Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS.236/LB TO 242/LB AND 248/LB TO 254/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 1ST NOVEMBER, 2004. versus W.T.AS. NOS.236/LB TO 242/LB AND 248/LB TO 254/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 1ST NOVEMBER, 2004.

Instead of issuing notices under Sections 14 (2) and 17 (1) (a), section 17 (1) of the return of wealth, the jurisdiction has been granted in different periods by issuing notices under section 14 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1963. To do a) The legitimate beginning of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the commencement of proceedings was not permissible under section 14 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, from the relevant assessment year, since the assessment year after issuing the assessment proceedings. Cannot start next. , A notice under section 14 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, when the relevant financial year has expired and a notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, has been submitted to Asoodi after the end of the assessment year, Wealth Under section 14 (2) of the Tax Act, 1963, there was no jurisdiction to proceed with the issuance of the notice and as a result of this notice, the sanctioned order was invalid after the issuance of notice under section 14 (2) to the Assessing Officer. There was no jurisdiction to pass the evaluation order. ) Returns filed by an asset holder could not be considered a return under section 15 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, but these were statements that were not submitted autonomously, either voluntarily or voluntarily, but for compliance. Were in the given period. The entire super-structure made on such a false doctrine of notice under section 14 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, will fall because under section 14 (2) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 The original notice was illegal, illegal and invalid evaluations were dismissed by the appellate tribunal and court appeals were dismissed. top advocates from Chishtian lawyer