COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, RAWALPINDI versus HAFIZ S.A. RAHMAN, RAWALPINDI
Complaints as to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Authorities in Sections 2 (1) (10), 8, 16 and 27 (1) were that the Appellate Tribunal inland revenue as an authority under section 2 (1) (10). No, the Assistant Commissioner was not allowed to hold. 8 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and the appellate tribunal lacked a collective reading of the relevant provisions of the law in detecting the review of the Inland Revenue Word \ Deputy Commissioner Read was read in isolation and was praised by the Deputy Commissioner Was misrepresented as a nominal plaintiff despite being reproduced. The Tribunal relied on the fact that the Assistant Commissioner was not listed in Section 8 of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, the Appellate Tribunal filed the Department representative's contention that the law was lawless, but there was no exception to the misinterpretation of the law. Cannot work as. There was no metaphor against the law to answer the question negatively. given in r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
