Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS.542/LB TO 547/LB AND 557/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER, 2004 versus W.T.AS. NOS.542/LB TO 547/LB AND 557/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER, 2004

Section 16 and Second Schedule, CL (3) directs the matter to be made part of that assessment, based on the committee's inquiry comprising the Inspector of Agricultural Land First Appellate Authority, the relevant appraisal officer, First Appellate Authority. ? The Department of Agriculture accepted the Assisi as a landowner when it was claimed that the First Appellate Authority was not authorized to accept the status of non-agricultural assets as agricultural when the procurement process clearly indicated Stated the purpose of purchasing the land for the construction of the factory on. He said that in case of other shareholders, the land has been declared as non-agricultural asset and it has been estimated. Other co-owners who were not fighting to pay taxes on all the pieces of land they owned could not give the department the option of receiving a tax, which was not in fact. Referring to the immoral wrong committed with each other under the specific provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the owners cannot be construed as having a base to negatively affect this assessment because the joint venture owners The joint process also could not make the department tax liable for taxation of such land and the relief was substantially and legally sufficient and reasonable when the appellate authority had previously challenged it that the wealth tax. Order is not liable to tax on the land and it is a legal or factual error. The department was faced and Appellate Tribunal was upheld by the officer Estimator is a member of the committee. More ads than this immigration advocate from Bhuawana lawyer