I.T.A. NO.7478/LB OF 1996, DECIDED ON 6TH NOVEMBER, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO.7478/LB OF 1996, DECIDED ON 6TH NOVEMBER, 2002.
Section 7 The Appellate Tribunal for the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal for the imposition of a tax on the large value of certain assets, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed under the Capital Value Tax Act, as under section 9 of the Act The language provided was not the language of the Corporate Asset Tax Act. The right of appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer stating that the provisions of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 35 of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, as far as it may apply, shall apply to the appeal, revision or correction of an order. Under this section, when they apply for appeal, amendment or correction, the Capital Value Tax Act provided no savings that were a particular law and required strict compliance. Nothing could be imported outside of 's intentions. This was applied when the plain language reading of the department showed that the appellate tribunal had been instructed by the appellate tribunal to come to a wrong forum and dismiss the appeal from the record.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
