Section 12 (18) was considered as income collected or generated in Pakistan on the basis that it was borrowed by Assisi's company in such a manner that it was in the responsibility of the Assisi for such value. Increase because the increase was not supported by the receipt of this amount. The cross-check attracted the provisions of section 12 (18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Assisi explained that the company had not received any cash at all, the company was ignored altogether and the company was also paid by the public. The banking channels needed to increase the impact of the loan, gift or advance as a receipt of all other terms were additional and after finding that Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance had cash in the amount. , 1979, could not be applied to the book entry or to any transfer entry ledger account created by the SC. The first or the first appellate authority, I claim, did not receive so much money from the SCC was a valid defense and should have been rejected with arguments and substances in accordance with Section 12 (18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 ? And this law can be strictly enforced once it meets the aforementioned requirements. The same should not be used to show the massages of the department. In the present case, in addition, neither the evidence presented was confirmed as false nor any special showcase notice was issued for the said enhancement. There was a fundamental breach of this and the fundamental right, known as the Audi Ultrum Portium, was withdrawn by the company.
Related judgments — Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, 2010
