Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS.475/LB AND 476/LB OF 1992-92. versus W.T.AS. NOS.475/LB AND 476/LB OF 1992-92.

Wealth Tax Act 1963 Section 7 Intangible Assets Price Appellant removed the partition wall between two houses from the purchase of a property worth Rs 5 to increase the wealth of the single-unit wealth tax authorities appellant. Appellant did not claim credit for the unacceptable increase. In addition, there was no tangible asset, the AAC was not considered justified in maintaining the value of the asset, which was never assessed as income tax while its value was taken as a value. In the self-assessment, the date of diagnosis was evaluated at a reasonable price and there was no justification for it. In addition, the asset was neither declared nor available with Assisi attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Gujranwala lawyer