1996 (10) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act read with rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules and the principle decided by the Andhra Prades....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect of the residential property owned by the firm was not allowed. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that on a revaluation, the property was valued at Rs. 5,76,000 and the share of the assessee-partner came to Rs. 72,000. This amount being less than Rs. 1 lakh, which is the maximum amount exempted under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, he held that this amount is not includib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the value of the residential property from the net wealth of the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in Sadasiva Rao's case [1982] 30 CTR (Trib) 10 has been reversed by this court in CWT v. B. Chandrasekhara Rao [1989] 175 ITR 66 and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal was not correct and the questions raised must be answered in favour o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that on the facts of this case, the question is academic. It is not in dispute that the assessee was a minor on the relevant valuation dates and he was only admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Therefore, the assessee did not have any share in the assets of the firm. That was the reason why the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Appell....