9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a co-owner along with two others, each having one-third share. The WTO fixed the value of the assessee's one-third share at Rs. 95,000 as against Rs. 84,667 returned by him, and allowed exemption on the full value under section 5(1) (iv) in the original assessments. On account of an audit objection, the WTO started proceedings under section 35 of the Act meaning to set right few mistakes one of them being about the exemption allowed in respect of Bhaveshnagar property. The WTO heard the party and passed order which had the effect of reducing the extent of exemption. In these appeals the point is restricted to the extent of exemption allowable under section 5(1) (iv) as that was the only question carried by the assessee in the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CWT [1977] 108 ITR 104. The AAC passed a consolidated order accepting the claim of the assessee. The revenue is in appeal. 5. Arguing for the revenue, Shri Thomas stated that the entire value of the property cannot be exempt under section 5(1) (iv) since it is available only to a house or a part of a house and inasmuch as the building in question consists of several tenements each being a separate residential unit. The argument proceeded on the premise that each residential premise is a house and that exemption is not allowable for the entire block comprising of several dwellings. Shri Warde replied that, in the first place, the question raised by the revenue regarding exemption is on the face of it a ticklish point of law and the WTO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses were built so that each house occupied a separate site. In modern time a practice has grown up of putting separate houses one above the other. They are built in separate flats or storeys. For legal and ordinary purposes they are separate houses. Each is separately let and separately occupied. One has no connection with those above or below, except insofar as it may derive support from those below, instead of from the ground as in the case of ordinary houses." Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were construing the meaning of the word 'house' used in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, and the question was whether 'house' included a factory building also. 9. In Grant v. Langston 1900 AC 383, Halsbury C. states: "A hundred y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d portions did not make the four different portions of the building into many houses. The building related to these appeals was assessed as one for the purpose of municipal rate. 11. The statement of Lawernce J. in Annicola Investments Ltd. v. Minister of Housing Local Government [1965] 3 All ER 850 (QB) is pertinent in this connection. It reads: "... the same word occurring in different enactments has to be given a meaning in relation to the context, the object and the purpose of that enactment, we shall advert to a few decisions in which the question whether a building in which there are several dwelling units, can be regarded as one house, was considered." 12. In Benabo v. Wood Green Corpn. [1946] KB 38, it was held that a house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
