Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 68/KB TO 83/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 23RD FEBRUARY, 2006. versus W.T.AS. NOS. 68/KB TO 83/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 23RD FEBRUARY, 2006.

Sections 35, 16 (2) and 17b Error correction Before the finalization of the assessment by the tax officer, the appellate authority affirmed that the jurisdiction was not discussed, by the taxation officer. The final review was without valid jurisdiction and began because the tax officer's authority was not listed in the Wealth Tax Law, as the taxation officer's ability to legally maintain such review by the Assigning Officer. Who was a Validity Assessing Officer, a taxation officer according to Income Tax. The ordinance, 2001, was granted the authority to exercise powers under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, as the Deputy Commissioner of the Tax Person of the Wealth exercised that jurisdiction, especially the Tax Assessment Orders. Was an absolute option to approve. At the end of these words it was written to the Income Tax Taxation Officer, on the contrary, all the proceedings were implemented. The provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 emphasize Section 16 (5) / 17B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. Granted, the disappearance of the words of the Wealth Tax Officer was not fatal and the nature of the error was such that business words could not be defaced if the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax wrote along with the words at the end of the Assessment Order. If not, the taxation officer, with these words, does not revoke the action if the person has the absolute authority to exercise the law. Be less approved. ; This was a typographical error that was not fatal in nature so that the process could be thwarted. pakistani advocates Qalandarabad lawyer