Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 891/LB TO 894/LB OF 2002, HEARD ON 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2002. versus W.T.AS. NOS. 891/LB TO 894/LB OF 2002, HEARD ON 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

Section 18 (1) (a), 35 and 14 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 cover the penalty for defaulting on the wrongdoer for the default of section 14 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act. Was imposed. With the approval of the Additional Commissioner of Indenting, 1963, which was subsequently amended to identify both the audit authorities under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, as prescribed under section 18 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. In addition to the appraising officer, the additional commissioner of inspection had cited the relevant law and imposed a penalty equal to the tax, it may be presumed that he passed the order under section 18 (1) as the relevant default. Are well aware of the current provisions regarding the penalties for. (a) The Assessing Officer of the / 35 Wealth Tax Act, 1963, recorded the response to the showcase notice but did not discuss how it was being rejected except as indicated by the audit authorities pen. For the default of section 14 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the time and rate set forth under section 18 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, were applicable. had gone. In the light of the original penalty orders, the appellate authority, in any way, chose the simplest way of rejecting the grounds of appeal only on the basis that the assessee / appellant mentioned additional taxes, not fines and Neither the grounds were appropriate nor the matter was known to the facts of the Supreme Court and consequently the decision-making officer was clearly missing and at the same time the First Appellate Authority took up the matter on behalf of the SC / Appellant. The legal objections that were dropped were dropped. This kind of slow advocate for immigration from Sajawal lawyer