Sections 156, 135 (4), 62, 80c and 80cc of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLEX of 2001), Assessing Assessment of Error Procedure Correction Scope Remand Request for Correction Risk Correction It was clearly illegal that the tax officer, the remand action, had entered into a debate: when the matter was within the scope of reform. The scope of the corrective action was previously clearly stated by the appellate authority, which once overruled the risk of a departmental appeal through the appellate tribunal, had reached its final status. The tax officer had a duty to strictly comply with and with the parameters set by the first appellate authority. That the taxation officer exceeded his mandate when he entered into negotiations to determine the scope of reform from the outset was not valid because both the reviewer and the department in the first round of litigation The Appellate Tribunal's order was accepted and the tax officer was obliged by the remand proceedings, the duty to remain within the framework of the appellate authorities, solely in the determination of the scope of the validated tax officer restitution. Went wrong once the framework for the re-evaluation process was clear and specifically limited and specified. In the first round of litigation, the First Appellate Authority, which was also affirmed by the appellate tribunal, had no authority to disregard the appellate authorities' instructions in the review process, which made the case subject to specific observations. Was remanded with. Appeal to re-evaluation orders confirmed first
Related judgments — Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, 2010
