Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 59 (1) and 13 (1) (A) of the CBR Circular No. 7 dated 24 3 2003, paragraph 9 (a) (ii) self-assessment of the total audit matter, the Additional Assissee stated that the case was three Was selected for reasons. The Assessing Officer only drew a negative signal to the extent of claiming foreign remittances, and on the other two issues, the Assessing Officer accepted the Assisi's stance on his dissatisfaction with the Assisi's submission, which was deemed invalid. Was. Validation and scrutiny of profit and loss expenses were prevented, as this was not a recommended basis for audit. This issue should have been accepted under the Cell Assessment Scheme as the basis for case selection for audit. ) (AA) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 first abolished by the appellate authority The accuracy assessment officer accepted the business receipt declared by the Assisi and withdrew only the extent of the increase. The Foreign Remittance Assessment Officer also increased the marginal profit and loss on the basis of an estimate made under section 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which allows the selection of a case for audit by paragraph 9. Was not the sole purpose. (a) (ii) Since the CBR Circular No. 7 of 2002, the very basis of selection of the case for audit was made under section 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 which was excluded in the appeal. There was no justification for the department to prosecute the case under common law for the usual increase in profit and loss costs, based solely on reduction of profit and loss costs based on estimates. Under the law, there was no justification for proceeding to the case which was not a basis us immigration advocates from Bannu lawyer