COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE versus MRS. TEHMEENA AKEEL
R 8 (3) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Section 27 Stamp Act (II of 1899), Section 27 ACB Circular No. 7 of 1994, 10 of the Appeal High Court of 1994 The Tribunal's unconstitutional order for questions arose as to whether the fixed pricing of the fixed price was assessed according to the fixed price. Whether recognized as a diagnostic officer, in addition to the price set by the district collector, could be adopted and whether the Assessing Officer was obliged to comply with the circular, in which case the market price was quoted. By examining what is an admitted fact and the value of it was arranged by a qualified valuer, the question which was prepared for appeal to the High Court cannot be said that it gave rise to the Tribunal's arrest decision. Nor has it been discussed before. The Tribunal did not allow the property to be assessed by the appraisal officer in support of the separate estimation of the cost of construction and land for this purpose, as a provision of the law or any consideration. Was not able to identify. It was correct to point out the assignment of value to a property that in such cases the only method provided by law was R8 (3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. Circular No. 7 of 10 of the Central Board of Revenue, 1994, could not do better than R8 (3), Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, 1994, enacted by a governing authority under or under a law. There was no guidance against the rules. Laws or procedures for confiscating the rights of taxpayers
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
