Find a Lawyer

SHEIKH ABDUL HAMEED versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 3, 25 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 and the establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000V), Sections 2 (3) (i), 9 (1) and the 11CC / Complainant on the first page Note on his return that all his assets were not taxable as the High Court had attached in favor of the Bank Assistant Commissioner Income Tax / Wealth Tax, during the various letters submitted by the complainant. Wealth inspection completed, ignoring custody. Assessment proceedings Reform application filed under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was rejected The complainant contended that the authority did not bother to consider the court's order, which did not apply to its request. The ultimate proof is that his net worth is void because he owes a great deal of responsibility. The accuracy record does not indicate that the Assessing Authority met all legal requirements prior to completing such review. Legal requirements not only constituted the publication and service of certain publications. es The Assessing Authority was legally obliged to consider all documents and evidence submitted by the Complainant, which were an integral part of the Wealth Tax Return Assessing Officer on all the letters sent to the Assessment Authority prior to the completion of the review. Failure to take note of the note The return page and the orders / decisions of different courts had to be considered / discussed in the assessment order to make it clear in the assessment orders that the responsibilities were worthwhile. , The Assigning Officer was obliged to discuss all matters and enter into a judicial order law websites from Makli lawyer