TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (8) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1985, the references relate to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, and in Wealth-tax Reference No. 22 of 1985, the reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. In Wealth-tax Reference No. 20 of 1985, the assessee was a partner of the firm, M/s. Tinsukia Pharmacy, Tinsukia. The firm had a fixed deposit of Rs. 74,405 and the assessee claimed that his share in the said deposit was Rs. 24,801. While determining the value of interest in the firm, the assessee had deducted the above sum of Rs. 24,801 out of the value of interest in the firm calculated by him. The assessee claimed that he is entitled for deduction under section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in short "the Act". Section 5(1) of the Act contemplates exemption in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith respect to the property in question in the hands of the assessee ?" Of course, in Wealth-tax Reference No. 20 of 1985 in the first question, the last word used is "business", in fact; it should be "assessee". It may also be stated that in Wealth-tax Reference No. 22 of 1985, the question was differently worded, but the legal question involved is the same. We may, however, quote the said question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of section 2(m), section 4(1)(b), section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that exemption of proportionate share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovable as well as immovable property should be treated as movable property for the purpose of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. This court considered section 2(m) and section 3 of the Act along with section 4(1)(b) of the Act. The decisions of the apex court in Addanki Narayanappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 and Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485 were referred to, wherein the apex court held that, since the firm has no existence, the partnership property will vest in all the partners and, in that sense, every partner has an interest in the property of the partnership ; and further the interest of a partner in the partnership firm belongs to him and would be includible in the "asset" and will have to be taken into account while computing t....