Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO. 1144/KB OF 1997-98, DECIDED ON 8TH NOVEMBER, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO. 1144/KB OF 1997-98, DECIDED ON 8TH NOVEMBER, 2002.

Sections 111 (2) (C) and 13 (1) (D) of CBR Circular Letter No. 1 (1) DT 14/91, 24 199 1991, while agreeing to a contract to cover criminal income, imposed fines. The legality of a contract was to prove the penalty legally valid and legitimate. In this case, any doubt has to be proved beyond any doubt that the nature of the penalty is inherently criminal, such as the deliberate and deliberate suppression of a criminal case. Required. The Department had to prove through independent evidence that the present case was deficient, and the whole proceeding of the penalty proceedings was based on the agreement of the Assisi even if the Assisi agreed on the penalty, it would have to be sent to the Department by Mansi Rey. And thus deliberately pressed by the First Appellate Authority of the Reviewer, thus correctly found that the penalty could not be legally upheld and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Was gone d by Appellate Tribunal power of attorney advocate Kohlu lawyer