<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (11) TMI 552 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456802</link>
    <description>A partner was held entitled to claim the wealth-tax deduction for his share in land and building owned by the partnership firm, because the firm&#039;s property was treated in substance as belonging to the partners and the partner was regarded as having a specific interest in the firm&#039;s assets for wealth-tax purposes. Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules supported valuation of the partner&#039;s interest in the firm, and the exclusion for the relevant property was therefore available where the assessee&#039;s share related to the firm&#039;s land and building. The question was answered in the affirmative, and the deduction was held allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:34:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 552 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456802</link>
      <description>A partner was held entitled to claim the wealth-tax deduction for his share in land and building owned by the partnership firm, because the firm&#039;s property was treated in substance as belonging to the partners and the partner was regarded as having a specific interest in the firm&#039;s assets for wealth-tax purposes. Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules supported valuation of the partner&#039;s interest in the firm, and the exclusion for the relevant property was therefore available where the assessee&#039;s share related to the firm&#039;s land and building. The question was answered in the affirmative, and the deduction was held allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>