Find a Lawyer

DR. WAJID RAZA JAFRI, LAHORE versus C.I.R. ZONE-IX, R.T.O., LAHORE

Sections 121 (1) (d), 177 and 120 of the best judgment assessment tax year 2008 Taxpayers claimed that when a valid return was filed, the probation officer had to pass an order under section 121 (1) (d). Was not justified. And the First Appellate Authority was not correct for obtaining a trial remand for de novo proceedings. Prior to the amendment of the property, by the Finance Act, 2010, sections 121 and 177 (10) were made in section 121 (1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Do not apply to cases where a total revenue refund has been filed and did not speculate on the appellate tribunal for another review of the situation, reversing the orders of the two authorities below.

Related judgments — Inland, 2014

• ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, RTO, ISLAMABAD 2014 PTD 604
• INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (IR) UNIT-4, E&C, ZONE-II, LTU, KARACHI 2014 PTD 654
• 2014 PTD 689 2014 PTD 689
• C.I.R., R.T.O. FAISALABAD v. IHSAN YOUSAF TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD 2014 PTD 703
• BISMILLAH PACKAGES, LAHORE v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O.-1, LAHORE 2014 PTD 770
• State 2014 PTD 842
• ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD. HYDERABAD v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX, HYDERABAD 2014 PTD 920
• C.I.R. (LD), L.T.U., Karachi v. PAKISTAN REFINERY LIMITED 2014 PTD 935

All Inland judgments of 2014 →

online advocate from Takhtbai lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes