Find a Lawyer

W.T.A. NO.680/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 13TH JANUARY, 2005. versus W.T.A. NO.680/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 13TH JANUARY, 2005.

Section 17A (1) (a) and 16 (3) / 23 assesses the time limit for the completion of the assessment and re-review, saying that the assessment must be completed by law within two years because the amendment The withdrawal was expressly filed by the Crown but this review under section 16 (3) / 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was time-barred, but notwithstanding the Wealth Tax Act 1963 The final assessment under section 16 (3) of the Code was ultimately contested before the first appellate authority. Without limiting the difficulty of time prescribed in the law, the Ascension could still raise the issue before the appellate tribunal as it was a legal issue and could be raised at any stage of proceedings under the Wealth Tax Law. The order of the re-evaluation order under section 16 (3) / 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 / Re-evaluation was substantially different from the original assessment made under section 16 (3) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963. The iginal order was fully contested and not a word was said about the alleged expiration of the time limits set out in the assessment of the law under Section 16 (3) of the Wealth, Tax Act 1963 now There was a past and closed transaction. Order for re-evaluation under section 16 (3) / 23 of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 and the Appellate Tribunal could no longer investigate the original assessment under s 16 (3) Prima Fax of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, consequently to the Assessment. Finalized. Registration of the net return of net assets by the borrower under section 14 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, four of the limitations set forth in Section 17A (1) (A) of the Wealth Tax Act Was within the year. 1963 Assisi K best advocate from Ghazi lawyer