Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, MULTAN versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ TEXTILE MILLS, BUREWALA

Appellant Tribunal's various appeals on the basis of Sections () and ? (130 (the AA)) that the order does not reflect any legal regulatory order which shows that the member tribunal has a case The decision was given as the amount of revenue involved in this case is Rs.6,132 million and those members sitting alone, settle any case where the tax or penalty involved is not more than Rs.5 lakh. And this order was mistakenly approved and there was no legal effect to the regulation. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 130 (8AA), the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal had the power to hear and dispose of all such cases under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, to all single benches set up in the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. Where the estimated income was not more than ten million rupees, there is no error / error in the order of the appellate tribunal and so it was rightly granted.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• INTERLOOP (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 467
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD v. NEW MALIK GOODS, HYDERABAD 2011 PTD 473
• NIAGRA MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 483
• MEDIA TIMES (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE 2011 PTD 491
• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD v. SHAMSHAD TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 543
• Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR, FAISALABAD v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 553
• COMMISSIONER, LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, HYDERABAD v. LATIF NIAZI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 2011 PTD 565
• CIR, LD, RTO, HYDERABAD v. HASSAN MASOOD BAIG, HYDERABAD 2011 PTD 590

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

lawer from fb area from Mangi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes