I.T.A. NO. 4203/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 29TH NOVEMBER, 2005. versus I.T.A. NO. 4203/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 29TH NOVEMBER, 2005.
Section 13 (1) (a) of immovable investment, which is considered as income in the estate, asserted that the money received from agricultural leasehold land did not make the necessary qualification from the relevant revenue record to confirm such dispute. As the SCCC's claim was rejected, the appellate authority accepted the review, citing the statement of the landlord (lenders) as referring to the statement made by the landowner. That the Appellate Authority had not previously accepted. Justification for review (lease) A person's straightforward statement that he has leased his land to another person will not be sufficient to consolidate it into the property. Appears on and artificially contracted by the Assessing Officer There is no documented evidence of activation of his property. By assessing this property was created that the lease was actually obtained by him. Was used for agricultural farming and agricultural production on land was actually dealt with in the market which This wealth of third \ Documentation revenue was from. As a whole, it did not shed any light on the true nature of the land and the cultivation of it. The document did not specify whether it was irrigated by the canal or otherwise, or it was filed in a 'barren \ land and document. The appellate tribunal paid no heed to the various columns before which the appellate authority's order was vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer restored.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
