Find a Lawyer

M. AS. (R) NOS.124 TO 126(IB) OF 2002 AND W.T.AS. NOS. 1193 TO 1195 versus M. AS. (R) NOS.124 TO 126(IB) OF 2002 AND W.T.AS. NOS. 1193 TO 1195

Wealth Tax Act 1963 Section 35 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R8 (2) (c) (i) Error correction, appellate tribunal directs officer examining adherence to High Court decision for valuation of shares But the decision was filed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the decision that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which relied on by the Tribunal, rejected the decision and hence the Tribunal's order Correct accordingly. Unknowingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court order was supported by the Appellate Tribunal passed an order which, under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, ruled against the decision of the Supreme Court Scripture. Was the opposite. In 1963, the errors of section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 were affirmed, the errors were allowed to be corrected in the light of the law because when a correction was sought, the Appellate Tribunal, which passed, passed its order. When the Supreme Court had already given the verdict and there was no order, therefore, the decision could not be passed against it, the matter was neither past nor closed at the time of the approval of this order by the Tribunal. And unless there was a restriction in Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the matter remained open and the Appellate Tribunal directly Accordingly, the order affirming its order was rejected by [1998] 78 Tax 217 divorce advocates from Jhatta Bhutta lawyer