Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE-II, LAHORE versus RAHBER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD.

Appeals from the Sections 2 (e) (ii), 16 (5) and 27 High Court Maintenance Tribunals, primarily found that the department failed to prove, by record or evidence, that the Assetcy Company had applied for the construction and sale. In the absence of the preparation of the relevant records, the Tribunal had held that in the absence of the preparation of the relevant records, the Tribunal had observed that the examiners were subordinated to the provisions of section 2 (e) (ii) of the Property Tax Act, 1963. Cannot own vacant plots with no question. The law was born for consideration by the High Court because it was in fact a question of whether the asset was kept with the purpose of construction and sale through an assessment. The evidence of which is based on fact-based investigations and available evidence appeals, in the event of a disturbance had to involve any question of law which should be considered and answered by the High Court. famous supreme court advocate from Multan lawyer