9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), in respect of : (i) The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Mrs. Anju Munjal, Ludhiana (assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83) ; (ii) The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Mrs. Rama Munjal, Ludhiana (assessment year 1982-83) ; (iii) The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Shri Sunil K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption, holding that the property belonged to the partnership to a house or part of a house belonging to the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that exemption was to be allowed to the assessees in respect of their shares in the property held by the firm and the value of their shares was not to be included in their taxable wealth. A Division Bench of this court had an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485, the apex court held that the interest of a partner in a partnership firm belonged to him and would be includible in his "assets" and will have to be taken into account while computing his net wealth. In this view of the matter, the assessees in the present case could be said to be having specific interest in the factory land and the building belonging to the firm and, as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have taken finds support from CWT v. Vasantha [1973] 87 ITR 17 (Mad) ; CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza [1978] 114 ITR 532 (Kar) ; CWT v. Mira Mehta [1985] 155 ITR 765 (Cal) and CWT v. Tarachand Agarwalla [1989] 180 ITR 234 (Gauhati)." Taking the same view as taken in the aforesaid case by this court, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
