| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 22 2004 SLD 22 2004 PTD 1499 (2004) 89 TAX 388 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos. 523(IB) and 526(IB) of 2003, decision dated: 8th January 2004 hearing DATE : 20-12-2003
KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Saeed Anwar Kazmi, ITP for Appellant, Abdul Shakoor, DR for
Respondent
I.T.As. Nos. 523(IB) and 526(IB) of 2003, decision dated: 8th January 2004 hearing DATE : 20-12-2003
KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Saeed Anwar Kazmi, ITP for Appellant, Abdul Shakoor, DR for
Respondent
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 62,ThirdSched,5,5A
Law: Income Tax Rules, 1982
Section: 34
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)......S. 62 Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.34 Assessment Estimation of sales Sales were estimated on the ground that the same were not open to verification because invoices produced were devoid of complete particulars of the clients and the sales were mostly on cash basis and complete addresses of the customers had not been given on the cash memos Assessee contended that no defects were pointed out to the assessee and that the cash memos issued contained the details as required under R.34 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982 and that detailed addresses were not required as per the said rule Sales were reduced by the First Appellate Authority Validity Assessee had not contested rejection of the declared version Assessee's concern was that adequate relief in estimate of sales had not been given On one hand it was pleaded that addresses of the customers were given on cash memos but on the other hand it was contended that R.34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1982 did not require that the assessee should give full particulars of the customers and the declared sales could not be rejected on that ground Assessing Officer had also not evolved any basis for estimate of sales Assessee was not confronted with instances of particular sales which were not verifiable Case was of a private limited company where account books were maintained Appellate Tribunal agreed that relief allowed by the Appellate Tribunal was not adequate and further reduced the estimation of sales. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Third Sched., R. 5A Category E & R.5 Depreciation allowance -First year allowance Assessee was an Internet Service Provider -Assessee's claim of First Year Allowance under R.5A of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee was not an industrial undertaking as provided in Explanation to R.5 of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority Validity Under R.5A of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, First Year Allowance was available apart from manufacturers to other industries including…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492