Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 221 and 23 (5) of the Finance Act (I of 2003), preliminary Depression Income tax ordinance disapproved of the early depreciation claim from correction under section 221 of the Income Tax Department when the Department noted that the first amendment provisions included the Income Tax Ordinance. In section 23 (5) of 2001, Assissee did not have the right to create an understanding before the amended provisions of section 23 (5) of the Income Tax, to initiate correction proceedings against a specific order. Was not entitled to claim. The ordinance, 2001 was only relevant for the tax year 2003, so the correction under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was made to refuse early deportation, if a valid action was initiated, the section of the Income Tax Ordinance. The amended provisions of 23 (5) were contained in the law book in 2001. The Revenue first required to establish that the amended provisions were also legally inadmissible but nothing was spelled out. Secondly, the extent to which a claim should not be allowed only when the department has been allowing for years, former and successful. And third, in the background of whether this was an error in the scope of section 211 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 or Section 23 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 could not be amended or amended naturally. And was determined. Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 on the basis of the earlier impressionable assets was not authorized to proceed with income, which was not present on the material date, the appellate tribunal directed that the claim for early depreciation be properly made. Went and should be allowed. online advocate from Hala lawyer