Find a Lawyer

BRIG. (R) M. EJAZ AKBAR, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, ABBOTTABAD versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ABBOTTABAD/PESHAWAR

Sections 2 (16), 27 and 35 Maintaining Appeal Question of Law, Assessment of Return Securities was a school and it had securities to return student deposits The Assessing Officer initially considered securities as a loan but later withdrew Corrected his opinion under Section 35. The Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and similar securities were levied by the ACCC on the basis that the securities were loanable and they were to be excluded from the assets. The answer to the request for accuracy depends on the existence of two facts, first that the securities must be in place. Because of their non-repayment debt and secondly, they were relied on in connection with their assets which were tax payable wherein whatever was on the record to prove that the securities Whether a refund was refundable or was never spent on a series of assets on which to pay the Wealth Tax, this would not be a question that falls into the category of questions. f The law was not illegal when it was not answered by the law itself, such a question did not fall into the category of law questions as there was no question as to what the law was or was behind a particular point. And what is the true and true meaning? Such a provision of the law that was ambiguous did not even arise in the question of law of protection when the facts of the case did not prove to be the case when attracting the enforcement of the existence of facts when the answer to the question of law was not void. Could have been given. Based on assumptions or assumptions and speculations, the forum did not base its search on any evidence, advocate from Pindi Bhattian lawyer