Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS.2280/LB TO 2284/LB OF 1999, 1013/LB TO 1016/LB OF 2000, 268/LB TO 272/LB, 1325/LB versus W.T.AS. NOS.2280/LB TO 2284/LB OF 1999, 1013/LB TO 1016/LB OF 2000, 268/LB TO 272/LB, 1325/LB

Wealth Tax Act 1963 Sections 17 and 2 (16) Estimation of Escape from Wealth 1991 1992 to 1995 96 For the purpose of compensation, gold confiscated by customs authorities was not declared gold in the Wealth Tax Declaration in 1958. The appellate authorities ruled in favor of the SC in November 1985 and directed that the Appellant High Court be paid Q3 43 43 in exchange for seized gold, instructing the customs authorities to return the seized gold. The owner or he should be compensated at fair market value. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order to pay compensation in compliance with the High Court order, based on the market value received from the Assessing Officer from the assessment year 1991 to 1995, obtained by the Assisi as Government. Gold appraised at first appellate authority instructed A by customs appellate authorities to estimate the value of gold in relation to the value of gold per seasoning officer @ 43 i 43, listed by the first appellate authority. The results were considered unconvincing because the department was already offered @ $ 43 per tow And that was the price that was paid to settle the matter with the Judge to resolve the dispute with the department, if he had paid for it instead of gold after receiving the compensation and the fact was That gold did not exist, it was the amount received by the Assissee, which was taxable, and that was the extent to which the Tribunal amended the assessment year in which the appellate authority's first order was paid. inheritance advocates near Nankana Sahib lawyer