TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (4) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Oct., 1985 was in error in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act in respect of his proportionate share in Rajshree Cinema building of the firm M/s Agarwal Enterprises in which he was a partner. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. 2. For the appellant there was only written note that the claim should have been accepted under s. 5(1)(iv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stating that various High Courts have considered this issue and they have held that the partners of the firm were entitled to deduction under s. 5(1)(iv) in respect of a property, which belong to the firm. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the cases of CWT vs. Naurangrai Agarwal, (1985) 155 ITR 752 (Cal). CWT vs. Meera Mehta (1986) 52 CTR (Cal) 408 : (1985) 155....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur has held in the case of Sri Gopi Chand that benefit under s. 5(1)(iv) is available to the partners of the firm." 4. In addition to the authorities noticed by the Tribunal, we like to rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sat Narain Khanna vs. WTO cited as (1986) 19 ITD 521 (Del), to which one of us (S.Grover, Judicial Member) has been a party. In the said case we have held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through the instrumentality of the firm. Therefore, in a case where maximum benefit has already been availed of by a partner under s. 5(1)(iv) it would not be correct to grant further relief to him in violation of the statute, purportedly in terms of rule 2 as no rule can be interpreted to override the specific provision of the statute to give effect to which the said rule is made. In this view of....