TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (11) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act in respect of his share in the immovable property owned by the firm in which he is a partner." 3. Each of these two assessees held shares in a firm M/s Kabir Woollen Mills and that firm owned house properties. Assessee claimed deduction under s. 5(1)(iv) against the respective values of their interests in the firm attributable to the values of the said house properties. The WTO rejected this claim on the footing that the house property did not belong to the assessee. Obviously he held that since house properties belonged to the firm relief under s.5(1)(iv) was not available in the hands of the partners. Before the CWT(A), two aspects emerged for decision. Firstly, whether relief under s. 5(1)(iv) was available at al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dismissed. Naturally the learned counsel for the assessee relied on those orders and the Tribunal concluded that since in assessee's own cases Tribunal had taken a view in favour of the assessee in June, 1986, the same view should be taken in respect of the years involved in the present appeals also. 4. The learned departmental representative argued at great length and submitted that first decision of the Tribunal which was followed in subsequent Tribunal's decision was that of the Madras Bench 'C' Special Bench in the case of L. Gulab Chand Jhabak vs. WTO 1 SOT 630. That decision was rendered on30th Jan., 1981. He submitted that subsequently, this point again arose for consideration before the Jaipur Special Bench of the Tribunal in WTO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner will get a deduction in respect of assets held by him to the extent provided and in addition will be beneficiary to the reduction in net wealth of the firm by grant of exemption in the firm's hand. Thus, the assessee can get an exemption of an amount more than what is provided in the Act. As far as the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Purushothamdas Gocooldas is concerned, we find that this decision was noted by the Special Bench referred to above. While doing so the Special Bench referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Saraswathi Ammal (1981) 127 ITR 404 (Mad) which had held that where a property is owned by the firm it can still be said that it was owned by the partners". That decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber of decisions of the High Courts on the point and ultimately summed up their decision on this point in the para starting at the bottom of page 335 (116 ITR) in the following terms: "Having regard to the provisions of s. 2(e) and (m), s. 4(1)(b), r. 1A(m) and r. 2 of the Rules and respectfully following CWT vs. Padampat Singhania (1973) 90 ITR 418 (All); CWT vs. Purshottam Pai 1978 CTR (Kar) 362 : (1978) 114 ITR 270 (Kar); CWT vs. I. Butchi Krishna (1979) 110 ITR 8 (Ori); CWT vs. Nandlal Jalan (1980) 122 ITR 78 (Pat) and CWT vs. Vasudeva V. Dempto (1981) 131 ITR 29 and particularly as is clear from (1984) 147 ITR (Statutes) 2, that the view taken in CWT vs. Purshotham Pai (1978) 114 ITR 273 (Kar) has been upheld, we are of the opinion t....