Section 62 and 50, assessment of production of accounts, evidence, etc. In addition to the commission responsible for tax deduction under section 50 of the Tax Ordinance, the amount paid to the distributor was not allowed to the distributor, first The appellate authority excluded such treatment by treating the Department of Commerce as such that the amount of such commissions claimed that the Assisi had contracted in various distribution agreements with various concerns across the country and the dealer was Under the logo of Diagnostics we conduct our business identified by the World Dealer. In the ordinary sense of the word, it was not the buyer, but the person who sold the Essex products to the real buyer dealer, and this was a test of the agent's principal relationship in the sense of the Settlement Agreement Act, 1872. , It was a commercial exemption, then it should also have effect in the invoice / ledgers. In the transaction, the Commission failed to prove its claim with Val Williamte's supporting documentary evidence, such as a sales invoice and ledger account, which showed the discount amount. If it was an exception to the trade, then it should be shown in a separate ledger account ledger. The account did not reflect a trade discount, claim from the asset owner cannot be accepted. No separate account could be maintained by the ACCC and a substantial amount of the commission was paid in one-way payment. The Assisi was involved in the transaction within the meaning of the Commission and failed to deduct the tax under Section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, with the distributor's collusion.
Related judgments — Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, 2010
