AL-RAI FLOUR MILLS, LAHORE versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE-I, LAHORE
Sections 2 (1) (5) (ii), 3 and 27, which were laid down for the purpose of the applicable SC, regretted the assessment of the manufacturing unit which was dropped against the lease and Authorities hired the unit for the purpose. For this reason, the purpose of leaving the property of the assessor in accordance with the tax was levied was not, if, for some time the asset was leased, it would be subject to the appreciation of the asset under section 2 (1). Created will not be in charge. ) ()) (ii) Statement of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and clarification is provided in which case the court investigator had the benefit of the doubt and the decision of the matter was decided by the taxpayer. What I could do was intended. Do not be extended to apply where the property was left out for some time while the original purpose was self-use. Remaining leave was not actual use, but the purpose under which the ban was imposed under this section. Whether to stay out of the property temporarily Not subject to o Wealth tax was decided in favor of the SC
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
