Find a Lawyer

W.T. AS. NOS. 662/LB TO 666/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 27TH JUNE, 2003. versus W.T. AS. NOS. 662/LB TO 666/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 27TH JUNE, 2003.

Sections 2 (1) (5) (ii) and 16 (3) assess the property for property which is kept for the construction and sale of business or commercial open plots are allowed in such plots. It was expelled by the appellate authority and directed to be reviewed collectively by the Association of Persons for wealth tax purposes. The plots and the land were as bare as they were in the year of purchase, meaning that in 1993, the sizing officer could not close his eyes to the harsh ground reality, and though the co-owners eventually built a commercial building on the plots that they could possibly use for their personal business. Even if a vacancy was sold or left by individual co-owners, it was also likely to be in their individual capacity, on the date of valuation, the individual shares of the co-owners The acquisition was to be examined for the purpose of collection of Wealth Tax in the hands of the individual and to evaluate it. Could not be considered for. oses in, the hand of an imaginary association of persons who had no real / real existence, the property was reviewed in his personal hand by his minor son and is not owned by the Order of the Order of any imaginary association. Was. The Appellate Tribunal was previously vacated by the Appellate Tribunal and the Assessing Officer will finalize the review if the co-owners own property. criminal advocate from Jhand lawyer