Find a Lawyer

M.AS. NOS.287/LB TO 289/LB, 331/LB TO 333/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 23RD APRIL, 2005. versus M.AS. NOS.287/LB TO 289/LB, 331/LB TO 333/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 23RD APRIL, 2005.

The scope and scope of the Section 35 error resolution was not ambiguous under the provisions of Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which did not restrict any corrective error to mere scientific or mathematical error. had gone. On the other hand, it did not cover any error that could be investigated, the evidence or evidence could be used in section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which showed any error in the record as an understandable error. However, after examining the record from which it should have been recovered, it was understood that the error was mostly subjective and that the line of iding part in the border area was thin and incomprehensible and this was something that Compliance properly and with justice can be off the record whether the mistake is of the law or not. The fact that can be corrected, which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, can be corrected if any error is detected by a clear mistake or an error, and if it is related So in fact it is possible to say that it was clearly a mistake when the previous order passed by an authority was founded on a misunderstanding and a mistake was discovered, under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, of the power. Can be resorted to because the order already needed to be corrected because the fact that the tribunal was the founding court of last fact, cannot be denied The fact that the Tribunal was empowered to reform the dispute provided that material of primary importance was placed on the record, which was kept on record, avoided if there was any question of law involved and Excellent jobs for fresh advocates from Diamer lawyer