a Lawyer

versus

Section 122 (5A) amendments to an assessment where a law directs that certain actions be taken by a particular person. Their performance is allegedly banned by any other person. The authority or sole discretion of any authority as it is responsible for will not affect the sovereign mind by unnecessary deliberations. The Syed authority should neither accept nor accept any order. Should delegate its authority to The decision to violate the rules has been recognized by the illegal department that at any stage of the proceedings, the commissioner applied his free will to decide that the original order was wrong and unfair, even in the interest of revenue on this account. An order has been issued under section 122 (5A). ) The Income Tax Ordinance was not sustainable in the 2001 law because the proceedings were invalidated under Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and the order passed was illegal on its face, so the Appellate Tribunal ruled that The decision was not given. The Merit-based Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the liability of an order sanctioned under section 122 (5A) of the Income, was declared invalid and void.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 653
• FATIMA FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD v. CIR (A), LTU, ISLAMABAD 2011 PTD 677
• 2011 PTD 693 2011 PTD 693
• SWEETY TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 703
• HABIB JUTE MILLS LTD.., KHUSHAB v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 717
• 2011 PTD 719 2011 PTD 719
• COSY INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (RTO), FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 726
• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD v. SUN RISE FOOD INDUSTRY, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 731

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocate from Goular Khel lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes