9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of assessee's share in land and building of the firm in which he is a partner? 2. As is evident from the facts recorded in the statement of case, the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, in respect of his share of assets in immovable property held by the firm, in which he was a partner, was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that owner of the immovable property was not the assessee but the firm. In appeal before the Appellant Assistant Commissioner, the assessee succeeded. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Tribunal in appeal by the revenue. 3. As to whether partners of a firm have their independent entity as against the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and building was an asset of the firm, the assessees in the instant case could not be said to be entitled to any portion of the house property as exclusively belonging to them and were, thus, not entitled to claim the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. We find no substance in this contention. It is by now well-settled that a firm as such is not a legal entity and any property owned by it is really the property of the partners and the use of the expression 'firm' is only a compendious mode to designate the persons who have agreed to a joint venture and what is called the property of the firm is really the property of the partners. The firm is not recognised as a direct entity from the members constituting it.... Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since the factory land and the building in the present case belong to the firm, the two assessees who were partners therein were not entitled to claim any deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The view that we 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 CWTv. Tarachand Agarwalla 7. The same view was followed by this Court in CWT v. Umesh Kumar (1998) 144 CTR (P H) 556; CWT v. Sudhir Kumar (1998) 144 CTR (P H) 554; CWT v. Sarabjit Singh (1998) 145 CTR (P H) 155; CWT v. Raman Kant (1998) 145 CTR (P H) 157;CWT v. Pawan Kant (1998) 149 CTR (P H) 20; CWT v. Mrs. Anju Munjal and CWT v. Raman Kant (2000) 163 CT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
