9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the W.T. Act, 1957. Facts as stated by the Tribunal are as under Assessee, Vimlabai, had purchased a house jointly with two ladies, namely, Smt. Chandanbai and Smt. Chandrakantabai. Each purchaser had 1/3rd share, in the said house. In connection with the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee, Smt. Vimlabai, for assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73, the WTO assessed the tax by first determining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) of the Act should be given to each joint owner while computing the tax payable in respect of her share in the house. Department appealed against these orders before the Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the AAC's interpretation. At the instance of the Department, the following question of law has been referred to us for opinion : "Whether, on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house was owned by an association of persons (AOP) and, therefore, the exemption under cl. (iv) would be available only to the AOP. This was the basic mistake which resulted in the incorrect interpretation by the WTO of cl. (iv) of s. 5(1) of the W.T. Act. Section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section, makes an individual, HUF and company liable for payment of wealth-tax. An AOP is not an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the claim of an assessee, who was a partner in a firm, and the asset chargeable to tax belonged to the firm. This High Court followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza [1978] 114 ITR 532, wherein the Karnataka High Court has held that where agricultural land is owned by a partnership, while computing the tax payable by the partner, the exemption co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
