Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 65, 62 and 13 (1) (A) approve and reject the documented amount filed with additional information, stating that she had received a cash gift from her ex-husband; The complaint was made by Aussie's ex-husband. The case was reopened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 on the basis of such alleged `factual information 'that the gift process was fake and that the ex-husband of the donkey was not present in Pakistan at the date of the execution of the gift. In addition it was added. At the time of the assessment under clause 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the ex-husband of Assisi appeared before the self-assessment officer and stated that he had given the assessment to anyone, Should not be allowed. Because of the approval and redemption and the two versions contradicting each other, the former husband of the review cannot be allowed to pay advance advance against the purchase of property to the seller through his bank. Seventy Assisi was the wife of the house and the property was purchased in her name while the payment was made by her ex-husband as he was only earning members and he has enough money which is evident from the bank transaction. And in the present case, the gift of cash was from husband to wife, however, later the marriage was dissolved because the source of the investment was fully explainable, so Section 13 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 (A) was not attracted before the order of the appellate authority was upheld and the appellate tribunal dismounted the appeal filed by the department. issed r \ n rejected attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer