Find a Lawyer

ISMAT JAHAN versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, section 8 (8A) of the Finance Act 1989 (Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Section 25 Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990, 1997 R8 CBR Circular No. 9, dated 24 7 1997). XXXV of 2000), section 3 (1) (a), (b) and 9 (2) demanding a fee for the Commissioner of Property Tax Revision in relation to the imposition of capital value tax on a revision request, section of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 Under Rs 25, a revision fee of Rs. 1,000 has been demanded. Validation subdivision (8A) of section 7 of the Finance Act 1989 gives Commissioner Wealth Tax the power to amend any order made under section 7 of the Financial Act 1989, section 7 or the Capital Value Tax Rules of the Finance Act 1989 There is no provision under 1990. To pay a revision fee of up to Rs. 1000, even in CBR's circular number 1997 1997 1997 d ated 1997 24 1997 7 1997, it was not clear that the amendment under section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act The fee was only paid for Sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Wealth Tax Act. Referred to in Section 7 of the Finance Act 1989 and Section e-Capital Value Tax Rules, 1990 states that the section relates only to the collection of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, Section 25 applicable in the case of Commissioner Wealth Tax. Was lawful and lawless, so fell under the definition of illegal federal tax ombudsman that Commissioner Wealth Tax asked for a modification fee without a review of his 1111 2001 Complainant Should decide on the application. best law firms from Morgah lawyer