9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the word 'house' mentioned in section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act includes 'cinema theatre'? 2. Whether the basic exemption is available to the petitioner or not? Summary: Issue 1: Definition of 'House' u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act The primary issue was whether a 'cinema theatre' qualifies as a 'house' for the purpose of exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court held that a house, in general perception, is a building for human habitation and does not extend to a cinema theatre. The court emphasized that the concept of habitability is inherent in the word 'house'. A cinema theatre cannot meet the requirement of being habitable as envisaged under the Act. Therefore, the court concluded that a cinema theatre does not qualify for the exemption under section 5(1)(iv). Issue 2: Availability of Basic Exemption to the Assessee The second issue was whether the basic exemption is available to the assessee, who is a partner in a firm owning the cinema theatre. The court analyzed various judgments and concluded that a firm has no legal existence and cannot hold property; it is the partners who own the partnership property. The court held that partners should have the benefit of the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) when their individual assessments are taken up to the extent of their respective shares in the net wealth of the partnership firm. The mere fact that a partner cannot claim exclusive ownership of the property does not disentitle him from seeking exemption. However, since the first issue was decided against the assessee, the basic exemption was not applicable in this case. The court noted that despite the judicial consensus supporting the view that partners can claim exemption, the specific nature of the property (cinema theatre) disqualified it from being considered a 'house' under the relevant section. The court answered both questions against the assessee and concluded that no costs would be awarded.
|
