Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.4363/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 15TH JUNE, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO.4363/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 15TH JUNE, 2002.

Re-open the valuation on the basis of Sections 65 3 (1) (d), 80cc and 143b plus valuation on the plot lease based on the premium amount and contingent charges which are credited to the government account. The amount difference between this value will be paid at the district collector's rate and the previous lease determined by the announced price. The reviewing department did not have any evidence to indicate that the reviewer had applied to the cantonment board. Was actually paid to the Estimate Officer. There is no evidence that the money changed hands It was a legal obligation for the Assigning Officer to bring in record unacceptable evidence before reopening, which was considered in section 65 of his Tax Ordinance 1979 action. ? There were earlier and later notices issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, in view of the fact that the plot was purchased by paying too much to the former leaseholder, proceedings in the absence of accurate information. was done. Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was attracted under section 62/65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was passed by the Appellate Tribunal in violation of the law while the assessment made under Section 80CC of the Income Tax Ordinance was again. Opening was canceled in 1979. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Bhera lawyer