Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS.29/LB TO 31/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 22ND FEBRUARY, 2005. versus W.T.AS. NOS.29/LB TO 31/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 22ND FEBRUARY, 2005.

Section 17B & 16 (3) CBR Circular No. 14 of 1959, Article 10 8 1959 Additional Commissioner inspecting the powers of Additional Commissioner to review the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Section 16 (3) of the Wealth Tax Act Vacated by an Assessing Officer approved under. , 1963, and directed that it be regularly acknowledged and fined for concealing it in the declaration of immovable property of the land and property made in the property tax statements. Assisi claimed that the property was owned by Benami Was and that the original owner of the property was identified as `the beneficiary was not responsible 'to declare as` owner' of the property in his property tax declarations. Despite the fact that it was the registrar who was referred to as the owner of the property in the registered sale deed. The estimate of accuracy was not precisely established as the basis for the said property. Only `direct evidence 'was the sale contract and the building plan and both pieces of evidence have been conveyed to the property owner as the property owner as the registered sale deed assessee has clearly acknowledged. And it was owned by the Assisi, asking `indirect proof of evidence only to prove that it was` anonymous and did not say that the owner did not receive the cash payment for the sale of the original property. None of these two proofs had a direct nexus affiliated with the year 1992 to 93 and 1993 94 in which the registered cell Appeal Tribunal's Appellate Tribunal's Appeal Tribunal Rejects Appeal Tribunal's Position online advocate from Babri Banda lawyer