Find a Lawyer

BIGMAN BAKERS, LAHORE versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Sections 13 (1) (d) and 136 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, after the appellate authority and the Tribunal rejected the declared value, maintained the increase of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, but the costs were reduced to that of the Department. A different rate cannot be adopted at the rate authorized by the seller. Similar property cannot be levied in the hands of the buyer and seller at two different rates, no higher rate can be adopted. The seller's assessment of the price in the hands of the seller more than 5 times was inconsistent with the seller and buyer's behavior and the department was not assessed in relation to the seller at the relevant time. Once this happened and such fact was brought to the notice of the appellate authority and the tribunal, then there was hardly any justification for maintaining the conduct of the purchase price estimator. Cannot exceed the rate allowed by the seller of the same property which the High Court answered in the negative. immigration advocates email from Kot Bunglow lawyer