PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD, LAHORE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 161 and 236 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) Office of Establishment, Section 2 (3) (i) (a), 9 and 10, imposes an advance tax on the sale of property on a tax demand of Rs 52,277,542. The complainant under section 231A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was introduced through the Finance Act under Section 236A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 on the failure to pay the withholding tax under Section 236A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 ? , 2009, citing the sale of confiscated or enclosed property or goods, the complainant cannot be denied the benefit to which he is entitled to the Income Tax Ordinance under section 236A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, May be in charge of section 236 and in his request the department failed to engage the complainant in the evaluation process, which made the assessment dangerous, the Maxim Audi ultimum partium was required to be read in every constitution and It was necessary to move the latter procedure forward. Demand for Transparency Under section 236A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the claim of advance tax from the complainant was neither in accordance with the legal norms nor was it raised by the department through the procedure which, according to the circumstances, the Federal In accordance with section 2 (3) (i) (a) of the Establishment of Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, in accordance with the Mill Administration, the 2000 Federal Board of Revenue recommended that the Chief Commissioner take up the matter in his review process. Instruct Issue a new order after section 122B of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 provides the jurisdiction and the complainant an appropriate opportunity to be heard and report compliance within 30 days.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
