I.T.AS NOS.210, 211, 212, 213, 214 AND 215 (PB.) OF 1984-85, DECIDED ON 10TH FEBRUARY 1985. versus I.T.AS NOS.210, 211, 212, 213, 214 AND 215 (PB.) OF 1984-85, DECIDED ON 10TH FEBRUARY 1985.
There was documentary evidence in controlling section 3 and 60 Income Tax Ordinance (1979), Section 9, 12, 14 and Second Schedule Prize Bonds Rules, 1971, R20 Prize Bond Waiver. Reward on various bonds and that they were paid a reward in lieu of holding bonds that were either properly placed by them or otherwise by the Assessing Authorities to ascertain whether the Assissee had any And fortunately the prize bonds were purchased from the winner, in these circumstances there was no justification. It is likely that no matter how strong it may be, it cannot be the basis for disregarding the documentary evidence that Assisi had successfully proved that he had won a prize on national awards bonds and that the money raised by legal methods Was acquired in his asset, the holding amount to be won by the property. , Held, was exempt from taxation
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
