Find a Lawyer

S. H. FARUQI, RETIRED CHIEF GEOLOGIST, PMDC, DIRECTOR, EASTERN TECHNIQUE LTD., ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Wealth Tax Act 1963 Second Schedule, CL (12) (1) and First Schedule, paragraph A (2) (a) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R8 (1) (1A) and (3) the Income Tax Ordinance ( XXXI, 1979), Section 19 (3) establishes the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 9 exemption complainant / reviewer assessing the value of their residential home, for the purpose of value tax. The annual letting value for the property is rented on. The officer who assessed the first provisions of sub-rule (3) of R8 of the Wealth Tax Rules 1963 rejected the declared value and on the basis of its cost the value of such house was assessed by the complainant / assessee. Apart from this, the claiming officer's claim was also made. Contrary to the rules, it was arbitrary, arbitrary and unreasonable because any reviewer would have to pay the property with a waiver of the unlimited value of the property available under Total Schedule 12 (1) under the Second Schedule to the Financial Tax Act, 1963, 25,00,000. Waivers of up to Rs will not be allowed. The first Schedule to the Property Tax Act, 1963 and Section 2 of the Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, section 19 (3) of paragraph 1 (paragraph 2) to paragraph 2 of paragraph 2 of the SC of paragraph A of the SC. 12 (1) was banned because it required possession. The annual letting value exemption from the income tax and its value from the property tax was related to the property owned by the owner, but under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for clarity included in section 19 (3) of the Financial Act 1996 This exemption was subject to the condition of the property in the possession of the occupant of the residence of the owner of his residence not included in the waiver under CL12 (1) of any such case. Pakistan, top advocate family court from Lala rukh lawyer