Partner's exemption in firm-owned house property extends beyond residential use, including a cinema building.

A partner's interest in house property owned by a firm can qualify for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, even after the words requiring exclusive residential use were omitted. The interpretation accepted that the exemption is not confined to residential occupation and may extend to property used for commercial purposes. On that basis, the value of a cinema building owned by the firm was treated as eligible for exemption in the partner's hands, and the refusal of exemption was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partner is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the value of a cinema building owned by the firm in which he has a share.

Analysis: The reference turned on the scope of section 5(1)(iv) after the omission of the words requiring exclusive residential use. The Court followed the view that a partner is entitled to exemption in respect of his interest in house property owned by the firm. It also noted that exemption was available even where the house was used for commercial purposes, and that there was no contrary authority to exclude a cinema building merely because it was not used as a residence.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption, and the Tribunal was not justified in refusing it.

---