1991 (5) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is a reference from the learned Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference was made on petition by the Revenue. The following question has been referred: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The learned Tribunal upheld the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the point. Hence, the present reference. Heard Dr. M. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the assessees, and Mr. D. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. According to Dr. Sarma, the point referred is squarely covered by the decision of this court in CWT v. Taracha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., read with section 4(1)(b) and rule 2, it emerges that where an individual assessee is partner in a firm, the interest of a partner in the immovable property of the firm is to be included in computing his net wealth. That interest in the immovable property or benefits arising out of the land, cannot be said to be movable property. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue canno....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e determined by including the share so allotted, and only thereafter, the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) should be allowed, i.e., deduction should be allowed under section 5(1)(iv) in the hands of the assessee-partner and not in the hands of the firm." Though Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Revenue, has urged that the question referred in the above case was different, learned counsel ha....