EPLA LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI
Sections 29, 21 (1), 122 (5A) and 120 (1) increase the bad loans because no legal action was taken against the debtors. Taxpayers are of the view that the First Appellate Authority has refused. It is not justified to confirm that Section 29 of the Conditional Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was not fulfilled, and no default legal action was taken against the lenders as it laid down three conditions for writing. I (a) loan amount was previously included in the taxable business income of the person R (c) there were reasonable grounds that the debt is irreparable and it fulfilled all the conditions. And it was not a word that any "legal action" could be taken against the defaulters, which was the mere conception of the officers below the Validation Officers, which was not allowed to focus solely on legal action as a condition, It was not a matter of fact that under section 29 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the terms of the loan were included in the first person's income, and in fact it was written that the company's auditors and GM Finance. Had completed and was confirmed. Taxpayers and old clients with whom the business has been in business for many years and apparently were severely affected by non-payment of business ties because there was no risk after the termination of the business relationship, especially in government departments. The third O that the correspondence record for payment was primarily presented to the Tribunal to support the reminder.
