Find a Lawyer

W.T.A. NO.997/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 24TH AUGUST, 2002. versus W.T.A. NO.997/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 24TH AUGUST, 2002.

Wealth Tax Act 1963 Sections 17 (1) (a), 16 (3) and 35 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R 8 (2) (ii) Determining the value of a share of a property escape assessment error correction The officer accepted the face value of the shares passed under section 16 (3) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, the order passed under section 16 (3) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 was fixed under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 Was the breakup value of such shares, which were worked on by adding extras to the maintenance of the assets rather than accepting the declared face value and were restricted by the First Appellate Assessing Officer. On the occasion, action was taken under section 17 (1) (a). Following the collision of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and the same interval, the valid order of the appellate authority was vacated by the appellate tribunal which started by issuing a notice under section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act. The last action was canceled. , 1963 and section 16 (3) / 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which also declared a violation of the law explicitly and in violation and consequently the Wealth. Under section 16 (3) of the Tax Act, the existing order was repealed. Was restored in 1963, for the reasons that this asset had no failure, nor was it misled, nor was it necessary for its review and necessary. Really failed to disclose material facts, even there was nothing. This could mean that the property could be reviewed to avoid receiving a tax, which could also include a lower cost assessment or an assessment. top advocate from Machi Goth lawyer