Find a Lawyer

M. AS. NOS. 25/LB AND 26/LB OF 2005 IN W.T.AS. NOS. 1137/LB AND 1138/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 27TH APR versus M. AS. NOS. 25/LB AND 26/LB OF 2005 IN W.T.AS. NOS. 1137/LB AND 1138/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 27TH APR

Correcting the error of Sections 35 and 17, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the orders passed by the two authorities below were not sustainable in the eyes of the law and that the order passed by the appellate authority earlier was heard. Had failed to do. At the end of the judgment of the law, it has been observed that the order of the appellate commissioner will be vacated and the correctness of the rehabilitation of the officer in question was found to have resulted in inconsistent results which were examined in the entire case of the order. It was The tribunal's decision proposed the cancellation of an assessment order in violation of the Appellate Tribunal Order of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which would be read and complied with the appeal commissioner's order. Will be Vacancies and cancellations will be made and the Assigning Officer will be made part of the Appeal palette order already passed by the Appellate Tribunal. immigration advocate from Kahuta lawyer