9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference was made on petition by the Revenue. The following question has been referred: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of his share in the house property belonging to the firm of whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the point. Hence, the present reference. Heard Dr. M. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the assessees, and Mr. D. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. According to Dr. Sarma, the point referred is squarely covered by the decision of this court in CWT v. Tarachand Agarwalla [1989] 180 ITR 234 ; [1989] 2 GLJ 45. The question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ividual assessee is partner in a firm, the interest of a partner in the immovable property of the firm is to be included in computing his net wealth. That interest in the immovable property or benefits arising out of the land, cannot be said to be movable property. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter, the assessee was entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deduction under section 5(1)(iv) should be allowed, i.e., deduction should be allowed under section 5(1)(iv) in the hands of the assessee-partner and not in the hands of the firm." Though Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Revenue, has urged that the question referred in the above case was different, learned counsel has fairly conceded that the views expressed also cover the present refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
