Sections 122 (5) and 40 amendments deduct the amount of revenue receivable from the amendment other Income from other sources \ Permanent information Ground rental claim Issei failed to respond and amendment was made by Assisi. Whether anything was invisible and the claim for expenditure `land rent adm was acceptable under section 40 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the first appellate authority department canceled that the first appellate authority had dismissed section 122 (5) of the income. The documentary evidence presented to them in the light is not justified. The Tax Ordinance, 2001, was presented to the tax officer as such, nor was the taxpayer prevented from producing such material for any reasonable reason before the Assisting Officer was properly assessed through audit. Based on the `certain information \ provided. Neither audit was done nor it was received from any OT in the absence of `` precise information of '' and not even concealed, the order was to be passed under Section 122 (5A) of the Ordinance. , If it was previously considered to be a profit and misappropriation of the revenue order approved by Appellant. The authority was deemed to be the right course, if any, to resort to the provision of section 122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which was wrongly sought, under which the first appeal was approved by the authority. Order was retained. Appellate Tribunal and Court of Appeals dismissed without merit \ r \ n
Related judgments — Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, 2010
