9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (5) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... building method, the ground was valued on rent capitalisation method. The assessee does not dispute the valuation of the first and second floor. Dispute is restricted to the valuation of the ground floor only. The dispute is very limited inasmuch as the assessee feels aggrieved only by the multiplier approved by the AAC. The AAC approved multiplier 12-1/2 times. Shri Dani, the ld. Rep. of the assessee urges that proper multiplier in these cases is 10 times. It is said by Shri Dani that in the relevant years the bank rate could not be less than 10 per cent in any case. We find substance in the submissions of Shri Dani. No criteria has been disclosed by the AAC for adopting the multiplier 12-1/2 times. Keeping in view that Bank rate as stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is a business asset of the firm constituted by them. In this connection we may usefully rely on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Narsibhai Patel vs. CWT (1981) 20 CTR (MP) 43 : (1981) 127 ITR 633 (MP). In this case, the partners claimed exemption under s. 5 (1) (xxvi) of the Act, 1957, in respect of the bank deposits which the firm had made. The WTO allowed the exemption. The CWT revised the assessment under s. 25(2) that the assessee partners were not entitled to the said exemption. Giving the solution of this problem the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court observed at page 640 as follows: "As already stated, a partnership or firm is not a legal person and so it cannot hold property. But the property brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not right in holding that the assessee, being a partner, was not entitled to claim exemption under s. 5(1) (iv), as the property belonged to the firm. We, therefore, direct the WTO to grant exemption to the assessee under s. 5(1) (iv). 5. Shri Dani clearly stated before us at the time of hearing that if exemption under s. 5(1) (iv) is allowed to the assessee then he would not press the legal objection as raised in the ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal. The assessee having succeeded on ground No. 3, we reject the ground No. 1, as having not been pressed by the assessee. 6. This finished up the appeal relating to the asst. yr. 1973-74. 7. In the appeal for the asst. yr. 1974-75, only one more ground, i.e. ground No. 2 remains f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
