Sections 62 and 131 excluding investment credit and shareholding account increase in tax credit shares were allowed only on the two purchases on which the appellant / taxpayer was responsible for tax deduction, while the rest of the purchase list is below. The tax limit was placed on the Ounce Assigning Officer, who should have received a proper inquiry from the parties from whom the taxpayers had purchased the raw material and the packing material. The matter failed to be strong. Assuming the duty of natural justice, the assing officer had committed the weakness of the law by estimating his income, and the taxation officer, without any reasonable basis, pursued the inquiry of the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal), and the facts of this case. Also ignored. And taxpayer order expense claims allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax (appeals are not allowed) were vacated on this count The officer assessing the rationale for not allowing the expenditure was inadequately stated. In addition, he specifically abandoned the identification of goods through a notice under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance; the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Orders (Appeal) of 2001 was the retention order of the officer, this count. Was likely to vacate and the taxpayers / taxpayers were announced. Accordingly it should have been accepted under head order
