Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS.1064/LB, 1667/LB OF 1996 AND I.T.A. NO.5415/LB OF 1997, DECIDED ON 30TH JANUARY, 2003. versus W.T.AS. NOS.1064/LB, 1667/LB OF 1996 AND I.T.A. NO.5415/LB OF 1997, DECIDED ON 30TH JANUARY, 2003.

Section 12 (1) CBR Letter C No 3 (1) WT / 93 Dated 19 4 1993 Asset Tax Assessment of Corporate Assets A leasing company's assets were not disclosed. Under Section 7 of the Financial Act 1991, the company or leasehold assets that were charged for corporate asset taxation were their fixed assets, which the Assisi said was the original owner lease, and that the lender was invalid. The corporate property tax validity agreement was a simple lease rent in which the asset was not necessarily sold at the conclusion of the lease rental agreement. The fact of the agreement is that the asset was owned by the leased asset and this was not the case. The property of the rental contract was left to the assessee and the lease was only beneficial because he had to use the machinery to pay the lease, he had no right to claim it. The option to purchase the property in any form was subject to the sole discretion of the seller who may or may not sell it, but the lessee also has the right to transfer the lease to a third party, Not entitled to gambling or transfer. Leasing machinery / asset agreements have never been indicated where there is a situation where one can say with authority that leasing machinery should be leased at another stage. The transfer was transferred if the property is illegal. Assets were to remain in the name of the Assisi while the rights of the Assets were also with the Assisi and the assets were also leased out and no one has any right to call such property. lawer from fb area from Umer Kot lawyer