1994 (8) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law arising out of its order dated March 10, 1983, in respect of the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that gratuity liability is an ascertained liability and, therefore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id point has been considered in Seth Mukund Das Rathi v. CWT [1991] 188 ITR 518 in which it was held by this court that the liability to pay gratuity is not in praesenti but would arise in future on the termination of service, i.e., on retirement, death or termination and is a contingent liability within the meaning of rule 1D of the Rules. Provision for gratuity was held not deductible in valuing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3] 203 ITR 528 have held that when the partner of the firm is residing in the house, he is entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Madras High Court in the case of Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. CWT [1976] 104 ITR 608 has held that the partner of the firm is not entitled to the exemption who is living in the house owned by the firm because in such a case the partne....

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 following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-. . . (iv) one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purpose: Provided that, where the value of such house or part (situate in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand) exceeds one lakh of rupees the amount that shall not be i....