Section 122 (5) and 177 assessment amendment audit jurisdiction The final information was contained in the final information record but there was nothing to prove that the scope of section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was consistent. Approved and finalized estimate was rejected No one could be evaluated in the presence of the entity for the purpose of amendment. The considered estimate was not parallel to the return of income, final success was achieved after the approval of the law. The audit process was a process to arrive at a conclusion. Jurisdiction under section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and then a review may be amended within the said section All the Income Tax Ordinance should be made under Section 122 of 2001 and before proceeding with such action, Section I22 Requirements ()) Letter of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and to be fulfilled spiritually, the selection of the audit itself was not done which means that the evaluation of an assessment or evaluation was a way of reaching the audit where the Department of Revenue had to believe it. The reasons were that the final diagnosis was either diagnosed or diagnosed at a much lower rate as provided for in section 122. ) Review of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 may also be changed under Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, but even though some different parameters were provided, one can amend the earlier estimate of holding. It is either diagnosed later. On the basis of the information contained under Section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 or in the interest of the revenue under Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was wrong and prejudicial.
Related judgments — Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, 2010
