Find a Lawyer

NOKHAIZ KANWAL, PROPERTY OWNER, KHARIAN versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 3A and 16 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, Income Tax Ordinance (XXXX of 1979), Sections 59D and 13 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 9 CBR Circular No. 4 , Dated 1 3 2000, paragraphs 2 and 8 (2) CBR Circular No. 9 2000, dated 31 5 2000 CBR Circular No. 11, 2000 of 2000, under the tax amnesty scheme, 2000 hereditary property under the tax amnesty scheme. Declaration of Wealth Tax exemption denied on the basis that because the property shown in the declaration was inherited and was not generated from unknown income, it was not covered. The issuance of a notice under section 16 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 2000, for the purpose of the tax amnesty scheme, cannot be taxed under the Immovable Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and There was no asset / relationship to it that represented hidden income that could have been saved. Such assets may be deemed to have been considered only under the scheme considered under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, or any other considered income which is shown to the complainant. , And appears in this statement. No declared income or realized income was not admittedly represented and therefore not subject to the tax amnesty scheme, the immovable assets declared in the 2000 property were not constituted for which exemption under paragraph 8 (2). Was. The rejection of the declaration under the Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000, may result in Circular No 4 of 2000, being questionable, but the fact is that the complainant has patent advocate from Rajana lawyer