9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions are raised in the two cases that the two assessees are each entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 from the value of the interest in the immovable properties of the two individuals. The contention was rejected by the original authority as well as the appellate authority in similar terms. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal following its earlier decision in W.T.A. No. 392/Hyd/1981, dated February 23, 1982. It is in these circumstances that the Revenue sought a reference of the following two questions for the opinion of this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, rule 2 of the Wealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, had regard to its earlier decision in W.T.A. No. 392/Hyd/1981 dated February 23, 1982. We experienced some difficulty in understanding the discernibility of the ratio in the above case. However, we feel that the decision of this court in CWT v. Narendra Ranjalker [1981] 129 ITR 203, applies for answering the instant reference. Counsel for the assessees argued with reference to the difference of opinion, as respects the instant question, among the various High Courts and submitted that what has been stated by the Appellate Tribunal is the correct view. Once we understand that, on the same subject-matter, this court had rendered a decision in CWT v. Narendra Ranjalker [1981] 129 ITR 203, it is difficult to accept the decision of any ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a limit of Rs. 1,50,000 and it is added to the assets of the individual and again a further deduction is made in the share of the assessee in the firm's bank deposits under section 5 (1) (xxvi) read with section 5(1A). " and accepted what is set out in No. (1) as the answer to the question. In so doing, it considered the provisions of sections 4 and 5 and also rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules. The expression "net wealth", it was mentioned, was not defined in the Rules. Rule 1A(m) provides that all other words and expressions used but not defined in the Rules and defined in the Act, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act. That some provisions of the Wealth-tax Act are different from those of the Income-tax Act was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
