Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 132/IB TO 136/IB OF 1997-98 versus W.T.AS. NOS. 132/IB TO 136/IB OF 1997-98

Sections 2 (5) (ii) and 2 (e) (ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, was a private property assessment company, operating a flour mills business on which the loot was found; Wealth tax on floor mills. Was imposed, less! Outside, the property is in the hands of the property that is an asset in the term of section 2 (5) (II) of the Wealth Assets Act, 1963, and the Assisi is allowed to claim that i1 has only been rented. ? The mill machinery and plant and leasehold income were being assessed under section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, not under section 19 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the flour mill was leased from immovable property. Was. Immovable property (building / land) and hence, it was outside the scope of section 2 (5) (II) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and, thus, the origin of the real estate assets under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 The purpose was not to run the flour mill itself and it was doing so, but then under unusual circumstances the company had to lease the flour mill, hence, under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 This property cannot be assessed because it was not held for leasing business and may be assessed at any time, for the mill's own business purposes. S objection was that "paid-up capital," the company's responsibility because it payable to its directors, which was deducted from the loan and the value of a debtor company assysy ualdytyty machinery and plant wealth. For the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the flour mill that is embedded in or attached to the ground to which it is attached, and for the purpose of the flour mill us immigration advocates from Arifwala lawyer