Find a Lawyer

WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.749/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 27TH OCTOBER, 2004 versus WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.749/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 27TH OCTOBER, 2004

Section 23 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R8 (3) The orders of the Wealth Tax Officer appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it was not permissible to set aside the SC and remand the lease to the Settlement Authority. The manner in which it was treated with the assessee was strict and dependent on the fact that the property was not treated in accordance with the provisions of R8 (3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, which expressly It has been stated that the value should be based on the aggregate annual value of the property. The inspecting officer failed to obtain the approval of the inspecting additional commissioner, therefore, the same examiner for the evaluation of de novo. It was illegal for the officer to remand the case. The first appellate authority against the rule of law and the legal justification came to the conclusion that the disputes raised by Assissee were overweight. After making all these observations by the First Appellate Authority to obtain approval under the law as an inquiry into the Additional Commissioner, the first appellate authority was not within the legal domain that the officer who investigated the matter should be referred to D. Get remand for a Novo diagnosis. The findings, based on its findings, did not advance the legally acceptable reasons for seeking remand by the appellate tribunal, and set aside the findings filed by the appellate authority first. And remanded the case to the appellate authority, so that the appeal could be decided in light of the observations. It arrived at the \ r \ nthrough more results patent advocate from Gujrat lawyer