Find a Lawyer

C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) LTU, ISLAMABAD versus AHMED ENTERPRISES, ISLAMABAD

Section 122 (9) and 177 Amendments to the Assessment Another notice was issued under Section 122 (9) of the Cost Income Tax Ordinance 2001 of the Taxation Officer, under which taxpayers face a reasonable increase in construction cost from this cost. The announced price taxpayers were not open to verification that there is no justification for changing the first position and confronting the taxpayers with a brand new basis and that too when the taxpayers successfully proved. Had declared that its construction cost was more than fair price, in favor of the Public Works Department of Pakistan. Comparison with the rates provided was not accepted by the taxing officer because in the absence of relevant supporting records the cost of construction was not considered credible and the declared cost was increased by 20%. Reduced cost was a very clumsy one that hit a lack of ownership and professionalism when taxpayers successfully proved that declared construction rates were comparable to the PWD rates at which taxpayers. He had considered himself reasonable, so there was no justification for him. Such arbitrary and serious conduct was never seen by the classification of the courts, contradicting the principles of fairness and fair play. Extremely careless work was also done because the increase did not represent a 20 percent increase in construction costs, which was ordered by the Appellate Tribunal to exclude the sales costs increase.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BHAKKAR v. C.I.R. (APPEALS), R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 317
• 2011 PTD 329 2011 PTD 329
• FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD. v. C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) L.T.O., ISLAMABAD 2011 PTD 352
• ALI RAZA TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD. v. C.I.T., R.T.O., LAHORE 2011 PTD 366
• COMMISSIONER LEGAL DIVISION, KARACHI v. MERCK (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI 2011 PTD 382
• MEHAR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE 2011 PTD 401
• JEEA TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 405
• KAY CHEMIST, KARACHI v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEAL), KARACHI-III 2011 PTD 408

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

best advocate from Gari Mori lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes