Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.3054/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 8TH MAY, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO.3054/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 8TH MAY, 2002.

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 66A, 13 (2) and 59 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Section 16 (3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R8 (3) of the Assisi The statement, which was accepted as part of it, was accepted and the assessment was finalized under the Self Assessment Scheme, after which such property in the property was assessed in the tax section, to make this higher inspection. It was decided at a higher cost than the Additional Commissioner, that the Assessing Officer passed under section 59. l) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was incorrect and prejudicial interest was taxed because the Assessing Officer did not assess the value of the house during the later tax proceedings and hence he questioned this element. Had to contend that this action had to be fought. Cannot be processed under section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Subsequent inquiries / proceedings / events which were not before the Assessing Officer when the assessment order was passed, the interest of the Revenue on the basis of the facts could not be misjudged and prejudiced by the Inspector Additional Commissioner. The action was illegal and was against the provisions of section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The officer passed the diagnostic order in question under section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance and the Assessing Officer's order could not be subjected to false and prejudiced interest on the basis of the value tax assessment order which could result in the value of an asset. Assessment or assessment under section 13 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance under section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 under R8 (3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 best advocate from Warah lawyer