Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 1132/LB, 1133/LB OF 1995, 443/LB AND 444/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 13TH JANUARY, 2004. versus W.T.AS. NOS. 1132/LB, 1133/LB OF 1995, 443/LB AND 444/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 13TH JANUARY, 2004.

Sections 23 (2) and 2 (5) (ii) of the Cantonment Act (II of 1924) were approved by the Deputy Commissioner under the Local Authority Cantonment Board Wealth Tax Act. The appellate authority had a body of persons for the purpose of constructing a plaza for sale purpose and allowing the first appellate authority, so the assessment was rejected because the Cantonment Board was not a person, the department requested. The first appellate authority was not authorized to waive the delay in filing the appeal, and was also an institution of property owners, hence the Wealth Tax Act, 19 The taxable delay under the provisions of section 63 did not cause any prejudice to the department as it would be unfortunate if the government could not ignore the strong corners of the revenue from which to generate a sea of income from collecting organs. If not, then an allegation under a specific act, any order passed against it, was void and challenged because its appeal was rejected when the Assisi came to his senses and brought his complaint. law websites from Pasni lawyer