MST. NASEEM AKHTAR, FAISALABAD versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD
Amendment of Audit Agreement to Section 122 (5), 111 and 177 Income Tax Ordinance (XXXX of 1979), Sections 62 and 13 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 10 and 11 of CBR, Plaza Valuation Assisi's construction claimed that attention was paid. All the correspondence and responses during the proceedings of the 2001 and 2002 2003 review of the Plaza construction contract issued by the then tax officer under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, 5 62/13. The notes were ignored. And the Taxation Officer (Audit) arbitrarily refuses the actual agreement between the owner of the plaza and the contractor, executed with the free and fair consent of the parties; further, the construction rates apply for construction provided by PWD. The rate was calculated on the basis of the date of their letter. 15 11 2007, while action under section 177 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was initiated on 10 7 2009. And it cannot be said that this certainty was obtained from the front-line audit accuracy under the tax officer's acquisition, for the assessment year 2002 2003, the version of the taxpayers, including the construction rate, was observed and observed. Whether the investment was declared in the tax year 2003 and the tax year 2004 and no negative indication was withdrawn in section 13 (1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, 2001 to 2002. From the tax year 2004 till the tax year 2004 was released. Assisi had declared the total cost of construction of the plaza as Rs. 6,200,000 for the year 2005 and the taxation officer had estimated the construction cost at Rs. Who gave
